■♦■;,'>r^-^  ' 


#^ 


rEINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnc-cv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/debatebetweenrevOOca 


A  DEBATE 

BETWEEN 

REV.  A.  CAMPBELL  AND  REV.  N.  L.  RICE, 

ON    THE 

mm,  SUBJECT,  BESIGI  KM  ADMWflSTMTOR 

OF 

CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM; 

ALSO,    ON    THE 

CHARACTER  OF  SPIRITUAL  INFLUENCE 

IN 

CONVERSION  AND  SANCTIFICATION, 

AND    ON    THE 

EXPEDIENCY  AND  TENDENCY 

O  F 

ECCLESIASTIC    CREEDS, 

ASTEBMSOF 

UNION    AND    COMMUNION: 

HELD  IN  LEXINGTON,  KV.,  FROM  THE  FIFTEENTH  OP  NOVEMBER  TO  TEIB 
SECOND  OF  DECEMBER,  1843,  A  PERIOD  OF  EIGHTEEN  DAYS. 

REPORTED 

BY  MARCUS  T.  C.  GOULD,  STENOGRAPHER, 

ASSISTED 

BY  A.  EUCLID  DRAPIER,  STENOGRAPHER, 

AND      AMANUENSIS. 


PUBLISHED, 
LEXINGTON,  KY. :  BY  A.  T.  SKILLMAN  &  SON; 

CINCINNATI :    J.    A.    JAMES  ; LOUISVILLE  :    D.    S.    BURNETT  ; 

NEW  YORK  :  R.  CARTER  ; PITTSBURG:  T.  CARTER. 

Stereotyped  by  J.  A.  James,  Cincinnati. 

1844. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844, 

BY  JOHN  H.  BROWN, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Kentucky, 


Btereotyped  by  J.  A.  James, 
Cincinnati. 


CERTIFICATE. 

Cincinnati,  March  6th,  1844. 
Havino  carefully  examined  the  Report  of  the  within  discussion,  furnished  by  Messrs. 
Gould,  of  Cincinnati,  and  Drapier,  of  Louisville,  and  compared  it  with  our  notes  and 
memoranda ;  we  hesitate  not  to  authenticate  it,  and  to  commend  it  to  the  public,  as  a  full 
exhibition  of  the  facts,  documents,  and  arguments  used  by  us  on  the  several  questions 
debated.  A.  CAMPBELL. 

N.  L.  RICE. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Richmond,  Ky,  September  19,  1842. 
Mr.  Campbell: 

I  should  have  addressed  you  at  an  earlier  date,  but  my  engagements  have 
been  such  as  to  utterly  forbid.  Upon  reflection,  I  have  concluded  to  leave 
the  questions  involved  in  our  contemplated  discussion,  with  other  prelimi- 
naries, to  a  committee,  which  can  meet,  probably,  at  an  early  day  in 
November. 

The  brethren  who  will  engage  in  the  discussion,  so  far  aa  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  is  concerned,  wili  be  selected  during  the  sessions  of  the  synod, 
which  will  commence  at  Maysville  on  the  18th  proximo. 

Of  how  many  shall  this  arranging  committee  consist — two  or  three  on 
each  side  !  When  and  where  shall  they  meet — Lexington  1  say  November 
any  time  before  the  .5th  or  after  the  17th. 

This  committee  will  be  empowered  to  fix  the  time  (Lexington  being  the 
place  agreed  upon)  of  debate,  form  of  questions,  rules,  moderators,  and  make 
arrangements  for  one  or  more  competent  stenographers  to  take  down  the 
debate  preparatory  to  publication,  as  agreed  by  the  committee. 

To  shorten  our  correspondence,  I  hope  you  will  fix  the  number  of  the 
arranging  committee,  at  either  two  or  three,  as  you  may  prefer ;  also  the 
day  of  meeting,  within  the  time  specified.  I  hope  to  receive  an  answer 
before  I  leave  for  synod,  so  that  all  our  arrangements  and  appointments  can 
be  made  while  there.  I  consider  our  correspondence  as  private  until  con- 
sent is  given  for  publicity.     Yours,  fraternally,  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Bethany,  October  5,  1842. 
Mr.  John  H.  Brown: 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  19th  ult.,  mailed  the  20th,  is  to  hand.  From 
the  earnestness  with  which,  while  I  was  in  your  town,  you  sought  a  discus- 
sion of  certain  points  at  issue  between  Presbyterians  and  those  christians 
called  Reformers,  and  from  the  proposition  to  address  me  in  writing,  soon 
after  my  arrival  at  home,  about  the  end  of  August,  I  had  promised  myself 
the  pleasure  of  an  early  communication  from  you  relative  to  the  proposed 
discussion,  and  a  more  ample  interval  for  settling,  the  propositions  for  dis- 
cussion, as  well  as  other  preliminaries,  before  the  meeting  of  the  synod. 
But  from  your  delay,  no  doubt  occasioned  by  an  unavoidable  expediency, 
you  now  propose,  "upon  reflection,  to  leave  the  questions  involved  in  our 
contemplated  discussion,  with  all  other  preliminaries,  to  a  committee, 
which  can  meet,  probably,  at  an  early  day  in  November." 

You  then  ask  me  of  how  many  shall  this  arranging  committee  consist, 
&c.  &c.  To  all  which  I  beg  leave  to  respond,  that  I  do  not  think  that  any 
committee,  which  I  could  nominate,  in  conjunction  with  such  a  one  as  yon 
might  raise,  could  so  satisfactorily  to  the  parties  arrange  all  these  matters, 
as  we  ourselves,  who  enter  into  the  discussion.  I  prefer  to  express  my 
own  propositions,  in  my  own  words  ;  and  in  all  such  matters,  where  the  prin- 
cipals can  so  easily  act,  I  do  not  think  it  expedient  to  employ  attornies  or 

U 


12  CORRESPONDENCE. 

proxies.  As  to  the  appointment  of  moderators  and  the  adoption  of  the  rules 
of  discussion,  these  are  minor  matters,  compared  with  the  propositions  to 
be  discussed  ;  still,  they  are  important,  and,  while  I  would  not  pertinaciously 
object  to  any  equitable  arrangement  of  such  matters,  my  conscientiousness 
and  my  prudence  alike  forbid  the  selection  of  propositions  by  a  committee  on 
which  to  form  an  issue,  unless  after  their  submission  to  my  consideration  and 
adoption.  This  would  require  time,  and,  probably,  occasion  a  long  delay.  But 
it  is  competent  to  the  synod  to  select  its  own  propositions,  and  to  propound 
in  its  own  terms  what  it  wishes.  I  will  therefore  suggest  what  I  think 
will  meet  your  views,  as  expressed  during  our  interview. 

1st.  You  affirm  that  the  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  sub- 
ject of  baptism.     We  deny  it. 

2nd.  You  affirm  that  sprinkling  water  upon  any  part  of  an  infant  or  adult 
is  scriptural  baptism.     We  deny  it. 

3rd.  You  affirm  that  there  is  no  indispensable  connection  between  bap- 
tism and  the  remission  of  sins,  in  any  case.     We  affirm  that  there  is. 

4th.  You  affirm  that  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  is 
founded  on  the  New  Testament.     We  deny  it. 

5th.  You  affirm  that  the  doctrinal  portions  of  the  Westminister  confes- 
sion of  faith  are  founded  on  the  Scriptures  of  truth.  We  deny  that  they 
all  are. 

In  this  form,  or  by  dividing  the  propositions  into  affirmatives  and  nega- 
tives, so  as  to  give  to  each  party  an  equal  number,  we  can  soon  form  a  just 
and  honorable  issue.  In  one  word,  I  will  defend  what  I  teach  and  practice, 
in  plain  and  definite  propositions,  and  on  your  agreeing  to  do  the  same,  the 
whole  matter  may  be  arranged  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner  by  corres- 
pondence, the  only  alternative  that  I  can  at  this  late  period  think  of. 
Very  respectfully  and  fraternally,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

Richmond,  October  22,  4842. 
Eldek  A.Campbell: 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  fifth  was  received  previous  to  my  leaving  for 
synod,  also  a  duplicate  copy  while  at  Maysville  attending  its  sessions. 

There  is  evidently  a  misapprehension,  on  the  part  of  one  of  us,  as  it 
regards  our  interview  at  Richmond,  in  August  last.  You  seem  to  intimate 
that  I,  with  earnestness,  sought  a  discussion  of  certain  points  at  issue 
between  Presbyterians  and  those  christians  called  Reformers.  Let  the 
facts  speak  for  themselves.     They  are  briefly  the  following  : 

At  the  close  of  your  address  in  Richmond  on  the  3rd  of  August,  your 
friend,  Mr.  Duncan,  approached  me  and  asked  my  opinion  as  to  the  address, 
which  I  gave  with  as  much  candor  as  it  was  sought. 

After  other  interrogatories  were  propounded  and  answered,  he  inquired, 
if  I  thought  discussion  advisable ;  to  which  I  gave  an  affirmative  reply. 
He  ihen  remarked,  that  he  had  engaged  to  dine  with  you,  and  would  ascer- 
tain your  feelings  and  wishes  on  the  subject. 

All  this  occurred  before  we  left  the  church.  About  4  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon Mr.  Duncan  sought  a  second  interview  with  me,  and  requested  me  to 
call  in  company  with  him  at  your  room,  stating  that  you  desired  an  inter- 
view with  me  on  the  subject,  about  which  he  and  I  had  conversed  in  the 
forenoon. 

I  conformed  to  his  wish,  and  accompanied  him  to  your  room,  which  ulti- 
mated  in  a  mutual  agreement  to  discuss  certain  points  of  difference  for  the 
edification  of  the  church  and  the  prosperity  of  the  cause  of  Christ,  with  a 
definite  and  expressed  understanding  that  neither  was  to  be  considered  the 
challenging  party. 

You  further  intimate  that  my  delay  in  commencing  the  correspondence 
was  doubtless  "occasioned  by  an  unavoidable  expediency."  Tliis  I  consider 
a  very  unkind  and  unfraternal  insinuation,  and  one  which  I  had  not  expected 


CORRESPONDENCE.  ]  ?, 

from  your  urbanity  as  developed  in  our  interview,  and  especially  after 
recognizing  me  as  a  "  brolker"  in  the  close  of  your  epistle.  It  is  a  plain 
intimation  that  the  correspondence  was  procrastinated  solely  on  the  ground 
of  expediency,  when  I  had  expressly  placed  it  on  another  and  a  very  dijj'er- 
enl  ground. 

I  also  understood  it  to  be  settled,  in  case  toe  did  not  agree  as  to  the  form 
of  the  propositions,  that  this,  with  all  other  preliminaries,  was  to  be  left  to 
a  committee,  selected  from  ten  chosen  individuals,  composed  of  an  equal 
number  from  each  side.  Your  reply  is  evidently  a  departure  from  this 
agreement.  You  say,  no  committee  could  so  satisfactorily  arrange  the  i)ro- 
positions  as  we  ourselves  could.  You  add,  "  I  prefer  to  express  my  own 
propositions  in  my  own  words  ;"  "  My  conscientiousness  and  my  prudence 
alike  forbid  the  selection  of  propositions  by  a  committee  on  which  to  form 
an  issue,  unless  after  their  submission  to  my  consideration  and  adoption." 

You  further  state,  "  It  is  competent  to  the  synod  to  select  its  own  propo- 
sitions, and  to  propound  in  its  own  terms  what  it  wishes." 

The  competency  of  the  synod  to  express  its  wishes  on  this  or  any  other 
isubject,  I  presume,  would  not  be  questioned.  But  the  synod  is  not  a  party 
in  this  matter,  and,  as  such,  has  no  propositions  to  make.  According  to 
our  arrangement,  they  were  to  be  agreed  upon  by  you  and  ^nyself,  and,  in 
case  of  our  disagreement  as  to  their  form,  the  committee,  referred  to  above, 
was  to  arrange  the  whole  matter. 

You  present  five  propositions,  which  "  you  think  will  meet  my  views,  as 
expressed  during  our  interview." 

The  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd  of  these  propositions  embrace  points  of  discussion 
agreed  upon  in  our  interview. 

The  4th  and  5th  not  only  embrace  subjects  agreed,  but  every  thing  else 
we,  as  a  denomination,  believe  and  teacli.  In  the  .5th,  you  put  us  upon  the 
defence  of  the  entire  confession  of  faith.  To  this  I  do  not  object,  because 
of  its  indefensibleness,  but  on  the  ground  of  its  not  being  one  of  the  agreed 
points  of  discussion,  and  introducing  far  more  than  was,  at  the  time,  con- 
templated either  by  you  or  myself. 

Your  1st  proposition,  in  the  following  words,  "You  affirm  that  the 
infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism,"  is  accepted 
without  any  modification  or  alteration. 

Your  2nd,  in  these  words,  "  Your  affirm  that  sprinkling  water  upon  any 
part  of  an  infant,  or  adult,  is  scriptural  baptism,"  I  accept  with  only  a 
slight  verbal  alteration,  viz:  I  affirm  that  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  water  on 
a  suitable  subject  is  scriptural  baptism.     You  deny. 

I  might  justly  have  required  you  to  take  the  affirmative  and  prove  immer- 
sion only  to  be  baptism,  but  I  would  not  pertinaciously  stand  out  for  the 
mere  verbiage  of  a  proposition,  but  only  for  its  substantiality. 

Your  3rd  proposition  is,  "You  affirm  that  there  is  no  indispensable  con- 
nection between  baptism  and  the  remission  of  sins  in  any  case." 

Strange  as  it  may  be,  you  make  me,  in  this  proposition,  affirm  a  nega- 
tive. I  therefore  substitute  another,  which,  while  it  will  in  its  discussion 
involve  substantially  your  proposition,  presents  as  the  main  point,  a  ques- 
tion on  which  we  differ  widely,  and  one  which  you  urge  in  your  various 
works  as  of  primary  importance.     The  proposition  is  as  follows: 

3rd.  You  affirm  that  the  new  birth,  as  mentioned  in  John,  third  chapter, 
is  a  change  of  state,  and  not  a  change  of  heart.     I  deny. 

I  now  propose  a  substitute  for  your  4th  and  5th  propositions,  covering 
the  agreed  points  of  discussion,  and  to  which  you  will  not  object,  as  they 
are  taken  substantially,  if  not  verbally,  from  your  own  publications. 

4th.  Y'"ou  affirm  that  the  use  of  creeds,  or  confessions  of  faith,  is  contrary 
to  the  Scriptures,  and  destructive  of  the  unity  and  perpetuity  of  the  church 
of  Christ.     We  deny. 

5th.  You  affirm  that  all  the  converting  and  sanctifying  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  contained  in  the  Divine  Word.     We  deny. 


14  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Upon  these  several  propositions  an  equitable  issue  can  be  taken,  and  the 
whole  matter  speedily  arranged  for  full  and  free  discussion. 

On  my  part  the  men  are  selected  : — Brethren  Jno.  C.  Young,  R.  J. 
Breckenridge,  N.  L.  Rice,  J.  F.  Price,  and  myself,  will  engage  in  the  dis- 
cussion. Brother  Rice  and  myself  have  been  selected  as  a  committee  of 
arrangement,  to  meet  such  committee  as  may  be  selected  on  your  part,  to 
settle  preliminaries,  at  some  suitable  time  and  place,  agreed  upon  by  you 
and  myself.  I  would  suggest  Lexington  as  the  place,  and  the  21st  of  No- 
vember next  as  the  time. 

In  liope  that  the  issue  is  now  made,  and  that  the  preliminaries  may  soon 
be  settled,  I  subscribe  myself,  respectfully,  yours, 

JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Baltimore,  JVov.  17,  1842. 
Elder  John  H.  Brown, 

Dea7-  Sir — Your  favor  of  the  22nd  ult.,  addressed  to  me  at  Bethany,  Va., 
having  been,  by  my  orders,  copied  by  my  clerk,  was  duly  forwarded  to  me 
at  this  point,  and  received  by  me  on  my  arrival  here.  Such,  however, 
have  been  my  engagements  with  the  public,  (having  had  to  deliver  a 
public  address  for  every  day  during  the  last  three  weeks,  on  a  tour  in 
eastern  Virginia,  and  to  this  city)  that  I  could  not  find  a  leisure  hour  to 
reply  before  this  date.  Of  this  tour,  I  gave  you  some  intimation  when  you 
proposed  to  me  your  views  and  wishes  relative  to  a  public  discussion. 

To  proceed,  then,  to  the  contents  of  your  favor,  now  on  my  table,  allow 
me  to  say,  that  the  narrative  you  now  give  of  the  occasion  of  your  soliciting 
a  discussion,  is  as  curious  as  it  is  novel  and  unexpected.  The  fact  of  your 
soliciting  a  public  conference,  with  no  other  preamble  to  me  expressed,  than 
"  that  once  yourself  and  your  brethren  had  not  been  friendly  to  public  debates, 
out  that  now  you  have  changed  your  ground,  being  convinced  that  the  stale 
of  society  and  religious  opinion  demanded  it,"  is  all  that  I  thought  important 
to  the  arrangements  proposed,  without  the  details  of  the  mere  occasion  of 
your  personal  application  to  me.  As  to  the  definite  and  express  under- 
standing that  neither  should  be  regarded  as  the  challenging  party,  I  have 
no  distinct  recollection.  I  do,  indeed,  remember  that  you  emphatically 
spoke  of  your  desiring  a  friendly  discussion  ;  and,  if  the  phrase  "  challeng- 
ing party,"  was  expressly  used,  of  which  I  cannot  say  I  have  any  recollec- 
tion, it  could,  in  the  connection  of  ideas,  by  you  suggested,  intimate  no 
more  than  that  you  did  not  desire  to  be  contemplated  in  the  light  of  a 
challenger,  but  as  of  one  desiring  an  amicable  discussion  ;  to  which  I  fnlly 
accorded,  as  in  courtesy  bound.  Still,  however,  our  respective  positions  to 
the  fact  of  a  discussion  must  stand,  now  and  forever,  different.  You  as  the 
originator  and  propounder  of  it ;  I  as  accepting,  and  agreeing  to,  your 
proposition.  No  complimentary  or  courteous  disclaimer  of  the  technical- 
ities or  usual  compellations  on  such  occasions,  could  possibly  change  our 
positions  to  the  fact  of  a  discussion. 

I  admit  the  ambiguity  of  the  phrase,  at  which  you  demur,  in  my  former 
communication  to  you,  viz.  "  Your  delay  in  reply  was,  doubtless,  occa- 
aioned  by  an  unavoidable  expediency."  But  I  left  it  with  you  to  interpret 
it ;  and  as  you  now  say,  the  expediency  was  not  of  choice  but  of  necessity, 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  accord  to  you  in  the  case,  the  most  ingenuous 
conduct.  I  wonder,  however,  how  you  could  construe  this  into  a  discre- 
pancy with  my  subscribing  myself  yours,  '^  fraternally,"  inasmuch  as  I  have 
often  heard,  in  synods  and  councils  of  your  own  church,  much  less  complir 
mentary  interpretations  of  actions  pass  most  fraternally  amongst  the  min- 
istry. 

You  next  proceed  to  say,  that  you  "  understand  it  to  be  settled,  in  case  we 
do  not  agree  as  to  the  form  of  the  propositions,"  &c.  I,  indeed,  as  you  will, 
I  doubt  not,  remember,  stated  distinctly,  that  as  our  conversation  in  Rich- 
mond was  wholly  extemporaneous  and  fugitive,  that  I  would  expect  from 


CORRESPONDENCE.  15 

you  a  written  statement  of  all  matters,  as  you  proposed  them,  on  my  return, 
which  communication  should  be  regarded  as  an  original  document,  and  as 
the  basis  of  our  correspondence  relative  to  a  discussion,  and,  therefore,  I 
considered  nothing  as  hxed  about  it,  further  than,  /  did  agree  to  meet  at 
Lexington,  Kentucky,  in  conference,  with  such  persons  as  the  synod  of  Ken- 
tucky would  appoint — provided  they  would  select  certain  persons  to  meet  a 
delegation  to  be  appointed  by  our  brethren  in  Kentucky ;  but  that  I  would 
agree  to  debate,  not  as  one  of  a  conference,  but  with  one  responsible  person 
only,  and  then  named  President  Young,  as  such  a  person.  You  imme- 
diately responded,  I  should  have  him,  as  you  did  not  doubt  the  synod  would 
select  him.  As  for  propositions,  on  my  inquiry,  you  went  on  to  name  those 
concerning  baptism,  &c.  I  emphatically  say,  that  I  then  considered,  and 
now  consider,  every  thing  else  as  open  to  our  future  arrangements,  not  as 
arranged.  True,  indeed,  as  a  conference  was  spoken  of,  without  any  dis- 
tinct understanding  of  the  mode  of  procedure,  or  of  the  topics  to  be  intro- 
duced into  it,  it  might  have  been  said,  that  a  committee  might  arrange  such 
matters;  but  as  to  a  personal  discussion,  on  my  part,  with  any  reputable 
and  authorized  disputant,  I  repeatedly  said,  that  I  went  for  single  combat ; 
and  on  premises  explicitly  stated,  propositions  clearly  and  fully  expressed, 
before  we  met  upon  the  ground.  And  this  is  all  for  which  I  now  feel  it  my 
duty  to  contend.  I  am  happy,  indeed,  that  there  appears,  on  the  principal 
points,  named  by  you,  at  our  interview,  so  nearly  a  perfect  agreement.  I 
cheerfully  accept  your  amendment  to  the  second  proposition,  and  will  agree 
to  place  the  third  in  an  affirmative  form.  The  three  propositions  would 
then  read, 

1st.  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent,  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. 

2nd.  The  sprinkling,  or  pouring  water,  upon  any  part  of  an  inlant,  or 
adult,  is  scriptural  baptism. 

3rd.  There  is  a  scriptural  connection,  of  some  sort,  between  baptism  and 
the  remission  of  sins  of  a  believing  penitent. 

These  three  cover  all  the  ground  of  debate  between  us,  on  christian 
baptism.  If  you  insist  upon  five  propositions  only,  I  shall  not  insist  upon 
any  more.  One  of  these  would  respect  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  other,  human 
creeds  as  the  causes  of  schisms  among  christian  professors.  Touching 
your  suggestions  of  a  proposition,  embracing  the  difference  between  us,  on 
special  influence,  I  have  not  much  objection  to  either  of  them,  as  contain- 
ing, in  the  connections,  and  with  the  modifications,  always  contemplated  by 
me,  a  just  view  of  the  matter.  Still,  they  cover  not  the  whole  ground  of 
debate.  We  both  agree,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  all  who  believe 
and  obey  the  gospel.  But,  with  regard  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in 
converting  sinners,  there  is  some  discrepancy.  We  teach,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  operates  on  sinners  only  through  the  Word,  and  not  without  it. 
Your  denomination  teaches,  that  the  Spirit,  without  the  Word,  regenerates 
the  sinner.  Thus,  the  Word  contains  the  converting  power — and  regenera- 
tion is  a  change  of  heart  and  life  by  the  Word.  But  the  3rd  and  5th 
contemplate  a  change  of  state,  in  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
therein  referred  to.  I  will  then  offer  two  propositions,  expressive  of  our 
ceal  position. 

4th.  The  Spirit  of  God  regenerates  sinners,  without  the  Word. 

5th.  Human  creeds  have  always  occasioned  and  perpetuated  divisions 
among  christians,  and  are  barriers  in  the  way  of  their  union. 

To  this  I  would  add  a  6th — "  The  celebration  of  the  Lord's  death  is 
essential  to  the  sanctification  of  the  Lord's  day,  by  a  christian  community." 
Of  these  six  propositions,  I  affirm  three,  and  you  affirm  three.  You  affirm 
the  1st,  2nd,  and  4th.  I  the  3rd,  5th,  and  6th.  I  will  discuss  these  in 
single  debate  with  Mr.  Young,  provided  the  conference,  you  contemplate, 
do  not  agree  on  these  points. 

It  will  then  be  necessary  for  me  to  have  a  distinct  understanding  upon 
this  view  of  the  matter.     All  the  preliminaries,  for  such  a  discussion,  must 


16  CORRESPONDENCE. 

be  agreed  upon  before  I  leave  home.  Such  as,  1st.  The  proposition.  2nd. 
The  order  of  discussion  on  tlie  affirmative  and  negative  sides.  3rd.  The 
board  of  moderators.  4tii.  The  stenographer,  and  the  mode  of  publishing 
said  discussion.     5th.  The  disposition  of  tlie  avails  of  said  publication. 

I  will  select  for  the  conference,  Elders  James  Shannon,  Dr.  James  Fish- 
back,  Aylett  Rains,  and  John  Smith,  of  Kentucky,  as  associates  in  the 
conference.  The  two  first  shall  be  my  committee  of  arrangements  as  to 
the  conference  ;  and  as  to  the  debate,  they  shall  be  my  moderators,  to  meet 
two  of  your  choice  ;  these  four  clioosing  a  president  moderator.  If  these 
matters  are  thus  despatched,  as  aforesaid,  I  see  no  great  need  of  delay  in 
securing  a  stenographer,  and  in  agreeing  to  bestow  the  avails  of  the  publi- 
cation, half  and  half,  to  the  two  Bible  Societies.  So  soon  as  I  hear  from 
you  satisfactorily,  I  will  address  Messrs.  Shannon  and  Fishback,  on  the 
subject  of  meeting  your  committee  at  Lexington. 

Very  respectfully,  yours  fraternally, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

Richmond,  Ky.,  Dec.  8,  1842. 
Elder  A.  Campbell: 

Your  favor  of  the  22nd  ult.,  is  now  before  me.     After  the  explicit  state 
ment,  in  my  last  letter,  of  the  circumstances  which  led  to  our  interview  in 
Richmond,  and  which  resulted  in  an  agreement  to  have  an  amicable  discus- 
sion of  the   points  of  difference   between  us  ;   I  deem   it  unnecessary,  at 
present,  to  say  any  thing  more  on  tliat  subject. 

In  regard  to  the  points  to  be  discussed,  I  hope  we  shall  be  able,  without 
serious  difficulty,  to  make  a  fair  and  honorable  issue. 

You  say  "  I  cheerfully  accept  your  amendment  to  the  2nd  proposition," 
and  yet  you  immediately  present  it  again,  without  that  amendment.  This, 
I  presume,  was  done  through  mistake.  The  proposition,  with  my  amend 
ment,  which  you  have  accepted,  reads  as  follows,  "  I  affirm  that  sprinkling, 
or  pouring  water,  on  a  suitable  subject,  is  scriptural  baptism.     You  deny." 

Concerning  the  3rd  proposition,  as  presented  in  my  last,  you  say  nothing, 
but  present  another,  as  follows  : 

"  3rd.  There  is  a  scriptural  connection,  of  some  sort,  between  baptism 
and  the  remission  of  sins  of  a  believing  penitent." 

This  proposition  is  an  exceedingly  indefinite  sort  of  thing,  and  ra, 
therefore,  decidedly  objectionable.  I  can  see  no  possible  objection  to  the 
following  proposition,  as  already  offered  you,  viz  : 

"  3rd.  You  affirm  that  the  new  birth,  a»  mentioned  in  John,  3d  chapter, 
is  a  change  of  state,  and  not  a  change  of  heart.  We  deny."  With  you, 
baptism  is  the  new  birth,  so  that  the  proposition,  above  stated,  presents  for 
discussion  Ihe  design  of  christian  baptism,  and  this  is  what  we  desire  to 
embrace  in  the  proposition. 

Your  4th  proposition,  of  which  you  expect  us  to  maintain  the  affirma- 
tive, is  as  follows :  *'  The  Spirit  of  God  regenerates  sinners,  without  the 
Word."  This  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  We  main- 
tain, that  in  the  conversion  of  men,  there  is  an  operation  of  the  Spirit, 
distinct  from  the  Word,  but  not  in  ordinary  cases,  without  the  Word.  I 
propose,  as  a  substitute  for  your  4th,  the  following  proposition,  taken  ver- 
batim from  your  Christianity  Restored,  p.  350. 

"  4th.  The  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its  converting  and  sanctifying 
power,  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with  its  ideas." 

The  4th  proposition,  as  contained  in  my  last,  is,  I  think,  preferable  to 
your  5th,  on  the  subject  of  creeds  ;  and  mine  certainly  is  not  stronger  than 
the  language  you  have  on  that  subject. 

The  sixth  question,  which  you  propose,  I  think,  does  not  present  a  differ- 
ence of  such  importance,  as  to  make  it  a  point  of  discussion.  If  a  6th 
question  be  desirable,  (though  not  embraced  in  our  original  agreement)  I 
propose  the  following  : 


CORRESPONDENCE.  17 

6th.  None,  except  ordained  ministers,  are  by  the  Scriptures,  authorized 
to  administer  baptism. 

There  is  now  no  probability  that  Brotlier  Young  will  be  able  to  enter 
into  the  discussion  with  you.  He  has,  for  several  weeks,  been  confined  to 
a  sick  bed,  and,  when  last  heard  from,  was  dangerously  ill.  Should  he 
recover,  the  condition  of  his  lungs  would  not  admit  of  his  engaging  in  a  pro- 
tracted discussion.  You  shall,  however,  be  met  by  "a  reputable"  disputant. 

It  is  my  duty,  also,  to  state,  that  tlie  name  of  Rev.  R.  J.  Breckenridge, 
was  placed  among  those  selected  by  me,  without  his  knowledge.  He 
informs  me,  that  he  cannot  be  in  Kentucky  at  the  time  the  discussion  will 
take  place.     In  his  place,  therefore,  I  will  name  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Burcli. 

Rev.  N.  L.  Rice,  and  myself,  will  meet  your  committee  of  arrangement. 

Rev.  J.  K.  Burch,  and  myself,  will  be  moderators.  Other  matters,  such 
as  the  order  of  discussion,  &c.,  I  presume  can  be  settled  by  the  committee 
of  arrangements.  If  you  object  to  this,  you  can  make,  in  your  next  letter, 
any  proposition  which  you  may  think  important. 

I  hope  to  hear  from  you,  at  your  earliest  convenience.  If  you  agree  to 
the  propositions  for  discussion,  as  now  presented,  other  necessary  arrange- 
ments can  be  made,  I  presume,  with  little  difficulty. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Bethany,  Va.,  Dec.  15,  1842. 
Elder  Brown, 

My  Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  6th  ult.,  was  received  yesterday.  My 
acquiescence  in  the  proposition  you  were  pleased  to  make  in  August, 
touching  an  amicable  discussion  of  points  at  issue,  between  our  respective 
denominations,  was  given  with  a  reference  to  two  great  objects.  The  first, 
the  prospect  of  having  the  main  topics  of  difference  fairly  laid  before  the 
community,  with  the  reasons  for  and  against — the  second,  that  the  argu- 
ments, on  both  sides,  might  go  to  the  world  with  the  authority  of  the 
denominations,  so  far  as  their  selection  and  approval  of  the  debaters  were 
concerned. 

Only  on  these  grounds,  and  with  these  expectations,  could  I  have  been 
induced  to  participate  at  all  in  any  oral  discussion,  after  all  that  I  have 
written  and  spoken  on  these  subjects  ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  essential  to  my 
Dosition  and  aims  in  this  affair,  that  the  preliminaries  be  so  arranged  as  to 
secure  these  objects.  I  should  think,  indeed,  that,  to  you,  these  points  are 
equally  interesting  and  important. 

Allow  me,  then,  to  say,  that  the  three  great  topics  which  have  occupied 
public  attention  for  some  twenty-five  years,  so  far  as  our  purposed  reforma- 
tion is  concerned,  are, 

1st.  The  ordinances  of  Christianity. 

2nd.  The  essential  elements  of  the  gospel  itself. 

3rd.  The  influence  of  imman  creeds  as  sources  of  alienation,  schism,  and 
party  ism  in  the  church. 

Now,  in  some  points,  only,  of  these  three  categories  do  we  differ  from 
Presbyterians,  and  other  Pedo-baptist  professors.  These  are  baptism,  the 
Lord's  supper,  spiritual  influence,  as  connected  with  the  use  of  the  word 
"  regeneration,^''  and  human  creeds. 

You  selected  baptism,  and  I  alluded  to  the  others.  On  baptism  we 
agree,  that,  both  logically  an.d  scripturally,  there  are  three  distinct  proposi- 
tions. The  action,  the  subject,  and  the  design.  On  the  Lord's  supper  there 
is  one — on  regeneration  one,  and  one  on  the  subject  of  human  creeds.  In 
all  six.  According  to  our  respective  teaching  and  practice,  these  six 
propositions  are  as  follows  : 

1st.  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water,  upon  a  suitable  subject,  is  scriptural 
baptism. 

2nd.  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. 
2  B  2 


18  CORRESPONDENCE. 

3rd.  Personal  assurance  of  tlie  remission  of  past  sins,  to  a  believing' 
penitent,  is  the  chief  design  of  baptism,  or,  if  you  prefer  it,  ^'■Baptism  is 
for  the  remission  of  sins.'''' 

4th.  Ill  all  christian  communities  the  Lord's  siqjper  should  he  observed 
every  Lord's  day. 

5th.  The  Word,  as  well  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  is,  in  all  cases,  essential  to 
regeneration  ;  or,  some  persons  are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit,  without  the 
Word  believed. 

6th,  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are,  necessarily , 
heretical  and  schismatical ;  or,  human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union,  arc  essen- 
tial to  the  unity  and  purity  of  the  church. 

You  atfirm  the  1st  and  2nd  positions  on  baptism,  and,  also,  the  two  last 
versions  of  the  5th  and  6th.  I  mean  to  say,  your  printed  creed  and  party 
do  so.  I  affirm  the  3rd  and  4th,  and  the  1st  version  of  the  5th  and  6th. 
We  can,  therefore,  easily  find  each  three  affirmative  propositions,  such  as 
Vie  are  accustomed  to  teach  and  to  defend.  Now,  sir,  as  I  said  before,  I 
am  prepared  and  willing  to  deiend  what  I  teach,  on  my  affirmatives.  Are 
your  party  !  If  so,  then  I  am  not  fastidious  about  a  word.  I  regard  the 
above  as  a  candid  and  definite  expression  of  our  relative  positions  on  these 
six  points:  and  these  involve  our  whole  systems  of  christian  doctrine  and 
teaching.  As  you  have  led  the  way  in  baptism,  I  claim  as  many  proposi- 
tions on  the  other  points  at  issue.  You  have  extracted  some  two  or  three 
propositions  from  my  writings;  and,  in  return  for  these,  I  might  select  as 
many  from  your  creod,  which  is  still  of  higher  authority  than  the  writings 
of  any  individual — and,  although  you  may  believe  tliem,  such  as  some 
articles  on  effectual  calling  and  election,  yet  they  are  not  such  propositions 
as  convey  all  that  you  would  affirm  on  those  themes.  This  is  just  my  case. 
These  propositions  are  expounded  in  their  contexts,  and  they  need  their 
contextual  adjuncts.  I,  therefore,  prefer  independent,  clear,  and  definite 
expressions  of  great  principles.  I  have  no  doubt  that  you,  too,  will  prefer 
these,  to  such  passages  as  those  to  which  I  have  alluded. 

After  this  full  expose  of  propositions,  I  have  only  to  advert  to  the  second 
great  object  of  such  a  discussion,  viz.  the  authority  with  which  it  addresses 
the  community.  You  cannot  have  forgotten  that  the  express  condition  of 
my  taking  part  in  any  oral  debate  with  your  denomination  on  such  topics, 
was,  that  the  synod,  to  whose  timous  meeting  you  alluded,  should  select,  or 
approbate,  such  persons  as  might  be  supposed  able  and  competent  to  enter 
into  such  a  discussion,  to  make  it  as  much  as  possible  an  end  to  the  contro- 
versy. You  first  alluded  to  synodical  arrangements,  and  this  suggested  to 
me  the  necessity  of  stipulating  for  Mr.  Young,  president  of  the  Centre 
College,  at  Danville,  because  I  regarded  him  as  a  gentleman,  and  a  scholar 
of  high  standing,  who  had  the  double  stake  of  a  theological  and  literary 
reputation,  to  stimulate  and  govern  his  efforts  on  the  occasion.  You 
immediately  rejoined,  I  should  have  him.  Now,  sir,  allow  me  to  say,  that 
having  consented  on  this  condition,  and  only  on  this  condition,  to  attend 
such  a  discussion  as  you  proposed,  I  could  not  be  expected  to  engage  with 
any  other  person,  unless  in  one  of  two  events  ; — that  Mr.  Youno-  continued  to 
be  physically  unable  to  attend  in  person,  within  some  reasonable  term,  or, 
in  case  of  his  ultimate  inability,  that  the  synod  have  appointed  some  person 
in  whose  ability  the  community  might  confide.  It  will,  therefore,  on  your 
part,  as  well  as  mine,  be  expected  that  I  should  be  assured  of  the  fact,  that 
Mr.  Rice,  or  Mr.  Burch,  or  some  other  person,  has  been  selected,  or  appro- 
bated, by  the  synod,  to  represent  the  party  in  the  contemplated  discussion. 
The  propositions  being  agreed  upon,  and  the  person  with  whom  I  am  to 
contend,  selected  by  the  proper  authorities,  those  other  matters,  as  to  a 
stenograplier,  and  the  rules  of  discussion,  &c.,  &c.,  can  be  easily  arranged. 
I  do  hope,  then,  kind  sir,  that  you  will  embrace  your  earliest  convenience 
in  responding  to  such  items,  in  the  communication,  as  may  demand  your 
special  attention.     With  the  kindest  regard,  I  remain,  as  ever,  yours. 

A.  CAMPBELL. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  19 

Richmond,  Jan.  3,  1843. 
Elder  Campbell  ; 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  15th  ult.,  was  received  on  the  22nd,  and  would 
have  been  answered  earlier,  but  protracted  religious  exercises  prevented. 

One  point  only,  in  your  last,  demands  present  attention.  Until  that  is 
understood  and  agreed,  all  efforts  to  settle  the  questions  for  discussion,  and 
arrange  preliminaries,  will  be  unavailing. 

I  allude  to  synodical  action.  I  understand  you  to  take  the  ground  that 
you  will  not  debate,  unless  the  individual  is  appointed,  or  approbated,  by 
synod. 

In  your  first  communication  you  intimated  as  much.  In  reply,  I  stated 
definitely,  that  the  synod  neither  was,  nor  could  be,  a  party  in  the  contem- 
plated discussioH.  I  also  stated,  that  the  persons  selected,  were  chosen, 
not  by  the  synod,  but  in  conference,  and,  that  some  of  them  were  known 
and  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  prominent  men  in  our  church. 

All  these  facts  were  before  you,  yet,  in  your  reply,  you  do  not  make  a 
single  objection,  but  pass  the  whole  matter  in  silence. 

Surely,  if  you  intended  to  object  on  this  ground,  tlieyi  was  the  time,  and 
there  the  correspondence  would  have  terminated. 

My  understanding  was,  that  the  persons  engaging  in  the  discussion 
would  be  agreed  upon  at  the  meeting  of  synod,  not  that  there  would  be  a 
synodical  appointment. 

I  well  knew  that  such  an  appointment,  for  such  an  object,  was  not  within 
the  legitimate  power  of  any  of  our  ecclesiastical  judicatories. 

Even  had  the  synod  possessed  the  power,  and  exercised  it,  and  appointed 
the  requisite  number  of  men,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  appointment  by 
any  body  of  men  on  your  side. 

If  the  appointment,  on  your  side,  had  been  made  by  a  body  of  men,  con- 
voked for  the  purpose,  still,  that  body  would  sustain  to  your  church  no  such 
relation  as  our  synod  does  to  ours,  and,  therefore,  we  would  not  stand  on 
equal  footing. 

Perfect  equality  is  that  for  which  we  will  most  certainly  insist. 

If  your  object  be  to  give  importance  to  the  discussion,  we  will  agree  to 
add,  5,  10,  or  15,  to  the  number  on  each  side,  with  the  understanding,  that 
the  debater,  on  each  side,  be  selected  by  them. 

We  fear  not  discussion,  and  are  willing  to  do  all  that  is  equal  and  honora- 
ble, but,  if  you  insist  on  making  unequal  or  impracticable  terms  of  debate, 
the  matter,  of  course,  must  terminate.     I  await  your  response. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,         JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Bethany,  Va.,  Jan.  13,  1843. 
Elder  Brown  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  4th  inst.,  was  received  on  the  11th  ult.  My 
engagements  yesterday  forbade  an  immediate  reply. 

You  say  one  point  only  demands  present  attention,  viz. — synodical  action. 
The  idea  of  synodical  action  was  suggested  by  yourself  at  our  interview, 
and  again  presented  in  your  first  written  communication,  in  the  words 
following,  to-wit : — "The  brethren,  who  will  engage  in  the  discussion,  so 
far  as  the  Presbyterian  church  is  concerned,  will  be  selected  during  the 
sessions  of  the  synod,  which  will  convene  at  Maysville,  on  the  13th  prox- 
imo." This,  though  strong  enough,  is  not  quite  so  expressive  of  synodical 
action  in  the  case,  as  your  original,  verbal  declarations,  in  the  presence  of 
our  mutual  friend,  Mr.  Duncan. 

Your  next  epistle,  after  tlie  meeting  of  synod,  contained  the  ambiguous 
phrase,  that  the  synod  were  not  "  to  be  a  party"  in  the  debate.  I  did  not 
then  contemplate  them  in  the  light  of  a  party  ;  but  while  I  hesitated  what 
euch  a  phrase  could  mean,  after  our  previous  interchange  of  views  and 
intentions,  I  concluded,  for  the  moment,  to  reserve  it  for  future  explanation. 

On  learning,  from  your  last,  that  certain  persons  were  to  be  withdrawn, 


20  CORRESPONDENCE. 

and  certain  new  persons  were  to  be  appointed  in  their  stead,  I  ask,  what 
could  have  been  more  natural,  with  all  these  references  to  synodical 
arrangements,  before  made,  than  to  recur  to  original  propositions,  both 
verbal  and  written,  as  to  this  thing  of  synodical,  or  confidential,  selection 
and  approval.  I  have  done  so,  and  find  your  present  communication  makes 
new  propositions  and  arrangements,  never  before  contemplated.  Really,  I 
was  not  prepared  for  this. 

My  participation  in  any  discussion  was  asked  by  you,  and  stipulated  by 
me,  on  the  assurance  that  I  should  have  certain  persons,  some  of  them  then 
named ;  and  that  too,  with  the  concurrence  of  your  church  met  in  synod. 

Whether  the  thing  was  to  be  transacted  in  condone  clerum,  ex  cathedra, 
or  in  various  conferences,  gave  me  then  no  concern  ;  provided  it  had  the  con- 
current approbation  of  your  church.  You  positively  said,  I  should  have  the 
persons  named,  and,  that  you  doubted  not  that  the  synod  would  agree  to  it. 
Such  were  the  clearly  expressed  premises  on  which  I  assented  to  be  present. 

If  you  have  changed  your  views  of  the  expediency  of  such  an  arrange- 
ment, or,  if  the  persons,  then  agreed  upon,  will  not  attend,  you  are  at 
perfect  liberty  to  withdraw  your  propositions.  But  I  will  make  no  new 
covenant,  the  first  having  been  abandoned. 

I  am  perfectly  willing  to  meet  the  persons  named  by  you,  in  your  first 
communication  after  the  synod  met,  at  our  mutual  convenience,  believing 
that  they  were  agreed  upon  at  the  meeting  of  the  synod.  But  I  cannot 
admit  of  your  substitutes  for  them. 

I  care  not  who  the  Presbyterian  church  appoints,  nor  in  what  form  it  be 
done,  provided,  the  persons  appointed  are  known  to  be  the  selection  of  the 
denomination.  The  reasons  I  have  always  given,  for  any  preference,  were, 
that  I  desired  a  final  discussion  of  those  litigated  points  ;  and  such  a  dis- 
cussion as  would  have  the  highest  authority,  that  our  respective  denomin- 
ations could  confer  upon  it. 

If  our  brethren,  in  Kentucky,  prefer  any  other  person  to  me,  I  yield  the 
arena  in  a  moment.  But,  friend  Brown,  I  go  not  in  pretence,  but  in  fact, 
for  equality.  Let  your  church  sanction,  in  any  way  you  please,  some  new 
man,  or  give  me  those  you  promised,  and  I  am  perfectly  satisfied. 

You  say  you  fear  not  discussion,  and  are  willing  to  do  all  that  is  equal 
and  honorable.  This  is  just  what  I  wish  to  hear  you  say.  I  only  ask  you 
to  redeem  the  pledge,  and  shew  your  faith  by  your  worlds.  Very  respect- 
fully and  benevolently,  your  friend,  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Richmond,  Madison  Co.,  Ky.,  March  8,  1843. 
Elder  A.Campbell: 

Serious  inflammation  of  my  eyes  has  prevented  me  from  writing  for 
several  days  past,  but  for  this  your  communication  would  have  been  an- 
swered at  an  earlier  date. 

In  reply  to  my  last,  on  the  subject  of  synodical  action,  you  thus  remark  : 
"  The  idea  of  synodical  action,  was  suggested  by  yourself  at  our  interview, 
and  again  presented  in  your  first  written  communication." 

The  language  I  employed  at  our  first  interview,  which  made  the  impres- 
sion of  synodical  action,  I  know  not.  I  may  have  expressed  myself  incau- 
tiously, and,  possibly,  I  employed  such  language  as  would  authorize  such 
an  inference.  But,  manifestly,  the  language  of  my  first  written  communi- 
cation, quoted  in  your  last,  and  now  before  me,  does  not  authorize  such  a 
deduction. 

Whatever  may  have  been  your  previous  understanding  of  synodical  action, 
and  whatever  requisitions  you  may  have  been  disposed  to  make,  relative  to 
this  point,  I  am  gratified  to  find  the  whole  difiiculty  obviated  by  the  follow- 
ing declaration  in  your  last,  viz.  "  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  meet  the 
persons  named  by  you,  in  your  first  communication,  after  the  synod  met,  at 
our  mutual  convenience,  believing  that  they  were  agreed  upon  at  the 
meeting  of  the  synod.     But  I  cannot  admit  of  your  substitutes  for  them." 


CORRESPONDENCE.  2] 

Your  perfect  willingness  to  meet  those  individuals,  is  '\xv  full  view  ot  the 
fact  definitely  stated,  in  my  former  communication,  that  they  were  not 
appointed  by  the  synod,  but  only  agreed  upon  at  the  synod. 

In  a  former  communication,  I  suggested  that  one  of  the  men  selected  at 
synod,  lived  in  a  distant  state,  and,  that  when  written  to,  he  found  it  utterly 
impracticable  to  attend. 

You  certainly  cannot  object  to  one  being  chosen  to  fill  his  place,  by  the 
other  ybur,  inasmuch  as  this  plan  was  agreed  upon  at  synod,  in  case  the 
individual,  who  was  absent,  could  not  come,  and,  especially  so,  when  the 
men,  on  your  side,  (and  you  go  for  equality)  have  not  been  selected  "  in 
condone  clerum,  ex  cathedra,  or,  in  various  conferences." 

You  are  aware,  also,  of  the  fact,  that  the  synod  cannot  meet  again  till 
next  autumn,  and,  therefore,  an  individual  to  fill  the  vacancy,  cannot  be 
chosen  at  synod. 

The  difficulty  you  make  (surely  without  tlie  slightest  reason)  seems 
equivalent  to  a  declinature  of  the  discussion. 

But,  if  you  still  object  to  our  selecting  an  individual  to  fill  the  vacancy, 
then  thefour,  who  were  named  in  the  letter,  after  the  meeting  of  synod, 
will  meet  you  and  three  of  the  men  selected  by  yourself,  and  go  on  with  the 
debate. 

The  health  of  brother  Young  is  much  improved  since  I  last  wrote,  and 
this  impediment  would,  therefore,  be  removed. 

If  you  agree  that  the  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  the  four,  originally 
appointed,  (it  being  understood  at  the  time  that  they  would  exercise  this 
power) — or,  if  you  are  v/illing  to  proceed  with  four  on  each  side,  then  the 
way  will  be  open  for  the  settlement  of  the  three  remaining  questions,  pre- 
paratory to  discussion. 

I  await  your  response,  and  shall  be  governed  accordingly. 

Respectfully  yours,  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Bethany,  Va.,  March  17,  1843. 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  8th  inst.  was  received  on  the  15th,  and,  though 
not  in  very  good  health  to-day,  I  hasten  to  reply  in  a  few  words  to  the 
favor  before  me. 

Waiving  any  comment  on  your  explanations  and  historic  allusions  to  our 
correspondence,  I  hasten  to  say,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  choice  of  a 
fifth  person,  in  room  of  Mr.  Breckenridge,  by  the  four  gentlemen  agreed 
upon  at  synod  ;  especially,  as  you  say,  that  it  was  an  understanding  at 
synod,  that  should  any  one  fail  in  attendance,  the  others  might  elect  a 
substitute. 

1  sincerely  hope,  that  in  all  despatch,  you  may  be  enabled  to  respond 
satisfactorily  on  the  propositions  already  offered,  so  that  time  may  be  re- 
deemed, especially  as  now  full  two  months  have  been  consumed  in  getting 
an  answer  to  my  former  letter.  Should  matters  progress  so  slowly  on  the 
propositions,  and  other  details,  it  will  require  a  full  year,  at  least,  to  settle 
the  preliminaries.  I  think,  indeed,  it  is  very  prudent,  nay,  absolutely 
necessary,  to  have  every  thing  clearly  understood,  and  plainly  stated  in 
writing,  before  commencing,  as  nothing  more  directly  tends  to  preserve 
good  temper,  and  to  prevent  a  mere  logomachy,  than  clear  and  definite 
propositions,  good  rules  and  equal  terms.  In  this,  I  feel  a  very  special 
interest,  also,  as  the  debate  contemplated  will,  according  to  our  previous 
understanding,  be  immediately  between  Mr.  Young  and  myself,  supported, 
as  we  shall  be,  by  our  respective  friends  on  each  side. 

Please  then  afford  all  facilities  for  a  consummation  so  devoutly  to  be 
wished,  and  as  promptly  as  possible. 

With  all  respect  and  benevolence,  I  remain  your  friend, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 


22  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Georgetown,  April  8,  1843. 
Elder  A.  Campbell: 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  March  17th,  post-marked  20th,  is  received.  You 
agree  that  the  four  individuals,  selected  al  synod,  rnay  select  a  tifth  in  lieu 
of  Rev.  li.  J.  Breckenridge.  We,  therefore,  select  Rev.  Jas.  K.  Burch,  as 
before  mentioned. 

Although  the  health  of  brother  Young  has  improved,  as  stated  in  my 
last,  so  that  he  can  be  present  as  one  of  the  five,  there  is  scarcely  any 
probability  that  he  will  be  physically  able  to  go  through  with  a  debate  so 
protracted  as  the  one  we  have  in  contemplation. 

I  did  agree,  in  our  first  interview,  that  he  should  be  one  of  the  five, 
but  not  by  any  means  that  he  should  be  the  only  debater,  for  I  did  not  at 
that  time,  suppose  that  the  discussion  would  be  confined  to  two  individuals, 
but  tliat  all  on  each  side  would  take  part;  however,  I  will  not  object  to 
such  an  arrangement,  if  you  desire  it,  only  reserving  the  right,  in  case  of 
physical  inability  on  the  part  of  brother  Young,  to  select  one  from  our 
number  to  debate  with  you. 

With  regard  to  the  questions,  I  hope  we  shall  have  but  little  further 
difficulty.     As  to  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism  we  are  agreed. 

Your  3d  proposition,  as  stated  in  your  letter  of  Dec.  15,  is  objectionable 
in  both  of  its  forms.  In  the  first  form,  because  your  full  ground  is  not 
occupied ;  and,  in  the  second,  because  in  scriptural  language,  concerning 
which  we  would  probably  difter.  I  must,  therefore,  insist  on  imj  3d,  as 
presented  in  my  communication,  of  Dec.  8th,  viz. 

3d.  "  You  affirm  that  the  new  birth,  as  mentioned  in  John,  3d  chapter,  is 
a  change  of  state,  and  not  a  change  of  heart."     We  deny. 

This  embraces  the  difference  between  us,  the  design  of  baptism;  for 
baptism,  is,  with  you,  the  new  birth.  To  this  proposition  you  have  pre- 
sented no  objection,  thougli  you  offered  another  in  its  place. 

Your  4th  is  as  follows,  "  In  all  christian  communities,  the  Lord's  supper 
should  be  observed  every  Lord's  day."  This  is  objectionable,  because 
comparatively  unimportant.  If  any  church,  or  denomination,  choose  to 
observe  the  supper  every  Lord's  day,  then  be  it  so.  We  do  not  consider  it 
a  matter  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand  discussion.  We  have  already 
suggested  a  much  more  important  subject,  involving  the  validity  of  baptism, 
which  we  off'er  as  the  4tii  proposition  for  discussion,  viz. 

4th.  "  None  except  ordained  ministers  are,  by  the  scriptures,  authorized 
to  administer  baptism."     We  affirm.     You  deny. 

Your  .5th  proposition  is  objected  to,  because  it  affirms  less  than  in  your 
publications  you  have  affirmed,  and  does  not  fully  present  the  diflerence 
between  us.  We  hope  you  will  agree  to  discuss  the  proposition  already 
submitted,  taken  verbatim  from  your  Christianity  Restored,  p.  350,  which, 
we  present  as  the  5th  proposition. 

5th.  "  The  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its  converting  and  sanctifying 
power  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with  its  ideas."  To  this  you  certainly 
cannot  object.  It  is  in  your  essay  on  Divine  Influence,  italicised,  and 
therefore  the  cream,  the  very  essence  of  the  whole  thing.  You  can,  of 
course,  refer  to  your  writings  in  illustration  of  your  doctrines. 

Your  6th  proposition  is  as  fellows,  "  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and 
comnuinion,  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical."  We  do  not  under- 
stand exactly  what  you  mean  by  the  phrase  "  bonds  of  union  and  commu- 
nion ."     We,  therefore,  suggest  the  following  alteration  or  amendment,  viz. 

6th.  "  The  using  of  creeds,  except  the  Scriptures,  is  necessarily  heretical 
and  schismatical."     You  affirm.     We  deny. 

As  soon  as  we  shall  agree  on  these,  or  other  propositions,  involving  the 
difference  between  us,  on  the  agreed  points  of  discussion,  brother  Rice  and 
myself  will  meet  your  committee  in  Lexington,  and  arrange  preliminaries 
preparatory  to  discussion,  at  our  earliest  mutual  convenience. 

Very  respectfully,  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  23 

Bethamj,  Va.,  April  24,  1843. 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  tlie  8th  inst.,  pnst-inarked  10th,  arrived  here  on  the 
19th  inst.  Business  of  much  importance,  and  obligations  various  and 
numerous,  prevented  my  careful  reading'  of  it  till  to-day.  You  inform  me 
that  the  improvement  of  i\Ir.  Young's  health  is  not  such  as  to  warrant  the 
hope  that  he  will  be  physically  able  to  endure  the  fatigue  of  a  protracted 
discussion.  My  consent  to  participate  in  a  public  conference,  was  given 
upon  the  solemn  i)ledgc  on  your  part,  that  if  single  combat  sliould  be  the 
result  of  our  interview,  I  should  have  Mr.  Young.  This  has  again  been 
stated  in  our  correspondence,  and  fully  assented  to  by  yourself.  A  rumor 
has  more  than  once  or  twice  reached  my  ears,  that  this  pledge  on  your 
part,  was  never  to  be  redeemed  ;  and  that  in  the  well  known  policy  and 
etyle  of  ecclesiastic  diplomacy,  in  a  protracted  correspondence,  you  would 
manage  it  to  substitute  Mr.  Rice  for  Mr,  Young  ;  and  thus  in  any  issue  of 
the  affair,  Presbyterianism  would  stand  eitlier  upon  her  reserved  learning 
and  talents,  or  upon  the  triumphs  of  the  said  Mr.  Rice.  Reluctant  though 
I  have  been  to  listen  to  such  a  rumor,  so  discreditable  to  your  candor  and 
christian  sincerity,  I  confess,  tilings  begin  to  wear  an  aspect  somewhat 
ambiguous,  squinting,  at  least,  in  that  direction. 

I  am  not  a  man  to  be  managed  just  in  that  way,  and  have  replied  to 
madam  rumor,  that  the  moment  you  presented  Mr.  Rice,  you  have  forfeited 
every  claim  upon  my  attendance  ;  and  that  unless  the  denomination,  in 
some  way,  selected  him  in  preference  to  Mr.  Young  in  scholarship  and 
discursive  talent,  I  sliould  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  affair.  True, 
indeed,  I  should  not  insist  upon  Mr.  Young's  presence  if  he  was  physically 
unable — but  I  am  often  physically  unable  myself,  to  do  justice  to  any  sub- 
ject, in  the  way  of  even  a  single  speech,  much  more  to  questions  of 
protracted  discussion,  and,  therefore,  make  my  appointments  and  arrange- 
ments accordingly.  The  time  has  been  so  long  protracted  already,  that  it 
will  not  greatly  affect  your  reputation,  should  it  be  made  to  suit  the  health 
and  convenience  of  Mr.  Young. 

Mr.  Rice  may  be  as  learned,  and  as  able  a  disputant,  for  any  thing  I 
know  to  the  contrary,  as  Mr.  Young;  but  he  stands  not  so  high  with  the 
community  either  as  a  polite  gentleman  or  a  scholar  ;  and  I  presume,  is 
discreetly  located  at  Paris,  while  Mr.  Young  exmerito  presides  at  Danville. 
The  reasons  given  by  me  first  and  last  for  taking  part  in  such  a  discussion, 
compel  me  to  demand  the  fulfillment  of  at  least  the  two  essential  conditions 
on  which  my  consent  was  obtained; — the  first,  that  there  should  be  a  full 
discussion  of  the  main  points  between  us  ; — the  second,  that  I  should  have 
the  disputant  named,  in  order  to  give  it  authority  with  the  whole  commu- 
nity. The  moment  you  recede  from  this  ground,  you  have  released  me  from 
every  pledge  and  obligation  that  I  have  given.  You  need  not  repeat  to  me 
that  I  ask  from  you  conditions  which  you  have  not  propounded  to  me,  as 
you  have  done  on  a  former  occasion.  We  do  not  meet  exactly  upon  that 
ground.  My  presence  was  demanded,  even  after  I  had  said  that  Kentucky 
had  talent  and  learning  enough  to  maintain  the  reformation  cause  against 
every  denomination  in  the  state  :  and  it  was  promised  on  those  conditions, 
AND  THOSE  CONDITIONS  ONLY.  If  then  yourself  and  your  brethren  are  not 
willing  to  meet  on  the  conditions  stipulated,  you  will  please  so  inform  me, 
and  the  matter  ends. 

With  regard  to  the  propositions,  I  am  not  a  little  surprised  at  the  reluc- 
tance you  manifest  to  discuss  the  desii^n  of  baptism,  indubitably  one  of  the 
main  issues  and  point?  advanced  in  the  pending  reformation  controversy. 
Would  you  have  me  and  the  public  to  think  that  you  wish  to  slur  and  blink 
that  question  ?  If  not,  why  propose  such  a  substitute  for  the  main  point  of 
debate?  You  offer  the  new  birth  for  the  design  of  baptism!!  and  then 
again,  bring  up  spiritual  influence  and  converting  power  in  another  propo- 
sition. If  you  do  not  design  to  evade  the  design  of  baptism  altogether, 
why  create  the  suspicion  by  such  an  indirect  and  ambiguous  mode  of  proce- 


34  CORRESPONDENCE. 

dure  !  This  will  never  do,  Mr.  Brown.  You  and  your  party  have  assailed 
our  views  of  the  design  of  baptism  a  thousand  times  ;  and,  depend  upon  it, 
you  must  not  shrink  from  it  now.  I  have  often  told  you  I  must  defend 
what  I  preach;  and  as  your  party  oppose  my  views  behind  my  back, 
you  must  in  honor,  do  it  now  before  my  face  ;  if  not  for  my  sake,  at  least 
for  your  own.  Unless  then  you  concede  that  our  views  are  correct  on  that 
subject,  you  must  debate  it !  As  you  refuse  to  take  up  the  whole  confession 
of  faith,  I  cannot  but  admire  your  generosity  in  putting  me  on  the  defence 
of  all  my  writings,  and  your  calling  out  such  insulated  and  detached  sen- 
tences as  you  tliink  most  favorable  to  your  intentions.  I  see  you  have 
formed  high  conceptions  of  my  magnanimity.  Still  I  would  have  you  take 
care  of  your  own.  Do  not  say,  nor  even  think,  that  I  refuse  the  examina- 
tion of  those  sentences ;  you  can  bring  them  forward  under  their  proper 
heads.  Bat  through  respect  for  the  literary  character  of  our  discussion  at 
the  bar  of  public  opinion,  I  would  noi  appear  as  a  logician  in  defence  of  a 
sentence  or  an  individual  expression,  while  the  whole  category  to  which  it 
belongs  is  unassailed.  Let  us  prove  the  genus — or  the  species — and  then 
we  shall  not  contend  about  the  individual.  Your  calling  a  sentence  the 
cream  and  essence  of  a  whole  system,  because  it  is  italicised,  is  an  aberra- 
tion of  reason  of  the  same  character.  Divine  influence — creeds,  and  the 
ordinances  of  the  supper — are  points  at  which  we  are  at  issue.  We  must 
have  propositions  setting  forth  our  respective  views  on  these  topics.  I  deny 
abstract  spiritual  influence  in  conversion  and  sanctification.  You  affirm  it. 
The  jn-opositions  submitted  by  me,  are  indicative  of  our  respective  views, 
as  I  understand  them.  So  of  creeds.  If  you  choose  to  add  another  propo- 
sition, concerning  who  may  administer  baptism,  I  have  no  objection— 
rather  than  substitute  any  one  of  these  offered  by  any  other  you  can  devise. 
I  will  discuss  as  many  more  as  you  please,  essential  to  our  respective 
systems.  But  the  four  questions  of  baptism,  regeneration,  the  Lord's  supper, 
and  creeds,  are  great,  essential  points  of  discussion  :  and  the  six  propositions 
furnished  by  you  and  myself  on  these  topics,  must,  according  to  our  agree- 
ment, be  debated,  unless  you  concede  some  of  them. 

The  time  is  already  past  in  which  this  meeting  was,  according  to  our 
Richmond  conversation,  to  have  taken  place.  Our  college  vacation  is  in 
July  and  August.  I  do  hope  then  you  will  accommodate  me  and  the  public, 
60  far  as  to  have  it  either  in  the  end  of  July  or  first  of  August.  You  may, 
in  a  single  letter,  now  settle  all  these  points  on  fair  and  honorable  princi- 
ples. It  is  in  your  power.  We  must  have  stenographers  secured  as  soon 
as  possible,  or  we  must  sell  the  copy-right  to  some  good  house  in  the  East, 
who  will  send  on  a  stenographer,  and  so  have  matters  speedily  arranged. 
The  propositions,  and  the  main  points  settled,  our  committee  can  soon 
adjust  other  matters.     Please  answer  this  immediately. 

In  all  benevolence,  yours,  &c.  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Richmond,  Ky,,  May  15,  1843. 
Elder  Campbell  t 

Yours  of  the  24th  ult.  is  before  me.  Its  contents  present  too  much 
evidence  of  what  I  have  for  some  time  apprehended,  that  you  are  resolved 
to  avoid  the  proposed  discussion. 

I  gave  no  pledge  of  any  kind,  that  Mr.  Young  should  be  your  opponent, 
but  only  that  he  should  be  one  of  the  five  in  debate  ;  but  if  I  ha,d,  physical 
inability  is,  I  believe,  universally  admitted  to  excuse.  Mr.  Young  has  for 
months  been  in  feeble  health  ;  and  there  is  no  probability  of  his  being  able 
to  engage  as  the  only  debalant,  in  such  a  discussion  as  the  one  proposed. 
He  is  now  able  to  preach  only  occasionally.  But  when  you  are  imformed 
of  this  fact,  you  insult  me  by  speaking  of  your  reluctance  to  listen  to  a 
rumor,  "  so  discreditable  to  my  candor  and  christian  character!"  Yet  you 
say,  "True,  indeed,  I  should  not  insist  upon  Mr.  Young's  presence  if  he 
■were  physically  unable." 


CORRESPONDENCE.  25 

Well,  sir,  he  is  physically  unable  to  go  through  with  such  a  debate. 
Still  he  is  able  and  willing  to  be  present  as  one  of  the./iT>e  on  our  side.  If 
then  you  are  resolved  to  debate  with  no  other  man,  the  matter  is  at  an 
end. 

Ordinary  courtesy,  I  suppose,  would  have  forbidden  the  introduction  of 
the  name  of  Mr.  Rice,  as  you  have  thought  proper  to  introduce  it.  It 
would  have  been  quite  time  enough  for  such  remarks,  wiien  his  name  had 
been  mentioned  by  me,  as  the  disputant  on  our  side.  I  do  not  wonder  at 
your  reluctance  to  meet  Mr.  Rice.  He  has  health  to  go  through  such  a 
discussion,  and  is  accustomed,  as  well  as  yourself,  to  public  debate.  But  it 
seems  his  standing  in  the  community  "  as  a  polite  gentleman,"  is  not  high 
enough  for  you  !  With  all  deference,  I  beg  leave  to  say,  I  am  not  aware 
that  his  standing,  in  this  respect,  is  inferior  to  Mr.  Campbell's.  As  to  his 
learning,  it  is  sufficient  that  Presbyterians  are  willing  to  risk  their  cause  in 
his  hands,  even  against  Mr.  Campbell.  Whilst  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to 
Bay  any  thing  about  the  comparative  merits  of  Messrs.  Young  and  Rice, 
I  may  smile  at  the  ground  on  which  your  opinion  is  founded,  viz.  that  the 
one  is  at  Danville,  and  the  other  at  Paris.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  stand- 
ing of  Mr.  Campbell  "as  a  polite  gentleman,"  or  "a  scholar,"  is  much 
higher  since  he  became  President  oi^ his  college,  than  before.  We  offer  you 
a  Presbyterian  minister  as  your  opponent,  who  shall  be  selected  by  us 
precisely  in  accordance  with  the  arrangement  made  at  synod,  viz.  that  we 
would  select  one  of  our  number  to  meet  you  in  debate.  Now  you  have 
vour  choice  to  retreat  or  accept. 

I  have  manifested  no  reluctance  to  discuss  the  design  of  baptism.  I 
have  simply  presented  it  precisely  in  the  form  in  which  you  yourself  have 
constantly  presented  it  in  your  publications.  With  you  baptism  is  the  new 
birth,  and  it  is  designed  to  effect  a  change  of  state.  This  is  precisely  what 
we  propose  to  discuss.  Yet  you  seem  to  be  in  great  wonderment  that  I 
should  "  offer  the  new  birth  for  the  design  of  baptism  !" 

But  I  am  not  particular  as  to  the  precise  statement  of  the  question.  All 
I  ask  is  that  you  take  the  whole  ground  in  debate,  which  you  have  taken  in 
your  publications.  This  you  have  not  ventured  to  do,  and  I  fear  you  never 
will.     The  moment  you  do,  we  shall  accede  to  your  proposition. 

On  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  I  have  offered  you  a  proposition  in  your 
own  language,  and  you  refuse  to  discuss  it. 

When  you  find  a  clear  proposition  in  our  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  which 
we  ret\ise  to  discuss,  you  may  then  proclaim  to  the  world  that  we  have 
retreated. 

The  proposition  I  have  offered  you  is  clear  and  full,  embodying  avowedly 
3/our  faith  on  this  point ;  whilst  those  you  offer  us,  throw  both  sides  off 
their  true  ground.  What  you  mean  by  "  abstract  spiritual  influence,"  I  do 
not  know  ;  but  if  you  mean  spiritual  influence  without  the  word,  you  must 
know,  if  ever  you  read  our  Confession,  that  we  hold  no  such  thing,  except  in 
cases  where  the  word  cannot  be  received. 

State  a  proposition  containing  your  real  views,  and  making  a  fair  issue, 
and  it  will  be  accepted.  But  if  you  retreat  from  your  own  language,  the 
reason  will  be  understood. 

In  regard  to  the  Lord's  supper,  we  have  objected  to  discussing  your  pro- 
position, simply  because  we  deem  it  of  minor  importance,  and  because  our 
church,  in  her  confession  of  faith,  neither  affirms  nor  denies.  It  is  silent 
on  that  point.  We  are  not,  therefore,  disposed  to  discuss  such  a  question. 
The  question  concerning  the  administrator  of  baptism,  is  quite  as  impor- 
tant as  either  of  the  others,  involving  the  validity  of  the  ordinance. 

Your  reluctance  to  discuss  it,  is,  I  fear,  another  evidence  that  you  have 
published  important  things  which  you  would  rather  not  defend. 

We  are  ready  for  you,  just  so  soon  as  you  are  willing  to  meet  a  man  who 
is  "  physically  able  "  to  go  through  with  the  debate,  and  to  defend  your 
published  doctrines.     Respectfully  yours.  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 


26  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Bethamj,  Va.,  May  24,  1843. 
Elder  Brown  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  15th,  came  by  to-day's  mail.  You  now  say  that 
it  "  presents  too  much  evidence  of  what  you  have  for  some  time  appre- 
hended, that  I  have  resolved  to  avoid  the  proposed  discussion."  This  conclu- 
sion makes  me  curious  to  know  your  premises.  Nothinjr  that  I  have  said 
or  done,  would  seem  to  me  to  authorize  such  an  inference.  The  proposi- 
tions which  constitute  your  premises,  are  most  likely  those  which  you  are 
now  about  to  offer,  at  which  you  thought  I  would  most  probably  revolt. 
Circumstances  appear  to  favor  this  presumption.  Hence,  ever  since  you 
thought  of  offering  them,  you  have  apprehended  that  I  "  would  avoid  the 
proposed  discussion." 

When  seeking  to  withdraw  the  man  of  my  choice,  promised  by  yourself, 
and  to  dictate  all  the  terms,  propositions,  and  conditions  of  debate,  it  is 
natural  for  you  to  expect,  that  as  an  honorable  man,  I  should  decline  taking 
any  part  in  such  a  discussion.  I  demanded  your  most  gifted,  learned,  and 
accomplished  man  as  my  opponent,  in  case  of  a  debate.  Nothing  mentioned 
at  our  personal  interview,  is  more  distinctly  remembered,  nothing  is  more 
frequently  alluded  to  in  our  correspondence,  and  never  contradicted  by 
yourself,  than  that  I  should  have  Mr.  Young  for  my  opponent,  if  it  came  to 
single  combat,  as  I  then  affirmed  my  convictions,  and  expressed  my  desire 
that  it  would.  You  now  seem  to  deny  any  such  pledge,  or  agreement  on 
your  part.  Your  words  are,  "  You  shall  have  him."  If  these  words  do  not 
constitute  a  pledge,  pray  what  language  could  be  so  construed  1 

Nor  is  this  fact,  though  deeply  engraven  on  my  memory,  depending  on  that 
alone  for  its  certainty.  In  my  letter  of  Nov.  16,  it  is  written  "  I  will  debate 
with  one  person  only,"  and  then  named  president  Young  as  such  a  person. 
You  immediately  responded,  "  You  shall  have  him,  as  you  did  not  doubt  but 
the  synod  would  select  him."  This  is  freely  admitted  in  your  reply  of 
Dec.  8,  stating  at  the  same  time  that  "  there  is  now  no  probability  that 
brother  Young  will  be  able  to  enter  into  the  discussion  with  you."  Do  not 
these  words  affirm  that  he  was  to  have  "  entered  into  the  discussion"  with 
me !  Surely  you  will  not  stultify  yourself.  You  know  the  meaning  of 
words  too  well,  to  plead  ignorance  of  the  import  of  your  own  language. 
But  you  are  even  still  more  explicit  in  declaring  your  understanding  of  the 
pledge,  for  you  speak  of  his  engaging  in  a  protracted  discussion  with  me, 
for  which  you  alledged  "the  state  of  his  lungs  would  disqualify  him."  In 
these  words,  you  admit  the  pledge,  or  agreement,  which  through  the  trea- 
chery of  your  mem.ory  you  now  seem  to  deny. 

Again,  my  dear  sir,  may  I  not  ask  why  you  did  not  attempt  to  undeceive 
me  when,  in  my  letter  of  Dec.  15th,  I  stated  my  reasons  for  preferring  Mr. 
Young  ;  reminding  you  also  of  the  fact,  that  you  stood  pledged  to  have  him 
for  my  opponent,  and  that  I  could  not  be  expected  to  engage  witli  any 
other,  unless  on  conditions  then  proposed.  In  your  reply  to  this  letter, 
Jan.  3d,  you  do  not  demur  at  all  to  this  view  of  the  matter  in  any  one  par- 
ticular. You  merely  inform  me  that  the  appointment  was  not  made  by,  but 
at  the  meeting  of  synod. 

Again,  in  your  letter  of  March  8th,  after  quoting  my  words  indicative  of 
my  willingness  to  meet  such  a  conference  raised  at  the  synod,  you  informed 
me  "  that  brother  Young's  health  is  much  improved,  and  that,  therefore,  this 
impediment  would  be  removed."  Now,  after  all  this,  to  say  that  there  was 
no  such  agreement  or  pledge,  on  your  part,  indicates  it  not  that  some  of  your 
mental  powers  have  given  way,  and  that  you  ought  to  be  allowed  the  bene- 
fit of  retraction  ? 

"Well,  but  if  you  did  so  agree,  you  may  ask — indeed,  you  have  virtually 
asked,  would  I  insist  upon  having  an  opponent  physically  unable]  No, 
indeed  ;  I  want  a  full  grown  man,  of  good  natural  and  acquired  ability,  and 
also  in  good  plight.  But  Mr.  Young  was  such  a  man  last  August,  and 
be  may  be  such  a  man  again  next  August,  or  soon  after.     I  have  long  since 


CORRESPONDENCE.  27 

resolved  never  to  debate  with  an  inferior  man  when  a  superior  can  be  had. 
I  prefer  to  await  his  perfect  recovery,  rather  than  to  enter  the  list  with  an 
inferior  man. 

My  object  has  been  so  often  stated  to  you,  that  I  deem  it  almost  needless 
again  to  say,  that  neither  my  own  honor  nor  interest  demand  this,  but  the 
interest  of  the  whole  community.  That,  sir,  now  calls  for  the  best  man  in 
your  ranks.  True,  I  am  so  sensible  of  the  strength  of  my  position,  that 
however  inferior  I  may  be  in  other  respects,  I  am  willing  to  meet  the 
strongest  man  in  Christendom  on  those  points  at  issue  between  us. 

If,  then,  I  am  constrained  to  refuse  your  new  proposition,  it  is  not  because 
the  man  offered  is  so  formidable,  so  mighty  and  argumentative,  but  because 
he  is  not  by  the  community  judged  to  be  equal,  much  less  superior,  to  the 
persons  named.  At  least  such  are  my  impressions.  If,  however,  in  this  I 
am  mistaken,  I  am  open  to  conviction..  I  say  again,  sir,  I  desire  your 
strongest  and  most  accomplished  man,  whether  in  Kentucky  or  out  of  it. 
I  desire  to  make  an  end  of  tjie  controversy,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and, 
therefore  I  desire  an  opponent  beyond  whom  your  community  cannot  look 
with  either  desire  or  expectation. 

There  are  but  two  ways  you  may  drive  me  from  this  discussion.  You 
can,  indeed,  accomplish  your  predictions  of  my  avoiding  the  discussion  by 
one  of  two  expedients.  You  may  offer  a  disputant  of  inferior  rank,  or  you 
may  refuse  the  discussion  of  the  real  issue,  and  offer  substitutes  that  meet 
not  the  subject  proposed. 

You  say  something  of  my  speaking  discourteously  of  Mr.  Rice,  and  of 
rather  insulting  you  in  my  allusions  to  certain  rumors.  To  each  of  which 
inacceptable  imputations  I  desire  to  plead  not  guilty.  If,  sir,  I  should  say 
that  lord  Brougham  is  not  so  courteous  a  gentleman  as  sir  Robert  Peel,  do 
I  insult  lord  Brougham  !  It  is,  methinks,  somewhat  prudish  to  affect  such 
a  sense  of  honorable  courtesy.  With  me  there  yet  remain  three  degrees 
of  comparison,  but  with  you  it  seems  there  is  no  comparison  at  all  that  is 
not  discourteous.  I  believe,  sir,  all  Kentucky,  in  so  far  as  Messrs.  Rice 
and  Young  are  known,  will  award  to  the  latter  a  comparativg  superiority  in 
courtesy,  as  well  as  in  some  other  points  of  comparison.  And,  sir,  as  your 
denomination  is  to  be  represented  on  the  occasion,  I  put  it  to  your  good 
sense,  whether  a  very  courteous  gentleman  be  not,  other  things  bein^  equal, 
a  desideratum  to  you,  as  well  as  to  me.  But  as  I  speak  from  report,  and 
not  from  personal  acquaintance,  I  am  in  this  always  pervious  to  new  light. 

And  with  regard  to  tlie  second  item  in  your  late  bill  of  indictment,  my 
insulting  you  by  speaking  of  my  reluctance  to  listen  to  a  rumor  discreditable 
to  your  candor  and  christian  courtesy,  I  confess  myself  so  obtuse  as  not  to  per- 
ceive the  precise  point  that  impinges  upon  your  honor  in  the  form  of  insult. 
If  the  report  were  false  there  was  no  insult  in  alluding  to  it,  and  if  true, 
you  will  admit,  on  reflection,  there  could  be  no  insult ;  because  the  truth  in 
Buch  a  connection,  never  can  be  an  insult.  Would  it  not,  however,  be  discred- 
itable to  your  candor  and  christian  character,  to  believe  that  you  had  decided 
at  synod,  that  Mr.  Rice  should  be  the  man  of  your  choice,  and  for  almost  a 
year  to  hold  up  the  words  of  promise  to  my  ear,  that  I  should  have  Mr. 
Young.  Nay,  farther,  would  it  not  be  still  more  discreditable  for  you  to 
have  so  designed,  and  then  afterwards  nominate  and  appoint  Mr.  Rice  one 
of  the  committee  to  make  out  the  propositions  and  details  of  debate,  when 
you  calculated  on  my  not  being  one  of  that  committee.  I  shall  present  you 
a  dilemma  tor  your  grave  consideration.  Either  you  agreed  at  synod  tiiat 
Mr.  Rice  or  Mr.  Young  should  be  the  man  ;  if  the  latter,  then  I  am  right, 
yourselves  being  judges,  in  waiting  for  him  ;  but  if  you  agreed  on  Mr.  Rice, 
you  are  wrong  on  two  accounts.  1st,  for  holding  up  Mr.  Young  at  all  to 
my  car,  and  in  the  2nd  place,  for  appointing  3Ir.  Rice  one  of  the  committee 
of  arrangement,  in  this  clandestine  and  cunning  way.  Extricate  yourself 
if  you  can ! 

Or  do  I  insult  you  by  declaring  my  reluctance  to  believe  another  report 


28  CORRESPONDENCE. 

that  has  reached  me,  from  various  sources,  that  you  never  intended  a  debate 
with  me  on  the  points  proposed,  but  only  intended  to  appear  willing  and 
ready  for  such  a  discussion,  and  tiicn,  by  so  managing  the  matter,  as  to 
compel  me  to  back  out,  or  to  secure  to  you  such  advantages  as  would  sus- 
tain your  standing  with  the  community.  Such  reports  have  almost  since 
the  date  of  your  first  overtures  reached  my  ear  from  difi'erent  sources ;  and 
shall  I  be  regarded  as  insulting  you  either  by  mentioning  them,  or  by 
affirming  my  reluctance  to  believe  them.  Is  it  not  rather  kind  for  me  to 
state  them  fully,  when  your  proceedings  assume  a  form  squinting  so  much 
in  that  direction.  It  is,  metliinks,  due  to  you,  to  allow  opportunity  for  you 
to  take  such  a  course  as  will  thoroughly  refute  imputations  so  discreditable' 
and  so  usually  regarded  dishonorable.  It  was,  indeed,  as  I  imagined,  kind 
to  apprize  you  of  such  reports,  and  to  afford  you  opportunity  to  refute  them 
by  your  actions. 

You  very  politely,  on  the  heels  of  this  double  imputation,  say,  "  I  do  not 
wonder  at  your  reluctance  to  meet  Mr.  Rice.  He  has  health  to  go  through 
such  a  discussion,  and  is  accustomed,  as  well  as  yourself,  to  public  debate." 
This,  of  course,  is  neither  discourteous  nor  insulting!!  Why,  sir,  in  thus 
saying,  you  have  called  my  attention  to  Mr.  Rice,  under  a  new  angle  of 
vision.  If  I  regard  your  voice  as  that  of  the  denomination,  I  have  no  diffi- 
culty as  to  my  course.  You  have  elevated  Mr.  Rice  to  a  position  greatly 
superior  to  that  occupied  by  Mr.  Young.  You  cannot  but  admit  that  the 
reputation  of  Mr.  Young,  for  learning  and  talent,  has  not  terrified  me  so  as 
to  evince  any  reluctance  to  meet  him  in  debate:  but  in  your  esteem  the 
fame  of  Mr.  Rice  is  so  superlatively  formidable,  that  I  am  fearful  of  en- 
countering him.  Convince  me,  sir,  that  this  is  his  true  position  in  the 
denomination,  and  I  at  once  accept  him  as  your  strongest  man.  I  desire, 
however,  at  least  another  witness  or  two  of  this  fact,  especially  since  read- 
ing a  letter  written  by  yourself,  setting  forth  your  triumphs  in  a  discussion 
in  which  you  have  been  engaged  not  many  moons  since.  From  that  docu- 
ment, it  would  seem  that  your  imagination  sometimes  leads  captive  your 
reason,  at  least;  in  the  opinion  of  many  impartial  and  independent  men. 

A  word  or  two  as  to  the  propositions  for  discussion.  You  manifest  a 
singular  pertinacity  in  selecting  fragments  of  my  views,  and  also  in  imput- 
ing to  me  a  reluctance  to  defend  what  I  have  written.  Have  I  thus  assail- 
ed you  !  The  propositions  touching  the  action  and  the  subject  of  baptism, 
are  as  you  would  wish  them,  and  have  been  frequently  so  discussed  by  your 
denomination.  The  design  of  baptism  is  the  only  one  on  that  subject 
peculiar  to  the  present  controversy.  I  have  ofi'ered  a  proposition  that 
covers  the  main  ground  occupied  by  me  in  my  writings  :  for  which  you  offer 
a  most  ridiculous  substitute.  "  With  me,"  you  say,  "  baptism  is  the  new 
birth,  and  it  is  designed  to  effect  a  change  of  state."  If  it  be  the  new 
birth,  can  the  new  birth  be  the  design  of  it  J  That  it  changes  the  state,  is 
your  own  belief,  and  what  controversy  is  there  on  this  point!  I  must  have 
a  clear  enunciation  of  the  design  of  baptism.  The  propositions  offered  on 
that  subject  are  such  as  to  cover  the  real  ground  of  difference  between  you 
and  us.  I  shrink  from  nothing  I  have  written.  You  have  no  reason  to  say 
so.  You  may  protract  the  time,  but  I  will  never  debate  a  proposition  that 
does  not  meet  my  views.  I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  select  from  my 
writings  as  you  have,  and  I  can  select  a  score  on  this  subject  that  cover  the 
real  ground  of  debate. 

Christian  baptism  is  designed  to  confer  personal  assurance  of  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  on  every  legitimate  subject.  Or,  Clirislian  baptism  is  for  the 
remission  of  past  sins.  This  is  my  doctrine  on  the  subject:  and  this  I  will 
defend.  You  may  use  all  that  I  have  written  upon  the  subject,  if  you 
please  ;   but  such  is  the  concentrated  view  which  I  propose. 

On  the  influences  of  the  Spirit — /  teach  that  in  sanctif  cation  it  operates 
only  through  the  written  vjord.  You  teach  that  in  some  cases,  it  operates 
viihout  the  word.     I,  therefore,  affirm  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on 


CORRESPONDEISCE.  29 

sinners  and  on  saint  only  Ihrongh  the  word.  You  affirm  that  it  regenerates 
and  sanctities,  in  innumerable  instances,  without  the  word.  Here  is  the 
gist  of  the  controversy.  All  that  I  have  written,  and  every  thing  in  your 
creed,  comes  up  under  this  proposition. 

As  you  admit  tliat  our  views  of  the  weekly  celebration  of  the  Supper  are 
scriptural,  so  far  as  your  creed  affirms,  I  shall  not  pi"ess  that  proposition 
farther  upon  your  attention. 

Touching  your  new  proposition,  about  the  administration  of  baptism,  I 
regard  it  as  a  very  small  affiiir.  I  teach  that  for  good  order's  sake,  persons 
ouglit  to  be  appointed  to  baptize,  but  that  ba|)tism  by  the  hand  of  a  layman, 
as  you  call  him,  when  no  other  can  be  had,  is  just  as  valid  as  that  of  the 
pope,  or  your  ministers.  You  can  produce  no  divine  precept  nor  precedent 
confining  baptisui  to  bishops,  or  ciders — nor  of  their  baptizing  as  such. 

That  human  creeds,  added  to  the  Bible,  arc  now  and  always  have  been 
unauthorized  by  God,  roots  of  bitterness,  apples  of  discord,  necessarily 
tending  to  schism,  and  always  perpetuating  it,  I  affirm  to  be  a  great  practi- 
cal truth,  deeply  atiecting  the  very  existence  of  pure  religion,  and  essen- 
tially obstructing  the  union  of  cliristians. 

These  are  main  points  of  difierence  between  us,  and  such  as  we  have 
agreed  to  discuss — baptism,  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  creeds.  You  may, 
in  your  reply,  settle  tlie  whole'  matter  of  the  propositions,  or  you  may  pro- 
tract the  subject  for  months,  t  must  have  some  two  months  interval,  after 
all  things  are  agreed  upon,  to  make  i)reparations  for  leaving  home.  Such 
are  my  duties  and  my  numerous  responsibilities,  that  I  cannot  in  a  few 
days  obtain  leave  of  absence.  I  intimated  to  you  my  desire  of  having  the 
discussion  during  our  vacation  :  but  you  seem  to  pass  it  over  without  notice. 
I  must  make  my  arrangements  \n  a  i'cw  days  for  the  vacation,  and  it  will 
depend  upon  the  promptness  and  the  distinctness  of  your  reply,  whether  my 
arrangements  can  be  made  to  permit  my  attendance  during  vacation  or 
after  it,  sooner  than  late  in  September  or  October.  I  am  pleased  to  be  able 
to  say,  from  the  retrospect  of  the  past,  that  this  long  delay  in  bringing 
these  matters  to  a  close,  is  neither  of  my  option  nor  creation. 

With  all  due  respect,  I  remain  yours,  &c.  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Elder  A.  Campbell  : — Yours  of  the  24th  has  been  received.  You  are 
anxious  to  know  the  premises  from  w^hich  I  concluded  that  you  are  resolved 
to  avoid  this  discussion.  It  is,  I  believe,  universally  admitted  that  a  man 
can  give  no  more  unequivocal  evidence  of  his  purpose  to  avoid  a  contest, 
than  by  insisting  on  extraordinary  and  unequal  terms  of  fight.  This  evi- 
dence you  have  abundantly  afforded. 

You  assert  that  I,  in  our  interviev*^  at  Richmond,  gave  a  pledge  that  Mr. 
Young  should  be  your  opponent,  in  case  of  a  debate  occurring.  I  will  dis- 
prove this  assertion  by  your  own  testimony.  In  your  Harbinger  for  Novem- 
ber, you  state,  that  you  consented  to  attend  the  meeting  at  Lexington, 
"  provided  only,  that  if  we  should  go  into  a  regular  debate,  that  out  of  the 
most  respectable  of  said  delegation  one  be  selected  whose  authority  with 
the  people  was  highest  in  the  state — such  as  the  president  of  their  college 
at  Danville,  and  with  such  a  person  I  would  go  into  a  regular  debate," 
&c.  Is  this  not  singular  language  in  which  to  express  the  fact,  that 
you  were  to  debate  with  president  Young,  and  no  other  ■?  Why  did  you  not 
say  '•  Provided  only,  that  if  we  should  go  into  a  regular  debate,  I  should  have 
the  president  of  their  college  as  my  ojjponent .'"  This  would  have  been  a 
totally  different  thing,  for  then  there  could  be  no  selection  at  all,  "  out  of  the 
most  respectable  of  said  delegation."  But  you  have  recently  given  a  second 
version  of  this  matter,  plainly  contradictory  of  the  first.  In  the  Harbinger 
for  April,  you  say — "  And  in  the  event  of  the  conference  not  coming  to  an 
agreement,  I  would  go  into  single  combat  with  a  certain  gentleman  then 
named,"  Ace.  Now,  Mr.  Campbell,  can  you  reconcile  these  two  statements? 
According  to  the  first,  the  debater  on  our  side  was  to  be  selected  out  of  the 

c2 


3  CORRESPONDENCE. 

most  respectable  individuals  of  the  delegation;  according  to  the  second, 
there  was  to  be  no  such  selection,  but  you  were  to  debate  with  a  certain 
gentleman  then  named.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  that  both  can  be  true. 
Your  first  version  is  doubtless  nearer  the  truth,  and  it  plainly  contradicts 
your  assertion  concerning  a  pledge,  that  jMr.  Young  should  be  your  opponent. 

The  following  declarations  are  certainly  marvellous.  "  In  my  letter  of 
Nov.  IGth,  it  is  written,  1  will  debate  with  one  person  only,  and  then  named 
president  Young,  as  such  a  person.  You  immediately  responded,  you  shall 
have  him,  as  you  did  not  doubt  but  tlie  synod  would  select  him."  Now, 
Mr.  Campbell,  the  synod  met  early  in  October.  How  then  could  I  have 
answered  your  letter  of  Nov.  16,  by  saying,  I  did  not  doubt  that  the  synod 
would  appoint  brother  Young,  one  month  after  its  adjournment  I  In  my 
letter,  Dec.  8th,  I  stated  as  a  reason  why  we  could  not  accommodate  you  in 
your  wish  to  debate  with  i\Ir.  Young,  that  there  was  at  that  time,  no  proba- 
bility of  his  being  able  to  engage  in  such  a  debate  with  yon,  and  this  you 
(by  what  process  I  cannot  imagine)  convert  into  an  affirmation  that  he  was 
to  liave  done  sol  And  you  ask  why  I  did  not  nndccive  you,  when  in  your 
letter  of  December  15th,  you  brought  up  this  matter  !  Why,  sir,  by  exam- 
ination of  the  Harbinger  for  November,  you  could  easily  undeceive  yourself. 
Besides,  in  that  letter  you  placed  an  obstacle  in  the  way.  which  I  supposed 
would  prevent  the  proposed  discussion,  and  speedily  close  our  correspon- 
dence ;  which  was  a  sufficient  reason  why  I  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  say 
any  thing  about  tlie  particular  arrangement,  until  your  objection  should  be 
withdrawn.  In  March  I  informed  you,  that  brother  Young's  health  was 
much  improved,  and,  therefore,  he  would  be  able  to  be  present  as  one  of  the 
five  on  our  side,  the  only  thing  I  have  pledged  him  to  do  ;  and  this  again  is 
strangely  perverted.  But  your  first  version  of  the  matter,  may  stand 
against  what  you  now  say. 

But  you  have,  as  you  imagine,  placed  me  in  quite  a  sad  dilemma,  and 
with  an  air  of  triumph,  you  say,  "  extricate  yourself  if  you  can."  You 
begin  tluis  :  "  Either  you  agreed  at  synod  that  Mr.  Rice  or  Mr.  Young 
should  be  the  man  ;  if  the  latter — "  Stop,  Mr.  C,  we  did  not  agree  at  synod 
either  that  Mr.  Rice  or  3Ir.  Young  should  be  the  man.  One  of  the  five 
selected  at  synod  lived  at  a  distance  of  several  hundred  miles,  and  we  did 
not  choose  to  appoint  one  of  our  number  to  debate  without  conferring  with 
him.  On  writing  to  him,  we  ascertained  that  he  could  not  be  with  us  at 
the  proposed  discussion  ;  and  you  objected  to  our  filling  his  place  with  ano- 
ther man  ;  we,  tlierefore,  could  not  properly  appoint  a  debater  until  our 
number  was  complete  ;  so  your  dilemma  disappears.  To  your  charge,  that  I 
have,  for  almost  a  year,  held  up  the  word  of  promise  to  your  ear,  that  you 
should  have  Mr.  Young,  I  plead  not  guilty,  and  prove  that  I  have  done  no 
such  thing  by  Mr.  Campbell  himself.  As  early  as  December  8,  yourself 
being  witness,  I  informed  you  that  there  was  no  probability  that  you  could 
have  him.  The  man  who  can  convert  such  a  statement  into  a  word  of  pro- 
mise, must  possess  some  extraordinary  powers. 

It  is,  indeed,  amusing  to  see  you  insisting  upon  meeting  no  man,  whom 
you  are  not  pleased  to  think,  "  all  Kentucky  "  considers  the  very  politest  and 
most  accomplished  gentleman  in  the  Presbyterian  ranks.  With  you,  it  is 
not  enough  that  your  opponent  should  be  regarded  by  his  church  as  a 
scholar,  a  theologian,  and  a  christian  gentleman  :  he  must  be  superlatively 
polite  and  accomplished  ;  and  we  must  produce  witnesses  to  prove  him 
such!!!  Really,  sir,  tliis  strikes  me  as  an  extraordinary,  and,  I  think,  a 
most  ridiculous  demand — a  demand  too,  which  necessarily  implies  a  claim  on 
your  part,  to  be  superlatively  polite  and  accomplished.  In  view  of  such 
claims,  I  presume  we  must  all  on  our  side,  retire  from  the  contest,  since  we 
claim  to  be  nothing  more  than  christian  gentlemen.  But  if  I  can  under- 
stand you,  you  do  not  insist  now  upon  meeting  Mr.  Young — you  desire  our 
"strongest  and  most  accomplished  man,  whether  in  Kentucky  or  out  of  it." 
Well,  are  you  to  select  the  man,  or  to  judge  who  shall  defend  our  cause  ;  or 


CORRESPONDENCE.  31 

shall  we  ?  If  you  say  you  are  to  select  him,  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter. 
Why,  sir,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  get  your  chief  men  into  a  discussion,  and 
then  select  from  your  body  the  man  whom  I  may  choose  to  consider  emi- 
nently polite  and  accomplished,  &c. ;  I  can  demolish  your  cause  at  any 
time.  I  can  select  a  man,  as  you  insist  on  doing,  whose  want  of  health 
makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  do  justice  to  it  ;  or  who  from  some  other 
cause,  is  inadequate  to  the  work.  I  have  never  known  a  man  who  had  not 
courage  enough  to  light,  if  he  might  be  permitted  to  select  his  man.  You 
may  very  safely  propose  to  wait  till  Mr.  Young's  health  may  enable  him  to 
go  through  such  a  debate,  since  he  has  long  been  in  feeble  healtii,  and  more 
than  once  at  death's  door  ;  and  since  there  is  no  probability  that  at  any 
early  day  he  will  be  able  to  encounter  such  labors.  But  if  you  say,  we  are 
to  select  the  man,  who  sliall  defend  our  cause,  we  are  ready  for  you. 

But  you  desire  ■'  at  least  another  witness  or  two,"  that  he  is  our  strongest 
man  ;  and  the  reason  you  assign  for  this  wish,  may  constitute  a  part  of  the 
evidence  of  the  propriety  of  your  claim,  to  meet  no  man  who  is  not  exquis- 
itely courteous  and  polite  I  I  cannot  so  far  forget  what  is  due  to  myself,  as 
to  reply  to  your  remarks.  But,  sir,  we  are  Jive  in  number,  and  the  gentle- 
man who  is  ready  to  debate  with  you,  has  been  selected  by  four  of  us,  of 
whom  Mr.  Young  is  one.  So  you  have  quite  as  many  witnesses  as  you 
desire.  If  you  say,  you  will  not  condescend  to  meet  the  man  of  our  selec- 
tion, you  at  once  close  the  correspondence.  The  matter  may  as  well  be 
settled  at  once.  We  have  selected  the  man,  to  whose  hands  we  think 
proper  to  commit  the  defence  of  our  cause.  His  standing  is  well  known, 
both  in  Kentucky  and  out  of  it.  We  will  not  select  another.  You  can 
either  debate  with  him,  or  retreat  from  the  discussion. 

As  to  the  propositions  for  discussion,  whilst  we  should  have  been  pleased 
to  see  you  willing  to  defend  your  doctrines,  as  stated  by  yourself;  perhaps, 
however,  we  ought  to  give  you  some  advantages — we  will,  therefore,  accept 
of  your  proposition  on  tlie  desig-ii  of  baptism,  and  on  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit — with  a  slight  verbal  alteration  of  the  latter,  reserving,  of  course, 
the  right  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  questions  by  your  publications. 
The  proposition  on  tlie  design  of  baptism,  which  we  accept,  is  as  follows: 

1.  Ckrisliaii  baptism  is  for  Ike  remission  of  past  sins. 

The  question  on  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  we  accept,  as  follows  : 

2.  Tke  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons,  only  through  the  Word. 

I  hope  you  will  not  shrink  from  the  defence  of  your  doctrine,  in  regard 
to  the  administrator  of  baptism.  It  involves  the  validity  of  the  ordinance. 
How  you  can  consider  it  as  "  a  very  small  aifair  "  I  do  not  know,  'i'he  Pres- 
byterian church  certainly  regards  it  as  of  very  great  importance.  From  a 
remark  in  my  last  letter,  your  deduction  relative  to  the  comparative  merits 
of  Rev.  Mr.  Young,  if  at  all  allowable,  is  not  such  as  I  intended.  Unac- 
customed to  polemic  correspondence,  I  may  have  expressed  myself  ambigu- 
ously or  incautiously,  in  many  respects.  I  recognize  no  man  as  his  superior. 
Tis  true,  his  experience  in  oral  controversy  is  not  equal  to  some  others,  yet 
if  his  health  would  justify,  the  cause  of  truth  could  not  be  committed  to 
abler  hands. 

You  seem  in  a  late  publication  to  congratulate  yourself,  in  view  of  the 
fact,  that  the  discussion  has  not  been  procrastinated  by  any  delay  on  your 
part,  (one  instance  only  excepted,  and  that  unavoidable,)  but  tiiat  the  delay 
is  wholly  attributable  to  me.  I  presume  the  correspondence,  (if  ever  publish- 
ed) will  present  the  facts.  However,  I  do  not  suppose  tiiat  even  Mr.  Camp- 
bell himself,  would  expect  one  who  is  neither  a  president,  nor  the  occupant 
of  a  point  more  prominent  than  Paris,  but  only  a  village  Pastor,  inexpe- 
rienced in  ecclesiastical  polemics,  to  compete  with  hitn,  either  in  despatch, 
or  any  Iking  else  involved  in  such  a  correspondence.  But,  sir,  if  the  discus- 
sion has  not  been  delayed  by  you  for  this  reason,  the  community  may  yet 
have  the  opportunity  of  juHging  whether  other,  and  more  important  reasons, 
of  delay  are  not  attributable  to  Mr.  C.  himself. 


32  CORRESPONDENCE. 

I  do  not  think  it  important  to  reply  to  your  tedious  remarks,  in  defence 
of  your  offensive  language  in  a  former  letter.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  be  amused 
at  your  gravely  talking  about  rumors,  that  I  never  intended  to  debate  with 
you.  Rumors  about  what  I  intend ! ! .'  I  rather  think  you  are  pretty 
thoroughly  convinced,  that  the  rumors  about  my  intentions,  so  far  as  the 
debate  is  concerned,  are  untrue.     Respectfully,  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Bethany,  Va.,  June  25,  1843. 
Elder  J.  H.  Brown  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  16th  lies  before  me.  Our  college  examination 
prevented  my  reply  on  the  day  of  its  arrival.  I  hasten,  however,  to  re- 
spond before  our  next  mail. 

I  know  not  whether  the  imputation  of  my  insisting  on  "extraordinary 
and  unequal  terms  of  fight,"  or  the  evidence  by  which  you  would  sustain  it, 
be  the  more  eminently  amusing  and  ridiculous.  You  cannot,  Mr.  Brown, 
make  even  one  Presbyterian  in  a  hundred  believe  it.  That  you  gave  a 
pledge  that  I  should  have  I»Ir.  Young  for  an  opponent  is  just  as  certain  to 
me  as  that  I  saw  you  in  Richmond  last  August ;  and  you  have  not  brought, 
nor  can  you  bring,  one  particle  of  evidence  to  disprove  it. 

The  passages  quoted  from  the  November  and  April  Harbinger  are  most 
illogically  applied.  No  passage  of  Scripture,  alledged  in  proof  of  transub- 
stantiation  or  infant  affusion,  was  ever  more  glaringly  perverted  and  mis- 
construed than  tliose  two  passages.  In  the  general  and  passing  notice  of 
your  call  upon  me  at  Richmond,  to  which  you  allude  in  the  November  num- 
ber, is  it  not  distinctly  stated  that  I  specified  Mr.  Young  as,  in  my  esteem, 
the  most  prominent  man  in  your  denomination,  and  named  him  as  a  condi- 
tion of  my  attendance  on  the  proposed  discussion  J  And  had  you  quoted  in 
your  epistle,  evidently  designed  for  the  public  eye,  the  whole  passage,  it 
would  have  been  an  evidence  of,  and  not  against,  the  truth  of  my  present 
position.  The  very  next  sentence  says,  "  To  all  of  which  Mr.  Brown  most 
readily  assented."  To  have  been  more  definite  or  precise  in  such  a  notice 
would  have  been  wholly  out  of  place.  It  seems  to  me,  at  least,  rather 
singular,  amongst  candid  and  honorable  men,  that  Mr.  Brown>  while  deny- 
ing the  pledge,  should  so  accidentally  suppress  the  sentence  that  affirms  it. 

But  to  make  out  of  this  a  contradiction  from  any  thing  written  in  my 
April  number,  would  seem  to  require  the  genius  and  the  daring  of  Ignatius 
Loyola  himself.  Without  note  or  comment,  the  words  themselves  clearly 
indicate  all  that  I  have  constantly  affirmed.  "  And,"  said  I,  "  in  the  event 
of  the  conference  not  coming  to  an  agreement,  I  would  go  into  single  com- 
bat with  a  gentleman  then  named.''^  Now  I  ask  every  candid  man  of  every 
party,  in  what  terms  could  I  have  more  perspicuously  affirmed  the  essential 
provision,  that  I  should  have  Mr.  Young,  and  your  assent  to  it,  than  in  the 
words  above  quoted,  in  all  the  circumstances  which  called  them  forth? 

The  recklessness  of  these  attempts  at  constructive  contradiction  is  only 
surpassed  by  the  still  more  glaring  attempt  to  make  my  November  letter 
read  as  though  it  had  been  written  before  the  meeting  of  synod.  My  state- 
ment of  what  was  agreed  upon  on  a  prior  occasion,  is  converted  into  a  new 
proposition  then  presented !  !  Surely,  Mr.  Brown,  you  do  great  injustice 
to  your  own  understanding.  Why,  sir,  it  looks  more  like  the  trick  of  a 
schoolboy  than  the  grave  and  self-respectful  product  of  a  Presbyterian  cler- 
gyman. Yet  you  are  constrained  to  admit  that  you  suffered  the  illusion  to 
deceive  me  till  in  your  March  letter,  written  after  full  two  months'  delibe- 
ration !  But  you  get  out  of  the  dilemma  by  breaking  its  horns  :  you  deny 
that  either  Mr.  Rice  or  Mr.  Young  was  selected  at  the  meeting  of  synod — 
absolutely,  you  must  mean  ;  for  that  such  was  the  understanding  you  will 
not  certainly  deny.  All  reflecting  persons  will  understand  how  you  get  out 
of  this  dilemma: — It  is  one  thing  absolutely  to  say  that  Mr.  Rice  or  Mr. 
Young  should  be  the  man  ;  and  another,  to  have  an  understanding  that  in  a 
certain  event  he  should  be  the  man.     Is  not  this  the  truth,  Mr.  Brown) 


CORRESPONDENCE.  33 

You  have  been  most  singularly  unfortunate  in  every  attempt,  in  this  most 
elaborate  apologetic  epistle,  to  extricate  yourself  from  the  unenviable  atti- 
tude in  which  you  must  appear  to  stand  before  a  discerning  community. 
Your  uncalled  for  quizzical  allusions  to  the  "very  politest  gentleman"  in 
your  ranks,  is  worthy  of  the  ingenuity  that  placed  allusions  to  antecedent 
matters,  in  my  November  Harbinger,  in  the  attitude  of  present  history. 
FiVery  thing  else  being  equal,  I  do  certainly  prefer,  in  an  antagonist,  a 
courteous  well  bred  christian  gentleman,  and  I  care  not  who  knows  it.  If 
such  be  the  character  of  Mr.  Rice,  or  any  one  else  elected  by  your  church, 
I  shall  be  happy  to  meet  him.  If  he  be  not,  you  are  just  as  much  disgraced 
as  I  may  be  annoyed  by  his  rudeness. 

The  perfection  of  your  climax  of  suicidal  aberrations,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  vour  representation  of  me  as  seeking  a  weak  man  instead  of  a  strong  one. 
Mr.  Young  must  certainly  be  indebted  to  you  for  the  new  honors  you  have 
added  to  his  doctorate.  I  choose  a  weak  man  then,  it  seems,  like  a  coward, 
in  choosing  Mr.  Young  !  and  you  want  to  give  me  a  strong  man  !  !  As  I 
before  said  of  Mr.  Young,  if  withdrawn  on  the  ground  of  ill  health,  I  sym- 
pathize with  him,  and  am  willing  to  wait  his  recovery.  But  recollect,  sir, 
the  plea  of  physical  inability  will  not  stand  in  the  presence  of  a  proposition 
to  await  his  restoration  to  such  health  as  he  enjoyed  when  first  you  ofi'ered 
him.     The  public  will  no  doubt  properly  estimate  the  matter. 

Well,  now,  as  you  have  finally  tendered  your  grand  ultimatum,  an  une- 
quivocal sine  qua  7ion,  uncommitted  and  untrammeled  as  I  am,  I  cannot  but 
feel  the  responsibility  in  which  you  place  me.  The  case,  as  you  now  make 
it,  is  :  Five  men  were  chosen  by  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
of  Kentucky,  met  at  synod  last  October,  and  these  five  have  chosen  one  of 
themselves,  by  agreement  of  said  ministers  at  synod,  to  represent  the  de- 
nomination, supported  by  themselves,  in  council  assembled,  in  a  discussion 
of  the  leading  points  at  issue  between  Presbyterians  and  our  brethren  in 
that  state  and  elsewhere.  And  this  arrangement,  or  no  discussion,  being 
now  tendered,  I  have  to  choose  between  these  alternatives.  In  view  of  all 
my  responsibilities,  I  resolve,  the  Lord  willing,  to  meet  said  representative 
of  that  church  and  conference,  (my  brethren  in  Kentucky  so  concurring,) 
to  discuss  those  points  at  issue,  as  comprehended  in  the  following  six  pro- 
positions, four  of  which  are  now  agreed  upon,  viz. : 

I.  I  affirm  that  immersion  in  water,  of  a  proper  subject,  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  action  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  one  only  christian  baptism.  This  you  deny  ;  affirming  that 
sprinkling  or  pouring  water,  on  a  suitable  subject,  is  scriptural  baptism. 

II.  You  affirm  that  the  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject 
of  baptism.  This  I  deny  ;  affirming  that  a  professed  believer  of  the  gospel 
is  the  only  proper  subject  of  baptism. 

III.  I  affirm  that,  to  a  believing  penitent,  baptism  is  for  the  remission 
of  past  sins.     This  you  deny. 

IV.  You  affirm  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or 
ordained  presbyter.     This  I  deny. 

V.  I  affirm  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  conversion,  operates  on  persons 
only  through  the  word  of  truth. 

VI.  You  affirm  that  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ia  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  church:  or,  you  affirm  that  a  human  creed,  such  as 
the  Westminster,  is  essential  to  the  existence,  unity  and  peace  of  the 
church.     Both  of  these  I  deny. 

Thus,  sir,  I  have  conceded  to  you  the  proposition  concerning  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism,  and  have  arranged  them  in  the  natural  and  logical 
order  of  debate : — 1st,  the  action,  or  thing  to  be  done,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  ;  2d,  the  person  on  whom;  3d,  the  design ybr  which ;  and  4th,  the  per- 
son by  whom  it  may  of  right  be  performed.  To  this  order  I  presume  no 
person  can  object.  I  have  also,  to  expedite  an  issue,  conceded  another 
point,  viz.  the  omission  of  the  question  about  the  Lord's  supper.  I  have, 
3 


34  CORRESPONDENCE. 

in  thus  drawing  them  out,  supplied  the  ellipsis,  but  have  not  changed  a. 
single  iota  known  to  me  in  our  respective  positions  to  these  great  ques- 
tions. 

As  the  arrangements  concerning  the  taking  down  of  the  discussion  and 
the  publication  of  it,  are  not  only  important,  but  may  require  some  time, 
may  I  expect  a  speedy  answer  to  the  above.  I  must  moreover  decide  upon 
my  course  of  action  during  vacation  in  a  few  days.  I  therefore  earnestly 
request  an  immediate  answer.  If  it  arrives  not  in  the  same  space  of  time 
occupied  by  my  reply  to  your  last,  I  cannot  possibly  attend  to  the  discus- 
sion during  vacation.  JNIeantime  I  will  write  to  my  brethren  in  Kentucky, 
for  their  acquiescence  on  the  first  subject  as  aforesaid.  Other  preliminary 
rules  are  to  be  adopted,  and  arrangements  made  for  conducting  the  debate 
with  all  decorum,  which  will  require  some  time. 

Respectfully,  your  friend,  A.  CAMPBELL. 

»  Richmond,  Ky,,  Juhj  7,  1843. 

Elder  Campbell — Yours  of  June  25th  is  received.  If  you  should  ever 
be  able  to  reconcile  the  statement,  that  of  five  men,  one  was  to  be  selected 
to  meet  you  in  debate,  with  your  recent  declaration,  that  there  was  to  be  no 
selection  at  all,  but  that  a  certain  individual  then  named,  was  to  meet  you, 
I  shall  be  constrained  to  acknowledge,  that  you  possess  some  original  pow- 
ers of  mind  !  That  I  agreed  that  you  should  have  Mr.  Young,  as  one  of  the 
five  individuals  on  our  side,  is  not  denied  ;  but  to  prove  that,  Vvithout  ever 
having  conferred  with  him  on  the  subject,  I  pledged  him  to  go  through  such 
a  discussion  as  the  one  contemplated — a  kind  of  employment  in  which  he 
head  never  engaged,  and  for  which  his  feeble  health  would,  to  a  great  extent, 
disqualify  him — will  require  more  evidence  than  you  will  ever  be  able  to 
produce.  When  you  represent  me  as  intimating  or  admitting,  that  in 
choosing  Mr.  Young,  you  chose  a  "  weak  man,"  can  you  imagine,  that  any 
one,  on  reading  this  correspondence,  will  believe  what  you  say  "J  My  re- 
marks in  previous  letters,  flatly  contradict  it;  and  his  reputation  makes  a 
defence  of  his  talents  and  scholarship  wholly  unnecessary.  Your  willing- 
ness to  await  his  recovery,  after  what  you  knew  of  the  state  of  his  health, 
only  proves  your  disposition  indefiKitely  to  postpone  the  discussion. 

Since  your  fancied  "dilemma"  disappeared  upon  the  statement  of  the 
facts,  in  reference  to  the  selection  of  Mr.  Rice  or  Mr.  Young  at  synod,  you 
resort  to  a  most  singular  expedient  to  sustain  your  position.  You  say 
"  That  such  was  the  understanding,  [that  Young  or  Rice  should  meet  you] 
you  certainly  will  not  deny.  Is  not  this  the  truth,  Mr.  Brown '?"  When 
a  gentleman  undertakes  to  place  another  in  a  dilemma,  by  assuming  things 
to  be  true  of  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  he  can  know  absolutely 
nothing,  and  when,  on  finding  his  mistake,  he  resorts  to  catechising  in  order 
to  elicit  something  favorable  to  his  wishes  ;  I  rather  think,  he  is,  if  not  in 
a  "  dilemma,"  at  least  in  an  unpleasant  predicament  '. 

I  am  truly  gratified,  however,  that  you  have  at  length  felt  constrained  to 
withdraw  your  extraordinary  claim  to  select  your  opponent  in  debate,  and  to 
agree  to  meet  the  man  of  our  selection,  without  further  testimonials  in 
regard  to  his  ability,  or  his  extraordinary  politeness! ! 

We  will  endeavor  to  accommodate  you  with  "  a  courteous,  well-bied, 
christian  gentleman" — ojie,  who  we  trust  and  believe,  will  not  mortify  us 
by  so  far  disregarding  the  established  rules  of  courtesy,  as  Mr.  Campbell 
has  repeatedly  done  in  this  correspondence. 

In  regard  to  the  selection  of  the  individuals  on  our  part,  my  statements 
have  been  so  repeated  and  so  distinct,  that  I  cannot  imagine  any  thing  more 
necessary  on  that  point,  however  objectionable  some  of  your  representations 
may  be. 

Your  6th  proposition,  in  both  forms,  is  decidedly  objectionable.  We 
choose  to  debate  it  as  presented  in  your  letter  of  Dec.  15th,  viz;  "  Human 
creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessarily  heretical  and 


CORRESPONDENCE.  35 

schismatical " — unless  you  agree  to  the  modification  already  suggested,  viz: 
"The  using  of  creeds,  except  the  Scriptures,  is  necessarily  heretical  and 
schismatical."  We  prefer  the  modified  form  of  it ;  but  if  you  object,  we 
will  not  insist  upon  it.  Then,  in  order  to  give  an  equal  number  of  affirm- 
atives and  negatives  to  each  party  ;  the  first  question  can  be  thrown  into 
the  form  already  agreed  upon,  viz:  "  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water,  upon  a 
suitable  subject,  is  scriptural  baptism." 

Your  fifth  proposition  is  not  quite  satisfactory.  We  are  willing  to  take 
it  as  presented  in  your  last  letter,  with  a  slight  verbal  alteration  suggested 
in  my  reply,  and  which  you  have  made.  Then  it  will  stand  thus  :  "  The 
Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  Word." 

Now,  since  you  have  all  the  propositions,  in  almost  the  precise  language 
chosen  by  yourself,  I  hope  this  matter  may  be  considered  as  settled. 

Brother  Rice  will  withdraw  from  the  committee  of  arrangements,  and 
brother  J.  K.  Burch  and  myself  will  constitute  that  committee.  Tiiis 
change  is  made  in  view  of  remarks  made  in  your  letter  of  May  24th — 
and  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Rice  will  be  your  opponent  in  debate. 
We  are  prepared  to  meet  your  committee,  at  any  time  mutually  agreed 
upon,  and  to  make  all  necessary  arrangements.     Respectfully,  &c. 

JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Belhany,  Va.,  July  13,  1843. 
Elder  Brown  : 

Your  very  courteous  letter  of  the  7th  inst.  lies  before  me.  Your  reitera- 
tion concerning  Mr.  Young,  and  your  polite  allusion  to  my  reasonable 
demands  for  a  respectable  opponent,  I  shall  hereafter  expect  as  a  part  of 
every  epistle  for  the  next  six  months.  To  these  matters  I  shall  hereafter 
pay  no  attention.  If  any  testimony  is  wanting  concerning  your  promises 
in  reference  to  Mr.  Young,  I  have  recently  learned  that  such  testimony 
(living  and  unexceptionable)  to  all  my  allegations  can  be  had. 

I  have  said,  for  the  next  six  months ;  for  it  appears  nothing  is  yet  fixed. 
The  arrangement  of  the  propositions  concerning  baptism,  it  would  seem 
from  allusions  to  the  first,  found  in  your  letter  before  me,  is  yet  to  be  made. 
In  endeavoring  to  find  our  relative  positions  to  points  at  issue, — what  you 
affirmed  and  what  I  atTirmed, — and  thus  to  ascertain  the  subjects  and  num- 
ber of  topics,  I  did  not  imagine  that  either  the  order  in  wiiich  these  sub- 
jects were  named,  or  the  affirmative  or  negative  forms  in  which  they  were 
expressed,  was  to  be  that  of  discussion.  Hence,  in  my  last,  after  hearing 
all  the  explanations,  statements,  amendments  and  objections,  I  drew  out  in 
order  and  form  the  propositions,  and  our  positions  to  them,  which  fairly  ex- 
hibit our  standing  before  the  community  on  these  points. 

These  six  propositions  were  : 

I.  I  affirm  that  immersion  in  water,  of  a  proper  subject,  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  action  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  one  only  christian  baptism. 

II.  You  affirm  that  the  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject 
Df  baptism. 

III.  I  affirm  that,  to  a  believing  penitent,  baptism  i^  for  the  remission 
of  past  sins. 

lY.  You  affirm  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or 
ordained  presbyter. 

V.  I  affirm  that,  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  of  God  ope- 
rates on  persons  only  through  the  word  of  truth. 

YI.  You  affirm  that  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  is  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  church. 

To  the  last  you  object,  and  prefer  an  expression  of  my  views  of  creeds 
found  in  former  communications.  That  expression  covers  not  the  whole 
ground  of  my  dissent  from  creeds  ecclesiastic.  You  will  then  affirm  your 
views  of  your  creed  as  essential  to  the  unity,  purity  and  peace  of  the 


36  CORRESPONDENCE. 

church,  and  I  will  take  the  negative.  This  is  the  only  point  undefined  be- 
tween us,  so  far  as  the  six  propositions  go.  I  desire  the  privilege  of  affirm- 
ing what  I  teach  in  my  own  words,  and  extend  the  same  to  you.  But  on 
those  points  on  which  we  have  fully  expressed  our  views, — namely,  the  first 
Jive  propositions, — I  think  it  is  time  we  had  done.  You  need  not  protract 
the  time  for  the  sake  of  any  changes  in  the  propositions,  since  I  will  sus- 
tain my  real  position  and  no  other.  Besides,  no  committee  shall  choose 
propositions  for  me,  nor  the  mode  of  discussing  them.  You  have  more  than 
once  offered  your  sine  qua  non,  your  grand  ultimatum :  it  is  time  for  me  to 
commence. 

As  I  expect  to  be  in  Lexington  from  the  1st  to  the  6th  of  August,  I  have 
no  objections  to  your  making  Mr.  Rice  one  of  ihe  committee  to  meet  my- 
self and  another  person  or  two  for  arrangements  of  the  laws  and  etiquette 
of  the  debate,  as  well  as  the  mode  of  reporting  and  publishing.  This  will 
save  much  time  in  correspondence.  Please  address  me  there,  to  the  care  of 
Mr.  Ficklin. 

In  very  much  haste,  and  with  all  due  respect, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

Richmond,  July  29,  1843. 
Elder  A.  Campbell: 

Dear  Sir — Your  communication  of  the  13th  is  now  before  me.  Only  the 
closing  paragraph  demands  attention.  In  this  you  propose  that  Mr.  Rice 
be  made  one  of  the  committee,  to  meet  you,  and  another  person  or  two,  in 
Lexington,  between  the  1st  and  6th  of  August,  for  the  arrangement  of  pre- 
liminaries, preparatory  to  discussion.  To  this  proposition  I  am  requested 
to  address  you  at  Lexington,  to  the  care  of  Mr.  Ficklin. 

I  have  postponed  a  reply,  awaiting  the  return  of  Mr.  Rice  from  Nashville. 
I  expected  him  to  have  been  at  my  house  on  the  27th,  to  assist  me  in  the 
services  of  a  protracted  meeting ;  but  in  this  I  have  been  disappointed,  his 
stay  at  Nashville  having  been  unexpectedly  protracted.  I  still  expect  him, 
and  hope  he  will  arrive  to-day.  If  so,  the  arrangement  you  propose  will 
be  acceded  to.  If  not,  Mr.  Burch  and  myself  will  meet  your  committee  at 
Lexington,  on  Friday,  the  4th  of  August,  if  in  accordance  with  your 
wishes.  I  have  postponed  a  reply  to  the  last  hour,  expecting  the  arrival  of 
Mr.  Rice.  Time,  therefore,  will  allow  me  to  reply  only  to  this  single  pro- 
position ;  other  matters  in  your  communication  will  be  attended  to  at  no 
very  distant  day.     Please  reply  by  return  of  mail.     Respectfully, 

JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

Richmond,  July  31,  1843. 

Elder  A.  Campbell— Since  I  replied  to  your  last  letter,  brother  Rice 
has  returned  from  Nashville,  and  in  accordance  with  your  wish,  he  will  be 
added  to  the  committee  on  our  part,  and  he,  Mr.  Burch,  and  myself,  will 
meet  you  and  your  committee  in  Lexington,  on  Thursday  afternoon,  at  3 
o'clock,  P.  M. 

Until  I  received  your  last  letter,  I  supposed  the  propositions  for  disciission 
might  be  considered  as  settled,  since  I  had  accepted  them  as  stated  by  your- 
self, with  merely  slight  verbal  alterations,  to  almost  all  of  which  you  had 
agreed.  But  I  am  not  a  little  surprised  to  learn  from  your  last  letter,  that 
you  are  unwilling  to  debate  your  own  propositions  !  '.  !  On  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism you  proposed  the  following,  which,  with  a  small  change,  to  which  you 
agreed,  was  accepted  by  me,  viz:  "  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water,  upon  a 
suitable  subject,  is  scriptural  baptism."  You  now,  after  both  parties  have 
agreed  to  the  above  proposition,  offer  another  quite  different  in  form.  What 
does  this  mean]  In  relation  to  the  subject,  the  design,  and  the  administra- 
tor of  baptism,  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  agreed  on  the  proposition 
to  be  debated. 

On  the  subject  of  creeds,  we  have  agreed  to  discuss  your  own  proposition. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  37 

viz :  "  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical."  But  you  now  inform  me,  that  this  proposi- 
tion, stated  by  yourself  for  discussion,  covers  not  the  whole  ground  of  your 
dissent  from  "  creeds  ecclesiastic,"' and  you  propose  the  following:  "  You 
[I]  affirm,  that  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  is  the  constitu- 
tion of  Christ's  church."  And  does  this  proposition  really  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  your  objection  to  creeds  ecclesiastic  !  Is  it  true  that  all  that  you 
affirmed  against  creeds,  amounts  only  to  this — that  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  not  the  constitution  of  the  church  of  Christ  1  Or 
have  you  not  gone  on  a  crusade  against  all  creeds,  because  they  "  supplanted 
the  Bible,  made  the  Word  of  God  of  non-effect,  were  fatal  to  the  intelligence, 
purity,  union,  holiness,  and  happiness  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  hostile 
to  the  salvation  of  the  world  ]" — Chris.  Sys.  p.  9.  These  and  many  such 
things,  you  have  affirmed  concerning  the  use  of  creeds.  You  say,  "  I  desire 
the  privilege  of  affirming  what  I  teach."  Now,  my  dear  sir,  we  have 
accepted  your  own  proposition,  thus  affording  you  the  opportunity  oi'  affirm- 
ing and  proving,  what  you  have  so  constantly,  and  so  loudly,  affirmed  and 
taught;  and  mirabile  dictuJ — you  decline  affirming,  or  attempting  to  prove 
it,  and  desire  us  to  affirm  a  totally  different  proposition,  not  at  all  covering 
the  ground  of  your  published  sentiments  !  This  procedure  does  strike  me 
as  marvellous  in  the  extreme.  You  have  before  declined  discussing  the 
doctrine  of  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  published  in  one  of  your  most 
important  books;  and  now  you  are  unwilling  to  discuss  a  proposition  of 
your  own  forming!  I  must  insist  now,  that  you  defend  your  own  proposi- 
tion.    I  cannot  accept  a  totally  different  one  in  place  of  it. 

But  it  seems  that  all  this  while  we  have  been  engaged,  not  in  settling 
propositions,  as  they  were  to  be  debated  but  only  in  "  hearing  all  the 
explanations,  statements,  amendments,  and  objections."  Yet  propositions 
were  stated,  verbal  or  other  alterations  suggested  and  agreed  to.  Still, 
although  the  precise  language  of  the  propositions  was  agreed  upon,  you  now 
feel  at  liberty  to  begin  de  novo,  and  restate  them  in  different  form  ;  or  to 
state  entirely  new  propositions !  To  this  twisting  and  turning  you  must 
allow  me  decidedly  to  object. 

In  a  word,  we  have  accepted  your  propositions,  and  we  are  now  prepared 
to  arrange  other  preliminaries,  and  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  at  the 
earliest  convenience  of  the  parties  concerned. 

In  regard  to  the  testimony,  of  which  you  speak,  in  reference  to  your 
allegation,  I  will  now  only  say,  I  am  prepared  to  meet  it.  Hoping  to  see 
you  on  Thursday  next,  I  remain  yours,  &c.  J-  H-  BROWN. 

N.  B.  We  will  be  at  the  residence  of  Rev.  J,  K.  Burch,  at  the  hour 
specified  above,  and  will  receive  any  communication  you  may  deem  expe- 
dient. 

Lexington,  Ky.,  August  2,  1843. 
Elder  J.  H.  Brown: 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  31st  ult.  is  just  to  hand.  I  am  not  unwilling  to 
debate  my  own  propositions.  Propositions  submitted  by  me  to  elicit  your 
position,  and  to  ascertain  your  views,  are  not,  however,  my  own  proposi- 
tions. Had  you  been  willing  that  I  should  have  debated  my  own  proposi- 
tions, a  single  letter  would  have  been  sufficient  to  settle  the  whole  issue  of 
debate.  In  the  six  propositions,  so  often  and  so  variously  propounded  to 
ascertain  the  true  issue,  but  one  of  them  is  exactly  my  own  proposition. 
True,  I  hs,ve  elicited  the  attitude  you  wish  to  maintain,  and  eucli  as  you 
would  desire  me  to  maintain  ;  but  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  my 
having  obtained  my  own  propositions,  or  my  having  absolutely  agreed  to 
discuss  a  single  proposition,  the  verbiage  of  which  you  have  at  all  inter- 
fered with.  My  approval  of  any  proposition,  so  far  as  expressed,  has  al- 
ways been  prospective  of  the  amicable  settlement  of  the  whole  issue.  1 
was  willing,  however,  and  am  still  willing,  to  distribute  the  four  proposi- 
tions on  baptism  as  expressed  in  my  last,  which  are  in  exact  accordance 

D 


38  CORRESPONDENCE. 

with  our  respective  positions  as  before  defined  ;  but  I  am  not  willing  to 
give  you  three  affirmative  propositions  out  of  four,  and  even  then  not  have 
my  single  affirmative  in  my  own  words  !  ! 

I  confess  I  was  not  prepared  to  expect  such  exorbitant  demands  at  the 
hands  of  my  Presbyterian  friends,  especially  after  conceding  so  much  to 
their  views  of  expediency.  Called  upon  for  a  discussion  of  my  views  as 
opposed  to  Presbyterianism,  and  pressed  into  this  debate,  as  I  have  been, 
by  your  importunities,  I  was  prepared  to  expect  the  privilege  of  propound- 
ing my  ovv'n  propositions  in  my  oioii  words,  and  to  expect  that  such  chival 
rous  spirits  as  the  sons  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  would  manfully 
stand  up  to  their  own  tenets  and  defend  their  own  true  and  veritable  position 
before  this  community,  and  allow  me  to  defend  and  assail  in  regular  turn. 
But  what  is  my  disappointment,  after  one  years  diplomatic  negotiation,  to 
find  tiiem  claiming  three  out  of  four  propositions,  and  thus  refusing  me  an 
opportunity  to  sustain  my  proper  attitude  in  this  long  protracted  contro- 
versy. I  never  can  yield  to  demands  so  arbitrary  and  unequal.  If,  then,  I 
have  given  opportunity  and  latitude  to  ascertain  what  advantages  would  be 
sought,  and  how  promptly  you  and  your  brethren  would  assume  the  defence 
of  your  own  tenets  and  assail  mine,  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  agreeing 
to  place  myself  three  times  in  the  mere  negative  of  your  tenets  on  baptism, 
since  I  have  been  summoned  by  yo2i  to  stand  up  to  the  defence  of  ray  own 
teaching.  I  must  affirm  my  views  on  at  least  the  two  main  points  in 
which  I  have  been  most  assailed  by  Presbyterians.  This  is  not  only  just 
and  equal,  but  it  is  my  special  right,  coming  into  this  discussion  as  I  do. 

Besides  all  these  considerations,  obvious  and  imperative  though  they  be, 
I  have  others,  affecting  not  only  these,  but  the  other  propositions  submit- 
ted, which  in  harmony  with  our  original  stipulations,  are  entitled  to  your 
special  regard.  You  represent  a  denomination  :  so  do  /.  You  have  had 
frequent  consultations  among  yourselves :  I  have  not  had  one  with  my 
brethren  till  my  arrival  in  this  city.  From  them  I  have  learned  how  we, 
as  a  denomination,  have  been  assailed,  both  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee, 
by  your  representative  Mr.  Rice.  From  the  facts  stated,  and  the  represen- 
tations given,  to  meet  the  objects  of  this  discussion,  it  will  also  be  expe- 
dient and  necessary  that  the  proposition  concerning  the  Spirit,  and  that 
concerning  creeds,  shall  be  more  full  than  before  propounded.  Accord/ing 
to  the  views  of  such  as  have  conferred  with  me,  it  is  requisite  that  your 
views  of  Spiritual  influence,  regeneration,  &c.,  so  far  as  they  difi^er  from 
ours,  should  be  fully  developed  and  discussed.  I  should,  therefore,  amplify 
the  proposition  already  before  us,  so  as  to  bring  all  our  views,  and  yours, 
fully  before  the  community,  thus:  The  Spirit  qf  God,  without  any  previous, 
special,  separate,  spiritual  operation  on  the  mind,  illumination,  or  call,  is 
known,  believed,  received,  and  enjoyed,  through  the  word  of  God;  which 
word  is  the  only  and  all-sufficient  instrument  through  which  sinners  attain  the 
knowledge  of  God,  are  converted,  sanctified,  and  obtain  the  true  religion 
As  respects  creeds,  I  affirm  that  human,  authoritative  creeds,  superadded  to 
the  Bible,  are  an  instill  to  its  Author,  unphilosophical  in  their  nature,  schis- 
matic in  their  tendencies,  and  retard  the  conversion  of  the  world.  But  as  you 
may  claim  a  negative  attitude  in  the  discussion  of  this  point,  I  consent  to 
your  framing  any  proposition  that  precisely  and  fully  negatives  the  above. 

I  should  be  pleased  to  add  one  or  two  other  propositions  : — one  concern- 
ing the  weekly  observance  of  the  ordinance  of  the  supper  ;  and  one  con- 
cerning the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  but  leave  this  mat- 
ter wholly  to  your  own  discretion. 

I  am  sorry  to  state  that  the  misconstructions  and  misrepresentations 
which  have  reached  my  ears  from  various  quarters,  together  with  the  spirit 
and  details  of  your  letter  now  lying  before  me,  recommend  to  me  the  expe- 
diency of  settling  all  the  important  preliminaries  by  writing,  rather  than 
by  a  personal  interview.  I  therefore  state  distinctly,  that  of  the  six  propo- 
sitions  I  claim  the  1st,  3d  and  5th,  as  before  stated,  viz.: 


CORRESPONDENCE.  39 

I.  That  the  immersion  in  water,  of  a  proper  subject,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one  only  apostolic  or  christian 
baptism. 

III.  That,  to  a  pi-oper  subject,  baptism  is  for  induction  into  the  christian 
covenant,  or  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

V.  "The  Spirit,"  &c.,  as  above  expressed. 

Should  you  think  proper  to  place  my  proposition  on  creeds  before  that  on 
the  Spirit,  and  allow  me  to  affirm  it,  and  then  select  one  indicative  of  your 
full  views  on  the  Spirit  expressed  in  your  own  words,  or  in  those  of  your 
creed,  and  allow  me  to  negative  it,  you  shall  have  my  consent.  As  I  sin- 
cerely desire  a  frank,  candid  and  friendly  interview,  I  am  willing  to  allow 
you  a  full  expression  of  your  tenets  in  the  best  terms  you  can  select.  I 
only  state  distinctly,  that  if  there  be  but  six  propositions,  I  shall  have  three 
affirmatives,  as  aforesaid,  and  that  you  shall  have  three.  I  claim  the  action 
and  design  of  baptism,  and  either  that  on  the  Spirit  or  creeds,  as  you  please. 
If  to  these  lair  and  equitable  terms  you  agree,  I  am  prepared  to  go  into  other 
preliminary  arrangements  immediately.   If  not,  say  so,  and  the  matter  ends. 

I  sincerely  and  solennily  profess  to  go  for  truth,  and  not  for  victory, — for 
truth  indeed,  and  victory, — for  the  Bible,  and  its  triumph  over  all  rivals. 
And  if  you  can  concur  with  us  in  such  views  and  feelings,  I  think  we  ought 
to  agree  to  spend  the  day  antecedent  to  the  commencement  of  the  discus- 
sion in  prayer  and  fasting.     All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Please  address  me  at  Mr.  Henry  Bell's. 

With  all  due  respect,  yours,  &c.  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Lexington,  August  3,  1843. 

Elder  A.  Campbell — Yours  of  the  2nd  is  before  me.  It  contains 
information  curious,  \^ not  instructive,  viz:  that  propositions  submitted  for 
debate  by  Mr.  Campbell,  are  nest  his  own  propositions  !  !  !  Then,  pray, 
whose  are  they  "?  But  it  seems,  that  you  submitted  them  to  elicit  my  posi- 
tion, &c.  Is  it  true,  then,  that  you  submitted  for  my  consideration  propo- 
sitions which  you  knew  did  not  correctly  present  our  relative  positions,  in 
order  to  ascertain  my  views  1  If  they  do  correctly  represent  the  ground  of 
dilFerence,  why  do  you  now  insist  on  changing  them  1  If  they  do  not,  why 
were  they  offered  ?  Why  did  you  not  offer  such  propositions  as  you  were 
willing  to  discuss'?     This  is,  indeed,  a  new  species  of  military  tactics  ! 

But  surely  your  memory  fails  you  ;  for  in  your  letter  of  Nov.  17,  you  state 
six  propositions  for  debate,  and  then  remark,  "  I  will  discuss  these  in  single 
debate,"  &c.  Again,  in  your  letter  of  Dec.  15,  after  stating  six  proposi- 
tions yon  say,  "  I  regard  the  above  as  a  candid  and  definite  expression  of 
our  relative  positions  on  these  six  points,"  &c.  And  yet  you  tell  us,  these 
are  not  your  own  propositions  ;  and  some  of  them  you  refuse  to  debate  !  Nay 
more,  we  accepted  your  sixth  proposition,  in  the  letter  of  Dec.  15th,  with- 
out even  insisting  on  the  slightest  verbal  alteration,  and  then,  behold,  Mr. 
C.  informs  us,  "  that  expression  covers  not  the  whole  ground  of  his  dissent 
from  creeds  ecclesiastic,"  and  proposes  to  introduce  another  proposition, 
wholly  different,  which  does  not  even  touch  the  question  of  the  lav/'fulness 
of  creeds  !  ! !  Again,  in  yours  of  July  13th,  you  state,  that  the  only  point 
really  undefined  between  us  is  that  concerning  creeds,  on  which  we  had 
accepted  your  own  proposition! — and  then  remark,  "but  on  those  points 
on  which  we  have  fully  expressed  our  views — namely,  the  first ytye  proposi- 
tions, I  think  it  is  time  we  had  done."  But  what  do  I  see  in  your  letter 
now  before  me'!  Another  proposition  on  the  work  of  tlie  Spirit,  entirely 
new  and  wholly  unintelligible  in  its  phraseology  !  Your  next  epistle  will, 
probably,  insist  on  other  propositions,  different  from  all  these}  Alas  for 
the  cause  that  requires  such  manoeuvring  extraordinary  to  sustain  it. 

But  can  we  understand  you 'J  You  tell  me  you  did  not  absolutely  agree 
to  discuss  a  single  proposition,  the  verbiage  of  which  I  have  at  all  inter- 
fered with.     Of  course,  then,  you  are  absolutely  pledged  to  discuss  those 


40  CORRESPONDENCE. 

questions,  the  verbiage  of  which  we  have  not  interfered  with,  except  with 
your  consent ;  for  when  you  accepted  proposed  amendments,  the  propositions 
as  amended,  were  your  own — such  as  you  were  bound  to  discuss.  Now  look 
at  the  following : 

1.  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water,  upon  a  suitable  subject,  is  scriptural  bap- 
tism. To  this  proposition,  as  originally  offered  by  you,  we  proposed  a  verbal 
alteration,  to  which  you  cheerfully  agreed.  This  proposition,  therefore, 
according  to  your  own  showing,  you  are  bound  to  debate. 

2.  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent,  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. 
This  was  accepted  without  alteration.     Of  course,  it  is  settled. 

3.  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins.  This  also  had  been 
accepted  without  change — it  is  settled. 

4.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop,  or  ordained  Presbyter. 
Accepted  in  your  own  language,  without  change — it  is  settled. 

5.  In  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons 
only  through  the  word  of  truth.  Accepted  in  the  precise  language  used  in 
your  letter  of  July  13th.     This  is  settled. 

6.  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical.  Accepted  in  the  precise  language  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, (see  his  letter  of  Dec.  15th)  without  the  slightest  change  ;  and  that 
language  Mr.  Campbell  has  declared  to  be  "  a  candid  and  definite  expres- 
sion "  of  our  differences  on  this  point.  This,  too,  is  settled.  Every  propo- 
sition has  been  accepted,  either  in  your  precise  language,  or  with  slight 
verbal  changes,  to  which  you  have  agreed!  Yet  Mr.  Campbell  is  not  satis- 
fied! !  ! 

But  you  say,  you  are  not  willing  to  give  us  three  affirmative  propositions 
out  of  four,  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  Yet,  in  your  letter  of  Dec.  15th, 
you  say,  there  are  three  great  topics,  which  have  occupied  the  public  atten- 
tion for  some  twenty-five  years,  so  far  as  your  reformation  is  concerned^ 
viz  :  the  ordinances  of  Christianity,  the  essential  elements  of  the  gospel 
itself,  and  the  influence  of  human  creeds,  &c.  On  precisely  the  point 
relative  to  baptism,  on  which  your  reformation  has  been  most  assailed,  you 
have  the  affirmative.  On  the  2nd  great  point,  the  woi-k  of  the  Spirit,  you 
have  the  affirmative — and  on  the  3d  great  point,  creeds,  you  have  the 
affirmative  ;  yet  you  are  not  satisfied  with  your  affirmatives  ! ! !  ' 

Your  reformation  does,  indeed,  call  for  sympathy,  if  it  cannot  sustain 
itself,  even  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  C,  without  such  advantages  as  he  demands. 

And,  be  it  observed,  the  matter  in  dispute  is  not  merely  nor  chiefly  the 
affirmative  and  negative  forms  of  the  propositions.  In  your  letter  now  be- 
fore me,  after  having  previously  stated  that  on  five  points  the  propositions 
were  fully  agreed  on,  you  refuse  to  debate  them,  though  proposed  by  your- 
self, and  present  three  new  propositions  : — one  relative  to  the  Spirit,  which 
no  man  who  wishes  the  people  to  understand  him  would  discuss  ;  one  rela- 
tive to  the  design  of  baptism,  making  it  perfectly  ambiguous  ;  and  one  rela- 
tive to  creeds,  which  assigns  them  a  place  (if  your  language  is  intelligible) 
which  no  Protestant  denomination  ever  did  assign  to  them.  And  what  has 
led  Mr.  Campbell  to  such  an  unexpected  and  unheard  of  course "!  Why 
he  has  heard  how  Mr.  Rice  has  assailed  his  denomination  in  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee  !  Ah,  what  a  dangerous  man  this  Mr.  Rice  must  be,  that  in 
prospect  of  meeting  him  even  Mr.  C,  after  stating  and  re-stating  his  pro- 
positions during  twelve  months  past — propositions  containing  "  a  candid  and 
definite  expression  of  our  relative  positions,"  finds  it  necessary  once  more 
to  re-state  and  mystify  them  as  far  as  possible  ! !  • 

To  these  new  and  most  extraordinary  claims  of  Mr.  C.  wo  cannot  accede. 
We  have  accepted  his  own  propositions,  in  his  own  language,  or  slightly 
modified  with  his  own  consent,  and  in  his  own  order ;  we  having  three  affirm- 
atives, and  he  precisely  as  many  ;  he  having  affirmatives  on  the  precise  points 
on  which  his  reformation  has  assailed  Protestant  Christendom,  and  on  whirh  it 
has  in  turn  been  assailed.     Now,  Mr.  C.  tells  us,  unless  we  will  let  him 


CORRESPONDENCE.  41 

change  his  own  propositions  and  his  own  arrangement,  he  will  not  enter 
into  the  discussion.  If  we  will  not  consent  to  his  demands,  such  as  in 
public  debate  were  never  before  heard  of,  "the  matter,"  says  he,  '■^  ends.'''' 
Well,  it  is  just  what  we  have  for  some  time  anticipated.  So,  after  all  you 
have  said  of  the  fear  of  light  among  "  the  clergy," — after  all  this  boasting 
of  the  reformation  of  the  nineteenth  century, — you,  the  leader  of  the  host, 
thus  signally  retreat !  !  ! 

We  press  the  matter  no  further.  If  Mr.  C.  fears  to  debate  his  own  pro- 
postiioiis,  we  are  willing  that  the  matter  shall  end,  and  that  the  world  shall 
know  the  grand  result !  But  upon  Mr.  Campbell  himself  the  entire  respon- 
sibility of  its  termination  must  ever  rest. 

Yours,  respectfully,  JNO.  H.  BROWN. 

P.  S. — Mr.  Campbell  is  now  at  liberty,  should  he  think  proper,  to  publish 
the  correspondence.  J.  H.  B. 

Lexington,  Ky,,  August  4,  1843. 
Mr.  Brown  : 

Sir — Your  letter  of  last  night,  though  it  fulfills  the  predictions  of  almost 
all  the  prophets  that  have  spolien  to  me  concerning  the  contemplated  dis- 
cussion, is  nevertheless  a  development  which  I  could  not  have  expected  from 
even  Mr.  Brown  in  reply  to  the  epistle  I  have  just  addressed  to  him.  I  do 
not  exaggerate  when  I  say,  that  of  the  scores  of  persons  that  have,  since 
my  arrival  in  this  state,  spoken  to  me  concerning  your  proposition  for  a 
debate,  almost  all  have  said,  that  either  I  must  concede  to  your  party  all 
that  you  demand,  or  that  I  should  be  quibbled  out  of  a  discussion.  Nay, 
eome  have  said,  that  Mr.  Brown  himself  was  actually  engaged  a  few  days 
since  in  efforts  to  retract  his  having  solicited  and  challenged  my  attendance 
to  debate  the  points  at  issue  between  us  and  Presbyterians,  it  was  believed 
with  a  reference  to  some  immediate  publication  of  our  correspondence,  in 
anticipation,  I  presume,  of  the  license  you  have  now  given  me  to  publish 
the  correspondence  !  Be  it  so,  then.  But,  before  the  final  adieu,  I  shall 
add  one  letter  more,  which  must  first  go  to  the  public  before  the  whole  cor- 
respondence can  appear. 

I  will  not  be  at  pains  to  review  the  letter  lying  before  me  at  this  time. 
I  have  neither  the  time  nor  the  documents.  On  leaving  home,  I  forgot  to 
bring  with  me  a  single  letter  of  our  correspondence,  though  it  had  occupied 
ray  attention  almost  at  the  moment  of  departing.  And  to  undertake  to  un- 
fold the  perplexities,  and  to  expose  the  dexterous  and  ingenious  manoeuvres 
and  subterfuges  with  which  it  seems  to  abound,  without  these  documents, 
would  be  as  imprudent,  as  it  is  now  unnecessary.  To  enlighten  one  who 
could  confound  the  submission  of  a  proposition  with  the  approval  of  it,  or  an 
agreement  to  discuss  a  special  proposition,  as  one  of  an  issue,  in  anticipation 
of  a  fair  and  equitable  adjustment  of  the  whole  issue,  as  absolutely  binding, 
whether  the  issue  be  as  anticipated,  or  to  convict  me  of  dishonorable  inten- 
tions by  such  a  mode  of  retreat  from  a  debate  solicited  by  himself,  would 
require  more  details  than  at  present  I  have  leisure  for.  Again,  to  repre- 
sent one  as  introducing  new  propositions,  when  only  changing  an  affirma- 
tive to  a  negative,  or  a  negative  to  an  affirmative,  and  to  make  what  he 
says  of  topics  of  debate  equivalent  to  what  he  says  of  propositions  of  debate, 
and  to  make  a  single  word  indicating  his  attitude  to  a  question  identical 
with  the  question  itself,  are  efforts  of  ingenuity  and  dexterity,  that  require 
corresponding  efforts  on  the  part  of  him  who  would  expose  them,  beyond  the 
common  limits  of  an  ordinary  letter. 

The  matter  then  ends  here.  Presbyterians  proposed  a  discussion,  and 
promised  that  each  party  should  have  an  equal  chance  in  defending  what  it 
taught.  In  making  out  the  issue,  they  assign  the  representative  of  the 
other  party  just  as  many  affirmatives  and  negatives  as  they  please,  on  what 
topics  they  please,  and  in  what  order  they  please!  They  tell  him:  "Sir, 
every  proposition  you  afiirm   during  the  whole  correspondence  with  a  refer- 

d2 


43  CORRESPONDENCE. 

ence  to  that  issue,  must  be  considered  as  your  own  ;  and  in  the  end  we  will 
choose  such  of  them  as  we  please,  arrange  them  as  we  please, — and  if  you 
will  not  debate  them,  we  will  report  and  denounce  you  as  a  coward,  and 
claim  for  our  party  a  glorious  victory  ]  !"  This  is  no  exaggeration.  It  is 
but  a  fair  representation  of  the  case,  which,  when  requisite,  I  will  fiilly 
demonstrate. 

I  again  affirm,  before  heaven  and  earth,  I  did  not  contemplate  such  a  de- 
velopment. As  a  christian  man,  I  sincerely  desired  to  discuss  with  chris- 
tian men  what  I  regarded  to  be  the  true  and  principal  points  of  difference. 
I  sought  no  advantage  ;  I  desired  no  advantage.  I  supremely  desired  the 
true  issue,  and  sought  for  propositions  to  elicit  it.  If  I  have  from  time 
to  time,  during  the  incidents  and  labors  of  a  year,  in  reply  to  various  com- 
munications, proposed  various  forms  of  expressing  the  difference,  it  was 
purely  for  the  sake  of  having  it  clearly,  tangibly  and  fully  set  forth.  I 
acted  as  a  party  in  forming  a  covenant,  during  the  negotiation  of  which 
numerous  stipulations  and  re-stipulations  are  offered,  canvassed,  accepted, 
rejected,  amended,  &c.  &c.  ;  but  all  in  reference  to  a  final  agreement. 
Nothing  is  binding  till  the  whole  understanding  is  perfect  and  complete. 
Precisely  so  stands  this  matter  with  me.  The  propositions  offered  yester- 
day are  not  new  propositions.  They  are  mere  amplifications  of  those  al- 
ready offered,  at  the  suggestion  of  those  who  have  a  right  to  be  repre- 
sented in  this  discussion,  with  a  reference  especially  to  this  community. 

I  could  not  have  imagined  that  intelligent.  God-fearing  and  truth-loving 
men,  sincerely  desirous  of  coming  to  the  light,  would  seek  by  quibbles  and 
evasions  to  dodge  the  proper  issue,  or  to  retreat  from  the  proposed  debate, 
unless  every  word  was  so  arranged  and  modified  as  to  suit  their  party,  or  to 
render  ambiguous,  conceal,  or  metamorphose  the  proper  issue. 

My  time  of  life,  business  obligations — all  forbid  the  waste  of  time  in 
engaging  in  frivolous  or  mere  verbal  criticisms.  I  was  pleased  to  be  called 
upon  by  a  party,  for  which  I  have  always  cherished  a  high  respect,  for  a 
full,  manly,  frank  and  christian-like  discussion  of  all  the  great  points  be- 
tween us.  For  this  I  am  prepared ;  but  not  for  a  mere  logomachy — a  wran- 
gle— a  system  of  special  pleading,  for  party  and  sinister  ends.  If  any  point 
were  misstated,  distorted,  or  suppressed,  1  desired  to  have  it  disentangled, 
disintricated,  or  set  forth  in  its  proper  colors  and  proportions.  Any  thing 
from  you  with  such  intentions  would,  at  any  time,  have  commanded  my 
attention  and  acquiesence. 

But,  sir,  to  come  to  a  close,  you  either  intended,  in  the  letter  before  me,  to 
COMPEL  me  to  come  up  to  your  terms,  or  have  no  discussion.  You  are  prepar- 
ing for  a  publication  of  the  correspondence,  and  to  represent  me  as  backing 
out,  because,  forsooth,  of  the  prodigious  champion  and  defender  of  the  faith, 
who  is  to  represent  your  denomination.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Brown,  you  can 
make  any  intelligent  Presbyterian  in  Kentucky  believe  it  ?  If  you  do  you 
are  more  credulous  than  I  thought. 

Having,  then,  so  far  committed  yourselves,  as  to  avow  that  you  will  not 
debate  the  propositions,  as  amplified  in  my  last,  and  as  I  introduced  no  new 
ground  in  the  effort  to  present  them  in  a  more  extended  form,  I  will  take, 
rather  than  have  no  debate,  the  whole  six  propositions,  as  drawn  up  in  your 
letter  before  me,  with  the  simple  change  of  the  first,  on  the  action  of  bap- 
tism, as  proposed  in  my  last.  Or,  if  you  will  not  grant  that,  and  take  for 
it  the  negative  form  of  the  proposition  on  creeds,  I  will  propose  to  take  the 
whole  six,  as  you  have  quoted  them,  by  changing  simply  the  order  of  them, 
which,  I  presume,  you  will  not  pretend  to  have  ever  been  arranged.  Place 
the  proposition  on  creeds  first — that  on  the  Spirit  next — and  then  the  four 
on  baptism.  I  have  not,  as  before  intimated,  the  correspondence  with  me; 
but  of  two  things  I  feel  perfectly  certain,  that  the  whole  six  propositions, 
as  you  have  stated  them,  were  never  all  agreed  upon  as  containing  the 
whole  issue,  nor  was  there  ever  an  agreement  as  to  the  order  of  the  topics 
of  debate.     It  is  then  wholly  at  your  own  option  to  do  one  or  the  other. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  43 

But  certainly  you  will  not  make  the  order  of  the  questions,  nor  the  change 
of  the  form  of  a  proposition,  a  sina  qua  non. 

Please  inform  me  of  your  determination  at  as  early  an  hour  as  suits  your 
convenience.  Respecfully  yours, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

Lexington,  Aug.  5,  1843. 

Elder  A.  Campbell — We  were  a  good  deal  surprised  at  receiving  from 
you,  on  yesterday  afternoon,  between  one  and  two  o'clock,  another  letter, 
which  is  now  before  me.  We  were  surprised,  first,  because  your  previous 
letter  declared  positively,  that  unless  we  acceded  to  your  new  propositions, 
the  matter  was  at  an  end.  We  supposed  that  you  meant  what  you  said, 
and,  therefore,  as  we  could  not  yield  to  your  demands,  considered  the  cor- 
respondence closed.  We  were  surprised,  secondly,  because  you  had  delayed 
to  so  late  an  hour.  We  were  in  Lexington  by  your  invitation,  to  have 
with  you  a  personal  interview.  Yet  after  inviting  us  to  meet  you  here, 
you,  in  palpable  violation  of  ordinary  rules  of  courtesy,  refused  such  inter- 
view, throwing  out  as  a  reason  for  your  course,  some  undefined,  intangible 
insinuations.  Nevertheless,  we  sent  a  reply  to  your  long  letter  in  a  few 
hours  after  receiving  it.  The  committee  were  in  Lexington  till  1  o'clock, 
P.  M.,  without  hearing  a  word  from  you.  I  then  left  for  Frankfort,  expect- 
ing, of  course,  no  reply  to  my  last.  After  tedious  delay,  however,  it  came 
to  hand.     This  fact  will  account  for  the  delay  of  my  reply. 

In  regard  to  the  predictions  of  your  "  prophets,"  and  the  surmises  of 
^  the  scores  of  persons  "  that  have  spoken  to  you,  together  with  what  "  some 
have  said"  of  me,  I  hold  them  all  in  very  low  esteem.  There  always  have 
been  men  who  prophecied  concerning  things  of  which  they  were  profoundly 
ignorant;  individuals,  even  "scores"  of  them,  who  judge  others  by  them- 
selves, and  false  acccusers.  That  such  a  man  as  Mr.  C.  should  condescend 
to  retail  such  trash,  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition,  thai  he  is 
greatly  at  a  loss.     We  stand  ready  to  be  judged  by  our  conduct. 

A  part  of  your  epistle  is  inimitably  confused.  A  reply  to  that  portion  is 
unnecessary.  When  you  come  to  sum  up  the  matter,  however,  the  mist 
disappears  ;  and  we  think  we  get  your  ideas.  You  tell  us,  that  in  making 
out  the  issues  for  this  discussion,  we  assign  to  you  just  as  many  affirmatives 
and  negatives  as  we  please.  What  is  the  fact  1  We  have  precisely  as 
many  affirmatives  and  negatives  as  Mr.  C,  and  no  more  !  But  you  say,  we 
assign  you  the  affirmatives  and  negatives  on  what  topics  we  please.  What 
is  the  fact "?  We  have  three  affirmatives  on  precisely  the  topics  on  which 
Mr.  C.  gave  them  to  us.  On  the  mode,  the  subject,  and  the  administrator 
of  baptism,  you  never  once  offered  us  a  negative,  until  after  we  had  ac- 
cepted the  wliole  of  your  six  propositions  !  Then  you  began  to  place 
new  obstacles  in  the  way.  You  further  say,  we  give  such  affirmatives 
and  negatives  in  what  order  we  please.  What  is  the  fact  T  We  have 
them  precisely  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  offered  us  repeatedly 
by  Mr.  C  !  How  do  these  indisputable  facts  look  by  the  side  of  your 
charges !  ! !  No,  sir,  our  offence  consists  in  the  fact,  that  we  expect  Mr. 
C.  to  discuss  his  own  propositions,  with  his  own  affirmatives  and  negatives,  and 
in  his  own  order ;  and  when  he  positively  refuses,  we  charge  him  with  re- 
treating. 

You  say,  "  The  propositions  offered  on  yesterday,  are  not  new  proposi- 
tions ;  they  are  mere  amplifications  of  those  already  offered."  So  long  as 
we  understand  the  meaning  of  words  in  our  own  language,  it  is  vain  for 
Mr.  C.  to  tell  us,  that  those  propositions  are  the  same  as  those  previously 
offered.  But  if  they  are  the  same,  why  am/j/;/// them  1  We  had  thought 
that  it  was  desirable  to  have  propositions  for  discussion  presented  in  as 
few  words  as  would  definitely  express  the  difference  between  the  parties. 

^\hen  you  come  to  close  your  letter,  your  remarks  are  quite  as  curious  as 
those  already  noticed.     You  say,  "  You  either  intended,  in  the  letter  before 


44  CORRESPONDENCE. 

me,  to  COMPEL  me  to  come  up  to  your  terms,  or  have  no  discussion  "  Now, 
sir,  look  at  your  letter  to  which  mine  was  a  reply.  After  stating  your  new 
propositions,  and  making  your  new  demands,  you  thus  remark,  "  If  to  these 
fair  and  equitable  terms  (!)  you  agree,  I  am  prepared  to  go  into  other  pre- 
liminary arrangements  immediately.  If  not,  say  so,  and  the  matter  ends" 
The  fact  turns  out  to  be,  that  Mr.  C.  intended  by  his  letter  to  force  us  to 
his  terms,  or  have  no  debate.  We  took  him  at  his  word,  and  not  choosing 
to  be  forced,  we  supposed  the  matter  at  an  end.  I  repeat  it,  all  we  ask  of 
Mr.  C.  is,  to  debate  his  own  propositions,  in  his  own  language  and  order. 

But  you  now  say,  "  I  will  take,  rather  than  have  no  debate,  the  whole 
six  propositions,  as  drawn  up  in  your  letter  before  me,  with  the  simple 
change  of  the  first  on  the  action  of  baptism,  as  proposed  in  my  last."  In 
view  of  the  fact,  that  we  have  accepted  your  own  propositions  in  form  and 
order,  and  in  view  of  the  further  fact,  that  you  have  i-eceived  none  of  our 
propositions,  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  allow  any  change  whatever.  In 
your  letter,  of  May  24th,  you  say,  "  You  may,  in  your  reply,  settle  the 
whole  matter  of  the  propositions,  or  you  may  protract  the  subject  for 
months."  How  could  I  settle  the  whole  matter,  unless  by  accepting  your 
propositions  then  and  previously  offered]  They  were  accepted;  and  thus 
the  whole  matter,  as  I  had  a  right  to  believe,  was  settled.  Now  you  refuse 
to  abide  by  the  settlement  called  for  by  yourself!  We  will,  however,  ac- 
commodate you  in  this  matter.  We  accept  your  new  proposition,  on  what 
you  call  the  action  of  baptism,  giving  you  the  affirmative  you  desire,  pro- 
vided that  all  the  propositions  be  discussed  in  the  order  in  which  you  have 
repeatedly  stated,  and  we  have  accepted  them,  and  that  the  other  proposi- 
tions remain  unaltered. 

As  to  the  order  in  which  the  propositions  should  be  debated,  we  have 
simply  agreed  to  the  order  repeatedly  presented  by  yourself.  In  your  letter 
of  June  25th,  you  present  the  propositions,  perhaps,  for  the  third  time,  in 
the  order  in  which  we  are  willing  to  debate  them.  And  in  your  letter  of 
July  13th,  you  say,  in  reference  to  that  of  June  25th,  "  Hence  in  my  last, 
after  hearing  all  the  explanations,  I  drew  out  in  order  and  form  the  propo- 
sitions," &LC.  We  see  no  possible  reason  now  for  changing  the  order  which 
heretofore  you  have  uniformly  considered  the  best. 

We  have  now  conceded  all  that  we  intend  to  concede  in  this  matter. 
We  have  taken  your  own  propositions,  in  your  own  order,  and  we  now 
agree  to  accommodate  you  in  the  change  of  one  of  the  most  important  of 
them.  We  have  been  unnecessarily  detained  by  your  refusal  of  a  personal 
interview,  to  which  you  invited  us.  Two  of  us  are  obliged  to  leave  Lex- 
ington this  afternoon  at  2  o'clock.  If  you  agree  to  go  into  the  discussion, 
as  now  agreed  to  by  us,  we  shall  expect  to  be  informed  of  your  determina- 
tion before  that  hour. 

Concerning  our  motives,  in  this  whole  affair,  we  choose  to  say  nothing. 
We  are  willing  to  have  our  conduct  indicate  them. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

JNO.  H.  BROWN 

Lexington,  Ky.,  August  5,  1843. 
Elder  J.  H.  Brown  : 

Sir — It  is  now  within  a  few  minutes  of  twelve  o'clock,  and  your  letter  of 
this  morning  is  just  received.  You  request  an  answer  in  two  hours  ;  and 
in  the  midst  of  company,  and  various  engagements,  I  cannot  formally  reply 
to  all  that  is  in  your  letter..  The  complimentary  part  of  it,  indeed,  especial- 
ly so  much  of  it  as  you  very  courteously  devote  to  my  "  palpable  violation  of 
ordinary  rules  of  politeness,"  would  seem  to  demand  a  very  special  and  cor- 
dial acknowledgment.  But  as  I  have  not  recognized  your  pretensions  to 
that  chair  of  instruction,  and  consequently  have  not  placed  myself  under 
your  special  tuition,  you  will  please  excuse  my  further  palpable  violation 
of  your  rules  of  politeness  in  not  thanking  you  for  the  compliment.     In  our 


CORRESPONDENCE.  45 

code  of  good  manners,  Mr.  Brown  would  have  called  to  see  me,  especially- 
after  my  journey  of  almost  four  hundred  miles  to  see  him.  But  I  excuse 
him,  Oil  the  ground  that  ministers  of  religion  frequently  study  the  theology 
of  tlie  dark  ages,  and  have  as  good  a  right  to  freedom  of  opinion  on  this,  as 
on  other  subjects. 

As  to  those  dark  and  inscrutable  portions  of  my  epistle,  it  seems  they 
have  answered  their  purpose  so  well,  that  it  would  be  superfluous  now  to 
explain  them.  Touching  one  point,  however,  I  must  say  a  word  or  two, 
viz.  "  the  end  of  the  matter.''^  I  presumed  that  enough  had  been  said  on  the 
propositions  of  debate,  and  that  the  matter  was  never  to  end,  unless  I  gave 
you  such  a  letter  as  that  which  elicited  your  throwing  the  responsibility  of 
no  debate  on  me.  This  you  did  in  such  an  urbane,  respectful  and  gentle- 
manly style,  that  you  constrained  me  to  re-consider  the  matter,  especially 
as  you  threw  so  much  light  upon  the  subject  from  my  former  letters.  But  had 
you  not,  indeed,  produced  those  documents,  and  offered  me  such  a  responsi- 
bility, after  the  just  and  honorable  issue  I  had  offered,  I  certainly  would 
not  have  responded  to  yours  of  the  3d  inst.  You,  however,  changed  my 
premises,  and  of  course  I  changed  my  purposes. 

Although,  then,  I  do  not  cordially  approve  of  the  issue,  as  formed,  it  not 
being  equal,  still,  as  it  is  this  or  nothing,  I  consent  to  the  discussion  of  the 
propositions  as  you  have  stated  them, — I  having  the  affirmative  on  the  ac- 
tion of  baptism,  as  before  stipulated.  Touching  all  the  forms  of  expression 
in  which  these  propositions  have  been  offered,  we  shall,  in  the  course  of 
the  debate,  fully  explain  ourselves. 

I  answered  your  letter  of  yesterday  in  about  as  many  hours  as  you  spent 
on  mine.  I  received  it  at  bed  time,  and  from  breakfast  to  one  o'clock,  the 
period  spent  on  mine,  furnished  a  reply. 

I  am  obliged  to  leave  on  Monday  evening,  and  will  now  request  it  as  a 
favor  to  have  other  matters  attended  to  immediately.  I  shall  be  glad  to  see 
you  at  four  o'clock,  if  possible,  at  Mr.  Henry  Bell's  ;  or  I  will  wait  upon 
you,  at  any  place  you  may  appoint,  at  that  hour,  or  on  Monday  morning. 

Please  favor  me  with  an  immediate  reply,  at  Dr.  Fishback's. 

Respectfully,  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Lexington,  Ky.,  August  5,  1843. 

Elder  A.  Campbell  : — Yours  of  this  date  is  before  me.  It  is  indeed 
well  that  we  have  no  written,  authoritative  code  of  politeness,  as  to  some 
whose  theology  wears  a  modern  garb,  it  might  be  more  intolerable  than 
even  creeds.  It  is  well,  as  it  turns  out,  that  I  did  not  call  to  see  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, since,  in  his  existing  state  of  mind,  having  just  heard  divers  things 
terrific,  he  would  have  declined  a  personal  interview.  Ignorant,  however, 
of  all  such  rumors,  I  expected,  on  reaching  Lexington,  at  the  hour  and  the 
place  mentioned  in  my  letter,  to  receive  a  note  from  Mr.  C,  informing  the 
committee  where  they  might  see  him.  I  did  receive  a  letter,  declining  the 
interview  proposed  by  himself! 

We  are  quite  happy  in  witnessing  the  effects  of  our  epistle  of  the  3d  inst. 
But  for  that,  it  seems,  we  should  have  had  no  debate.  The  propositions, 
as  tc  language  and  order,  having  been  agreed  upon,  we  are  prepared  to  at- 
tend to  other  preliminaries.  We  cannot,  however,  meet  you  this  after- 
noon, as  two  of  us  have  appointments  for  Sabbath,  in  order  to  fill  which  we 
must  immediately  leave  Lexington.  We  will  meet  you,  God  permitting, 
on  Monday  morning  at  eleven  o'clock,  at  the  house  of  Dr.  Bell,  on  Hill 
street,  unless  you  prefer  some  other  place,  of  which  you  will  of  course  irt- 
form  us. 

We  desire  now  to  suggest  the  propriety  and  importance  of  publishing  our 
correspondence  as  soon  as  possible,  without  note  or  comment.  We  deem 
this  course  desirable,  to  prevent  the  circulation  of  false  rumors,  which  may 
be  inj  irious  to  either  party  or  to  both. 

Respectfully,  J.  H.  BROWN. 


46  PRELIMINARIES. 

Lexington,  Ky.,  August  7,  1843. 

Elder  Brown — Your  proposition  to  publish  immediately  our  correspon- 
dence touching  the  contemplated  discussion,  without  note  or  comment,  has 
been  duly  considered. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  unusual  to  publish  such  correspondence  before  the 
debate  is  published.  In  the  second  place,  not  having  the  correspondence 
with  me,  and  believing  that  the  representations  in  your  letter  of  the  3d 
inst.  are  not  in  exact  accordance  witii  it,  I  could  not  consent  to  its  publica- 
tion till  I  have  examined  it.  And  in  the  third  place,  that  those  who  may 
assemble  to  hear  the  discussion  may  hear  with  candor  and  impartiality,  it 
is,  in  my  judgment,  better  that  they  should  not  read  the  correspondence  till 
they  have  heard  the  discussion.  For  the  above  reasons,  I  cannot  consent 
to  the  proposition  to  publish  at  this  time. 

I  expect  to  meet  you  to-day,  at  the  time  and  place  appointed. 

Respectfully,  A.  CAMPBELL. 


PRELIMINARIES. 

Reformed  Church,  Lexington,  Kentucky,  ) 

Wednesday  Morning,  lOi  o'^clock,  J^ov.  15,  1843.  \ 
This  being  the  time  and  place  appointed  for  a  commencement  of  the  dis- 
cussion between  the  Rev.  Alexander  Campbell,  of  Bethany,  Virginia,  and 
the  Rev.  Nathan  L.  Rice,  of  Paris,  Kentucky:  the  president,  moderators, 
debators,  stenograpliers,  committees,  and  an  audience  of  some  two  thousand 
persons,  having,  in  pursuance  of  previous  notice,  assembled  on  this  inter- 
esting occasion  ;  and  a  copy  of  the  programme,  presenting  the  points  at 
issue,  having  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  moderators,  the  Honorable 
Henry  Clay,  president  of  the  board,  rose  and  remarked  as  follows : 

It  is  presumed  that  the  object  for  which  this  assembly  is  now  convened, 
is  known  to  every  person  in  attendance. 

I  understand,  that  the  gentlemen  who  are  to  discuss  the  highly  interest- 
ing topics,  embraced  in  this  printed  programme,  are  now  prepared  to 
proceed  to  the  discussion.  Before  they  do  so,  however,  on  an  occasion  so 
grave,  so  interesting,  and  one  in  which  there  should  be  perfect  order,  it  is 
proper  to  observe,  that  it  is  the  prevailing  usage  every  where  ;  it  is  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  of  religion,  with  which  this  subject  is  so  intimately  con- 
nected, that  there  should  Ije  no  confusion:  and  I  trust,  there  will  be  a 
preservation  of  order,  and  undivided  attention  during  the  whole  progress  of 
the  debate.  In  the  mean  time,  one  of  the  clergymen  present  is  prepared  to 
invoke  the  blessing  of  heaven. 

Whereupon,  the  Rev.  Joseph  Bullock  being  called  upon,  arose  and  prayed 
as  follows : 

O,  thou  Great  and  Eternal  God,  who  art  the  Creator,  the  Preserver,  and 
the  Governor  of  the  universe,  we  desire  this  morning  to  look  up  to  thee 
for  thy  blessing  to  rest  upon  us.  We  pray  that  we  may  be  under  the 
guidance  of  thy  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  thou  wouldst  enable  us,  while  assem- 
bled together,  to  give  heed  to  the  discussion,  which  is  about  to  take  place 
in  our  hearing.  We  pray  that  all  may  have  a  sincere  desire  to  know  the 
truth  :  and  when  the  truth  is  proclaimed,  we  ^ray  that  we  may  be  enabled  to 
receive  it  in  the  love  of  it,  and  that  it  may  spring  up  and  bring  forth  fruit 
unto  eternal  life. 

Our  Father,  we  pray  that  our  meeting  may  not  be  in  vain,  but  that 


PRELIMINARIES.  47 

much  good  may  be  done  in  the  name  of  thy  Son.  May  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  of  righteousness,  and  of  holiness,  be  advanced.  And  may  the  discus- 
sion which  is  now  being  entered  upon,  be  followed  by  great  and  manifold 
blessings,  not  only  to  the  assembly  now  present,  but  to  those  who  may 
attend  trom  time  to  time.  Especially,  may  those  engaged  in  this  discussion 
be  guided  by  that  wisdom  which  cometh  down  from  above  ;  which  is  first 
pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated  ;  full  of  mercy  and 
good  fruits  ;  without  partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy. 

We  beseech  thee,  our  Father,  to  keep  us  all  from  error  and  delusion,  and 
guide  us  in  the  right  path — in  that  straight  and  narrow  path  which  leads  to 
heaven  and  to  God. 

Wilt  thou  be  with  us  all,  not  only  while  assembled  here,  but  be  our  guide 
and  our  support  through  all  the  journey  of  life  ;  and  when  we  come  to  lie 
down  upon  our  beds  of  death,  grant  unto  us  the  unspeakable  consolations  of 
thy  gospel,  and  finally  receive  us  all  into  thy  kingdom  above,  to  dwell  with 
thee  through  ceaseless  ages  of  eternity. 

We  ask  for  Christ,  our  Redeemer's  sake.     Amen. 

RULES  OF  DISCUSSION. 

1.  The  debate  shall  commence  on  Wednesday,  15th  November. 

2.  To  be  held  in  the  Reform  Church. 

3.  Judge  Robertson,  selected  by  Mr.  Rice,  as  moderator.  Col.  Speed 
Smith,  selected  by  Mr.  Campbell.  And  agreed  that  these  two  shall  select 
a  president-moderator.  In  case  of  either  of  the  above  named  gentlemen 
declining  to  act.  Judge  Breck  was  selected  by  Mr.  Rice,  as  alternate  to 
Judge  Robertson — and  Col.  Caperton  as  alternate  to  Col.  Speed  Smith. 

4.  In  the  opening  of  each  new  subject,  the  affirmant  shall  occupy  one 
hour,  and  the  respondent  the  same  time  ;  and  each  thereafter  half  hour 
alternately  to  the  termination  of  each  subject.  The  debate  shall  commence 
at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  continue  until  2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  unless  hereafter 
changed. 

5.  On  the  final  negative  no  new  matter  shall  be  introduced 

6.  The  pz-opositions  for  discussion  are  the  following: 

I.  The  immersion  in  water  of  a  proper  subject,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one,  only  apostolic  or  chris- 
tian baptism,     Mr.  Campbell  affirms — Mr.  Rice  denies. 

II.  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. 
Mr.  Rice  affirms — Mr.  Campbell  denies. 

III.  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins.  Mr.  Campbell 
affirms — Mr.  Rice  denies. 

IV.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or  ordained  pres- 
byter.    Mr.  Rice  affirms — Mr.  Campbell  denies, 

V.  In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on 
persons  only  through  the  word  of  truth.  Mr.  Campbell  affirms — Mr. 
Rice  denies. 

VI.  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessa- 
rily heretical  and  schismatical.     Mr.  Campbell  affirms — Mr.  Rice  denies. 

6.  No  question  shall  be  discussed  more  than  three  days,  unless  by  agree- 
ment of  parties. 

7.  Each  debatant  shall  furnish  a  stenographer. 

8.  It  shall  be  the  privilege  of  tlie  debaters  to  make  any  verbal  or  gram- 
matical changes  in  the  stenographer's  report,  that  shall  not  alter  the  state 
of  the  argument,  or  change  any  fact. 

9.  The  nett  available  amount,  resulting  from  the  publication,  shall  be 
equally  divided  between  the  two  American  Bible  Societies. 


48  PRELIMINARIES. 

10.  This  discussion  shall  be  conducted  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Fishback, 
President  Shannon,  John  Smith,  and  A.  Raines,  on  the  part  of  the  Refor- 
mation ;  and  President  Young,  James  K.  Burch,  J.  F.  Price,  and  John  H. 
Brown,  on  the  part  of  Presbyterianism. 

11.  The  debatants  agree  to  adopt  as  "  rules  of  decorum  "  those  found  in 
Hedges'  Logic,  p.  159,  to-wit : 

Rule  1.  The  terms  in  which  the  question  in  debate  is  expressed,  and  the 
point  at  issue,  should  be  clearly  defined,  that  there  could  be  no  misunder- 
standing respecting  them. 

Rule  2.  The  parties  should  mutually  consider  each  other  as  standing  on 
a  footing  of  equality,  in  respect  to  the  subject  in  debate.  Each  should  regard 
the  other  as  possessing  equal  talents,  knowledge,  and  a  desire  for  truth  with 
himself;  and  that  it  is  possible,  therefore,  that  he  may  be  in  the  wrong,  and 
his  adversary  in  the  right. 

Rule  3.  All  expressions  which  are  unmeaning,  or  without  effect  in 
regard  to  the  subject  in  debate,  should  be  strictly  avoided. 

Rule  4.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary  should,  in  no  instance,  be 
indulged. 

Rule  5.  The  consequences  of  any  doctrine  are  not  to  be  charged  on  him 
who  maintains  it,  unless  he  expressly  avows  them. 

Rule  6.  As  truth,  and  not  victory,  is  the  professed  object  of  controversy, 
whatever  proofs  may  be  advanced,  on  either  side,  should  be  examined  with 
fairness  and  candor ;  and  any  attempt  to  answer  an  adversary  by  arts  of 
sophistry,  or  to  lessen  the  force  of  his  reasoning  by  wit,  cavilling  or  ridi- 
cule, is  a  violation  of  the  rules  of  honorable  controversy. 

[Signed.]        A.  CAMPBELL. 
N.  L.  RICE 


DEBATE     . 


ON 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Wednesday,  Nov.  15,  1843 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mvi.  Campbell's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President, — I  feel  myself  peculiarly  happy  in  being  specially 
called,  in  the  good  providence  of  God,  to  appear  before  you,  sir,  and  your 
honorable  associates,  in  the  midst  of  this  great  community,  to  act  an  hum- 
ble part  in  that  long-protracted  controversy,  commenced  more  than  three 
centuries  ago,  when  the  Genius  of  Protestantism  first  propounded  to 
Europe  and  the  world  the  momentous  and  prolific  questions,  Is  the  Bible 
an  intelligent  document  ?  Is  it  a  book  to  be  read  by  all  the  people  ? 
Does  it  fully  contain  and  clearly  reveal  the  Avhole  duty  and  happiness  of 
man  ?  The  bold  and  intrepid  Luther  promptly  responded  in  the  affirma- 
tive ;  and  immediately  a  numerous  host  gave  in  their  adhesion,  seconded 
his  efforts,  erected  their  standard,  unfurled  their  banners,  and  rallied  under 
the  sublime  motto.  The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible 
is  the  religion  of  Protestants. 

The  pope,  his  cardinals,  and  his  lordly  prelates,  heard,  with  a  scornful 
and  indignant  smile,  this  bold  and  comprehensive  declaration  of  indepen- 
dence. Little  did  his  Roman  holiness,  Leo  X.,  and  the  lions  around  him 
imagine  what  mighty  revolutions  of  empire,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  were 
concealed  under  those  symbols.  No  one,  indeed,  then  living,  compre- 
hended that  motto  in  all  its  amplitude.  None  saw  that  the  regeneration 
of  a  world  was  in  it.  None  anticipated  the  mighty  impetus  it  was  about 
to  impart  to  the  human  mind,  to  the  cause  of  human  government,  to  the 
advancement  of  civilization,  to  the  eternal  redemption  of  the  Avorld  from 
ignorance,  error,  and  crime. 

It  was  not  merely  a  renunciation  of  popery — of  all  sorts  of  popery, 
ecclesiastical  and  political ;  it  was  not  merely  a  renunciation  of  despotism, 
of  tyranny,  of  anarchy,  of  misrule,  of  every  species  of  cruelty  and  op- 
pression on  account  of  opinions,  on  account  of  human  traditions  or  polit- 
ical interests  ;  it  asserted  the  rights  of  man — liberty  of  thought,  liberty  of 
speech,  and  liberty  of  action.  It  asserted  that  God  had  no  vicegerent  on 
earth,  no  representative  amongst  men ;  that  he  alone  is  Lord  of  the  con- 
science. 

From  that  moment  to  the  present  the  march  of  mind  has  been  onward 
and  upward.  The  mighty  spell  that  had  for  ages  held  all  Christendom 
in  abject  slavery  to  kings  and  priests,  those  demigods  of  human  admira- 
tion and  Avorship,  began  to  be  broken.  Opinions  held  sacred  from  times 
immemorial  began  to  be  discussed ;  learning  awoke  from  the  slumber  of 
4  E  49 


50  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

centuries ;  science  assumed  her  proper  rank :  the  arts,  both  useful  and 
ornamental,  began  to  be  cultivated  with  new  vigor ;  and  Protestant  socie- 
ty, at  least,  laid  aside  the  austere  sanctimoniousness  of  a  religious  grimace, 
put  off'  the  cowl  of  superstition,  and  appeared  in  the  more  pleasing  cos- 
tume of  an  open  countenance,  a  smiling  face,  a  generous  heart  and  a  more 
spiritual  devotion. 

Still,  however,  all  error  was  not  detected,  discussed,  and  repudiated. 
The  human  mind,  like  the  human  body,  takes  but  one  short  step  at  a 
time ;  and  that  step  rather  indicates  the  decrepitude  and  feebleness  of  age 
than  the  vigor  and  energy  of  youth.  Unfortunately,  Protestantism  soon 
obtained  favor  at  court,  and  immediately  mounted  the  throne  of  the  great- 
est empire  in  the  world :  and  in  doing  this,  she  had  to  retain  so  many  of 
the  traditions  and  doctrines  of  the  fathers  as  secured  the  favor  of  kings 
and  princes,  and  flattered  the  pretensions  of  bishops,  archbishops  and 
their  dependents,  who  in  affection  were  wedded  to  Rome ;  whilst  they 
abjured  her  power  merely  because  it  eclipsed  and  diminished  their  own. 

The  leaven  of  popery,  sir,  still  works  in  both  church  and  state.  The 
hierarchies  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Protestant  Germany,  alas  !  too 
fully  substantiate  the  allegation.  Oxford  is  not  the  only  university,  nor 
her  tracts  the  only  documents  which  show  a  professed  sympathy  with 
some  of  the  bolder  attributes  and  views  of  the  Papal  power.  That  sym- 
pathy is  clearly  evinced  on  the  continents  of  Europe  and  America ;  and 
what  strange  involutions  and  evolutions  may  yet  farther  characterize  its 
movements,  the  pages  of  the  future  alone  can  disclose. 

The  power  of  Protestantism  in  some  important  points  of  view  is  com- 
paratively feeble — greatly  feeble.  Its  strength  lies  in  the  leading  truths 
of  the  system.  Its  feebleness  is  wholly  owing  to  errors  long  cherished, 
and  still  sought  to  be  maintained  as  fundamental  tmiths,  by  many  of  its 
warmest  friends  and  admirers.  These  errors  make  parties.  For,  while 
truth  is  essentially  attractive  and  conservative,  error  is  necessarily  repel- 
lant  and  divisive.  Numerous  as  the  sects,  that  have  impaired  the  Protest- 
ant influence  and  power,  are  the  errors  that  have  generated  them.  Every 
party  has  its  truth,  and,  probably,  its  error  too.  For,  even  wlien  truth 
makes  a  party,  eiTor  not  only  occasions  it,  but  infuses  itself  into  the  sys- 
tem. Good  and  wise  men,  of  all  parties,  are  turning  their  attention  more 
and  more  to  the  causes  and  occasions  of  schism ;  and  that,  too,  from  an 
ardent  wish  to  fathom  the  occult  causes  of  so  much  discord  amongst 
brethren ;  in  the  hope,  too,  of  discovering  some  grand  scheme  of  union 
and  fraternal  co-operation  in  the  cause  of  our  common  Christianity. 

The  last  century  terminated  with  the  downfall  of  consolidated  Atheism 
in  France,  after  a  reign  of  terror,  the  darkest  and  most  desolating  on  the 
rolls  of  time.  All  Europe  stood  aghast  at  the  awful  spectacle,  and  saw 
in  it  developments  of  the  tendencies  of  sectarian  discords,  that  suggested 
to  the  reflecting  and  intelligent,  the  necessity  of  some  very  important 
changes  in  the  social  system.  One  of  the  results  was,  that  the  present 
century  was  ushered  in  with  the  formation  of  one  grand  Bible  society, 
composed  of  various  denominations,  cherishing  the  truly  magnanimous 
and  splendid  scheme  of  giving  the  Bible,  without  note  or  comment,  to  the 
whole  family  of  man  ;  so  that  every  man  might  read  in  his  own  language 
the  wonderful  works  of  God. 

This  truly  henig^nant  scheme  has,  in  various  ways,  already  contributed 
greatly  to  tlie  introduction  of  a  brighter  and  a  better  era.  The  project  of 
divesting  the  mai-gin  of  the  sacred  writings  of  prophets  and  apostles  of 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  51 

the  cumbrous  inscriptions  of  sectarian  tenets  and  traditions — the  dogmata 
of  all  schism — under  the  insidious  pretence  and  tides  of  Notes  and  Com- 
ments on  the  Sacred  Text,  has  given  a  new  impulse  to  the  mind,  because 
it  has  proposed  the  Bible  to  mankind  in  harmony  with  the  great  Protes- 
tant motto.  A  new  and  improved  system  of  Hermaneutics  is  another 
happy  effect  of  the  attempt  to  make  man,  more  or  less,  his  own  interpre- 
ter of  the  testimonies  of  God.  The  improvements  in  sacred  criticism, 
and  in  biblical  philology  in  general,  have  already  elevated  the  present 
century  above  the  last,  as  the  sixteenth  excelled  the  fifteenth  in  the  grand 
developments  of  truth,  and  of  the  elementary  principles  of  a  new  order 
of  things. 

No  living  man  can  fully  estimate  the  exact  momentum  of  the  principles 
at  work  in  his  own  time.  The  objects  that  obtrude  upon  his  considera- 
tion are  too  near  him  to  be  seen  in  all  their  just  proportions.  Time,  that 
great  revealer  of  secrets  and  infallible  exponent  of  the  wisdom  of  all  hu- 
man schemes,  must  pass  its  solemn  verdict  upon  every  human  enterprise 
before  its  proper  character  can  be  fully  and  justly  appreciated. 

The  points  of  debate  on  the  present  occasion  may,  to  some  minds  not 
conversant  with  such  matters,  appear  to  embrace  points  extremely  frivo- 
lous and  unimportant.  The  question,  for  example,  of  baptism,  as  re- 
spects its  action,  whether  it  shall  be  understood  to  mean  sprinkling  or 
immersing,  is  frequently  made  to  assume  no  higher  importance  than  that 
of  a  mere  scufHe  about  the  difl'erence  between  a  large  and  a  small  basin 
of  water.  It  is,  indeed,  an  elementary  question ;  yet  it  may  possiblv 
have  much  of  the  fortunes  of  Christendom  in  its  bosom.  It  stands  to  the 
whole  christian  profession  as  circumcision  to  a  Jew,  as  hereditary  de- 
scent to  a  British  lord,  or  the  elective  franchise  to  an  American  citizen. 

Let  no  one  undervalue  the  points  at  issue  in  the  present  controversy. 
Let  no  one  be  startled  when  I  afhrm  the  conviction,  that,  in  the  questions 
to  be  discussed  on  the  present  occasion,  the  fortunes  of  America,  of  Eu- 
rope and  the  world,  are  greatly  involved.  Can  that  be  regarded  by  the 
mere  politician  (to  say  nothing  of  the  philanthropist  or  the  christian)  as  a 
minor  matter  which  gives  to  the  pope  of  Rome  one  hundred  millions  of 
subjects  every  three  and  thirty  years;  and  that,  too,  without  a  single 
thought,  volition  or  action  of  their  ov/n?  Can  any  one  regard  that  as  a 
very  unimportant  ceremony,  which  binds  forever  to  the  Papal  throne  so 
many  of  our  race,  by  five  drops  of  water  and  the  sign  of  a  cross  imposed 
upon  them  with  their  christian  name  ?  The  omission  of  an  h  in  pro- 
nouncing a  word  became,  providentially,  the  occasion  of  the  slaughter  of 
forty-two  thousand  Ephraimites  in  one  day ;  the  conversion  of  an  o  into 
an  i  divided  the  ecclesiastic  Roman  empire  into  two  great  parties,  which 
disturbed  its  peace,  fostered  internal  wars,  and  exhausted  its  blood  and 
treasure  for  a  succession  of  several  imperial  reigns ;  and  the  eating  of  an 
apple  brought  sin  and  death  into  our  world,  and  has  already  swept  the 
earth  clean  of  all  its  inhabitants  more  than  one  hundred  times.  Let  no 
one,  therefore,  regard  anything  in  religion  or  morals  as  excessively 
minute,  or  unworthy  of  the  highest  conscientious  regard.  There  is  some- 
times more  in  a  monosyllable  than  in  a  folio.  A  Yes,  or  a  No  has  slain 
millions ;  while  a  thousand  volumes  have  been  written  and  read  without 
any  visible  disaster  to  any  human  being. 

The  greatest  debate  in  the  annals  of  time,  so  far  as  consequences  were 
involved,  was  upon  the  proper  interpretation  of  a  positive  precept.  The 
fortunes,  not  of  a  single  nation,  of  an  empire,  or  of  an  age,  but  of  a 


52  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

world  were  staked  upon  its  decision.  The  parties  consisted  of  two 
persons :  the  word  in  debate  was  Die ;  and  because  of  the  misrepresen- 
tation of  it  one  of  the  parties  lost  paradise,  and  gained  labor,  and  sorrow, 
and  death.  In  this  world  we  have  great  little  matters,  as  well  as  little 
great  matters.  To  the  former  class  belongs  the  affairs  of  kingdoms,  em- 
pires and  of  all  time :  to  the  latter,  individual  purity,  holiness,  happiness. 
To  infinite  space,  an  atom  and  a  mountain  bear  the  same  proportions. 
In  the  presence  of  endless  duration,  a  moment  and  an  age  are  equal.  If, 
then,  by  a  drop  of  water  and  the  sign  of  the  cross,  Gregory  XVI.  sits 
on  yonder  gorgeous  throne  in  the  midst  of  the  Vatican,  worshiped  by 
more  than  one  hundred  millions  of  human  beings;  and  if  the  Protestant 
Pedo-baptist  churches  in  America  annually  increase  more  by  the  touch 
of  a  moistened  finger  than  by  all  the  eloquence  of  their  seven  thousand 
ministers ;  then,  I  ask,  is  not  so  much  of  the  present  discussion  as  per- 
tains to  that  single  rite  of  transcendent  importance  to  this  nation  and  peo- 
ple, whether  contemplated  in  their  ecclesiastical  or  political  character? 

In  justice  to  my  respondent  and  his  church,  I  must  distinctly  state  that 
this  community  are  not  at  all  indebted  to  me  for  the  present  discussion. 
It  originated  with  our  zealous  and  indefatigable  Presbyterian  brethren, 
who  have  ever  been  forward  in  the  great  and  good  work  of  religious  con- 
troversy ;  and,  as  an  apostle  commands  us  to  render  honor  to  whom 
honor  is  due,  we  must  award  to  them  the  honor  of  the  present  debate  and 
all  its  happy  influences.  The  present  interview,  when  solicited  by  Mr. 
Brown,  [Rev.  John  H.  Brown,  of  Richmond,  Ky.,]  was  indeed  acceded 
to  on  my  part  with  an  express  and  covenanted  understanding,  that  it  was 
to  be  a  frank,  candid,  full,  and  amicable  discussion  of  the  great  points  of 
difference  between  us  ;  that  each  party  was  to  afiirm  and  maintain  what 
it  taught,  and  thus  give  to  our  respective  communities  authentic  views  of 
our  peculiar  tenets,  so  far  as  they  may  materially  conflict  with  each 
other;  and  thus  furnish  the  public  with  a  book  containing  the  numerous 
and  various  arguments  by  which  our  respective  tenets  may  be  assailed 
and  defended.  That  the  discussion  might  have  all  authority  with  the 
people,  it  was  stipulated  that,  in  case  of  a  single  combat,  one  person 
should  be  chosen  as  the  oracle  of  the  parly,  with  whom  I  would  enter 
into  a  formal  debate  on  all  these  questions;  and  that  other  ministers 
should  be  present  as  helps  and  counsellors.  I  am  happy  in  having  the 
assurance  that  my  friend  [Mr.  Rice]  appears  here,  in  consequence  of 
that  agreement,  as  the  elect  debatant,  chosen  by  his  brethren  while  assem- 
bled at  synod — being  not  only  one  of  the  five  persons  chosen  at  the 
meeting  of  the  synod,  but  also  the  one  chosen  by  the  other  four,  and  com- 
mended to  my  acceptance  by  Mr.  Brown,  one  of  his  electors,  in  the 
words  following:  "  We  have  selected  the  man  into  whose  hands  we  think 
proper  to  commit  the  defence  of  our  cause.  His  standing  is  well  knowB 
in  Kentucky  and  out  of  it.  We  will  not  select  another."  To  add  to  mj 
satisfaction,  he  [Mr.  Rice,]  is  also  aided  and  sustained  by  a  learneii 
cohort  of  divines  of  high  standing  in  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  and  not  by 
these  only,  but  doubtless  by  many  others,  present  and  absent.  Such  an 
array  of  talent,  learning,  and  piety  would  seem  to  authorize  the  confident 
expectation  that,  if  those  tenets  of  his  party  from  which  we  dissent  can 
be  convincingly  maintained  and  made  acceptable  to  this  community,  it 
will  now  be  done. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  I  am  now  assured  that  my  friend  [Mr.  Rice]  is 
not  compelled  into  this  discussion  by  the  mere  authority  and  importunity 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  5S 

of  his  brethren,  but  that  he  enters  into  the  business  as  one  that  long  and 
ardently  panted  to  render  some  distinguished  service  to  the  church  of  his 
ancestors  and  of  his  adoption,  and  to  deliver  himself  on  the  great  ques- 
tions now  before  us.  It  is  our  singular  good  fortune  to  meet  on  this 
arena  a  gentleman  exceedingly  zealous  for  the  doctrines  and  traditions  of 
his  church,  and  who,  for  one  year  at  least,  if  not  for  several  years  past, 
has  been  in  habitual  preparation  for  such  an  occasion  as  the  present.  So 
desirous  of  merited  applause,  and  so  untiring  in  his  zeal  and  devotion  to 
ancient  orthodoxy,  he  has  been  in  one  continued  series  of  conflicts,  wrest- 
ling with  tongue  and  pen — entering  the  lists  with  all  sorts  of  disputants, 
Baptists  and  Reformers,  old  and  young,  experienced  and  inexperienced, 
and,  in  amicable  discussion,  breaking  numerous  lances  upon  the  brazen 
shields  and  steel  caps  of  such  members  of  the  church  militant  as  either 
foreordination  or  contingency  threw  in  his  way — and  on  these  very  sub- 
jects now  before  us.  Neither  his  devotion  to  the  cause  of  truth  nor  his 
labors  of  love,  have  been  confined  to  Kentucky ;  but,  in  his  pious  oppo- 
sition to  heresies  and  heretics,  like  one  of  old,  he  has  pursued  them  into 
foreign  cities.  Nashville  yet  resounds  with  the  praises  of  his  zeal  and 
the  fame  of  his  achievements  in  the  cause  of  Presbyterianism.  If,  then, 
flaw  or  weakness  there  be  in  that  series  of  arguments  and  evidences  that 
I  am  prepared  to  offer  on  the  present  occasion,  or  if  my  facts  and  docu- 
ments are  not  true  and  veritable,  I  have  every  reason  to  expect  a  full  and 
thorough  exposition  of  them.  But  should  they  pass  the  fiery  ordeal  of 
the  intense  genius  and  vigorous  analysis  to  which  they  are  now  to  be 
subjected,  may  I  not,  in  common  with  those  who  espouse  them,  repose 
on  them  as  arguments  and  proofs  irrefragably  strong  and  enduring? 

The  questions  to  be  discussed  on  the  present  occasion  are,  it  is  con- 
ceded on  all  hands,  not  only  elementary  and  fundamental,  but  of  vital  im- 
portance to  every  saint  and  sinner  in  the  world.  They  alike  enter  into 
the  peculiar  essence  and  living  form  of  the  christian  religion.  Accurate 
and  comprehensive  views  of  them,  not  only  promote  the  purity  and  hap- 
piness of  the  individual,  but  also  conduce  to  the  union  of  christians  and 
the  conversion  of  the  world.  So  long  as  we  have  in  the  christian  profes- 
sion two  faiths,  two  baptisms,  and  two  Spirits,  we  shall  have  a  plurality 
of  bodies  ecclesiastic  arrayed  in  open  hostility  to  each  otlier ;  and  by  con- 
sequence, the  whole  train  of  evils  and  misfortunes  incident  to  alienated 
affections  and  rival  interests.  I  rejoice  in  the  present  discussion,  because 
it  strikes  at  the  three  main  roots  of  modern  partyism — the  creeds,  the 
baptisms,  and  the  spirits  of  moral  philosophy  and  human  expediency. 
Before  a  holier  and  a  happier  era,  we  must  resume  the  original  basis  of 
one  Lord,  one  Creed,  one  Baptism,  one  Spirit.  United  on  these  we 
stand :  divided  we  fall.  These  opinions,  creeds,  baptisms,  and  spirits 
must  be  repudiated.  Hence  the  necessity  of  discussion.  Either  there 
must  be  a  conviction  of  those  errors  and  a  repudiation  of  them,  else  an 
agreement  to  regard  them  as  matters  of  opinion,  as  matters  of  forbear- 
ance, and  take  no  account  of  them.  One  of  these  results  is  essential 
to  union. 

"With  these  views  and  convictions,  and  with  a  supreme  desire  for  holy 
union,  harmony,  and  love  in  the  truth,  and  for  the  truth's  sake,  with  all 
them  that  believe,  love  and  obey  it,  I  consent  unto  the  present  discussion. 
The  two  baptisms,  the  human  and  the  divine,  are  first  in  order.  In  dis- 
tributing the  subject  into  its  proper  parts,  four  questions  arise  :  What 
is  the  action  called  baptism ?  who  is  the  subject?  what  its  design?  and 

e2 


54  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

wlio  may  administer  it?  Without  further  introduction,  I  proceed  to  the 
first  proposition :  and  may  the  Spirit  of  all  wisdom  and  revelalion  direct 
our  deliberations,  subdue  all  pride  of  opinion,  restrain  every  illicit  desire 
of  human  approbation,  inspire  our  souls  vvith  the  love  of  truth  rather  than 
of  victory,  lead  our  investigations  to  the  happiest  issue,  and  give  to  this 
discussion  an  extensive  and  long-enduring  influence  in  healing  divisions, 
in  promoting  peace,  and  in  extending  the  empire  of  truth  over  myriads 
of  minds  enthralled  by  error  and  oppressed  with  the  doctrines  and  com- 
mandments of  men ! 

My  proposition  is.  That  immersion  in  i.cater,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  only  christian 
baptism. 

In  the  commission  which  the  Messiah  gave  to  his  apostles  for  convert- 
ing the  nations,  he  commanded  three  things  to  be  dene,  indicated  by  three 
very  distinct  and  intelligible  terms,  to  wit:  matheteusate,  baptizontes, 
didaskontes.  Unfortunately,  one  of  these  three  Greek  words  has  become 
a  subject  of  much  controversy.  While  all  agree  that  the  first  term  may 
be  literally  and  properly  rendered  "make  disciples,"  and  the  last  "teach- 
ing them,"  the  second,  not  being  translated  but  transferred  into  our  lan- 
guage, is  by  some  understood  to  mean  sprinkling,  hy  oi\vexs  pouring,  by 
a  third  class  immersing,  and  by  a  fourth  class  purifying  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Fortunately,  the  meaning  of  any  word — Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  or 
English — is  a  question  not  of  opinion,  but  a  question  of  fact ;  and,  being 
a  plain  question  of  fact,  it  is  to  be  ascertained  by  competent  Avitnesses,  or 
by  a  sufficient  induction  of  particular  occurrences  of  the  word,  at  different 
times  on  various  subjects  and  by  different  persons.  All  good  dictiona- 
ries, in  all  languages,  are  made  upon  a  full  examination  of  particular 
occurrences — upon  a  sufficient  induction  of  distinct  instances — and  con- 
vey the  true  meaning  of  a  word  at  any  given  period  of  its  history. 

The  action,  then,  which  Jesus  Christ  commanded  to  be  done  in  the 
word  baptizo,  is  to  be  ascertained  in  just  the  same  manner  as  the  action 
enjoined  in  matheteuo,  or  that  commanded  in  didusko,  its  associates  in 
the  commission.  We  ask  no  other  law  or  tribunal  for  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  than  for  ascertaining  the  sense  of  matheteuo  or 
didasko.  They  are  all  to  be  determined  philologically,  as  all  other  for- 
eign and  ancient  terms,  by  the  well  established  canons  of  interpretation. 
From  a  candid,  judicious,  impartial  application  of  these  laws,  there  is  not 
the  least  difficulty  in  the  case. 

There  is,  indeed,  less  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the 
word  baptizo,  than  that  of  either  of  the  other  words  standing  with  it  in 
the  commission ;  because  it  is  a  word  moi'e  restricted,  more  circum- 
scribed and  appropriated  in  its  acceptation  than  either  of  its  companions ; 
because,  moreover,  it  is  a  word  of  specification,  and  not  so  general  and 
undefined  as  matheteuo  or  didasko — "  making  disciples,"  and  "  teachnig 
them."  It  indicates  an  outward  and  formal  action  into  the  awful  name 
of  the  whole  divinity;  and  consequendy,  a  priori,  we  would  be  led  to 
regard  it  as  a  most  specific  and  well  defined  term.  The  action  was  to  be 
performed  by  one  person  upon  another  person,  and  in  the  most  solemn 
manner. 

Besides,  it  is  a  most  peculiar  and  positive  ordinance.  All  admit  that 
baptism  is  a  positive  ordinance,  and  that  positive  precepts,  as  contradis- 
tinguished from  moral  precepts,  indicate  the  special  will  of  a  sovereign  ia 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  55 

some  exact  and  well  defined  action ;  the  nature,  form  and  necessity  of 
which  arise  not  from  our  own  a  priori  reasonings  about  utility  or  expedi- 
ency, but  from  the  clearly  expressed  will  of  the  lawgiver.  It  is  farther 
universally  agreed  that  circumcision  was  a  positive  and  not  a  moral  insti- 
tution— made  right  and  obligatory  by  the  mere  force  of  a  positive  law. 
It  enjoined  a  specific  act  upon  a  specific  subject,  called  for  exact  obedi- 
ence, and  was  therefore  definitely  set  forth  by  a  specific  and  not  by  a  gen- 
eric term.  This  fact  will  not,  I  presume,  be  disputed.  Baptism,  then, 
like  circumcision,  must  have  the  specific  action  to  be  performed  implied 
and  expressed  in  it.  That  baptism  is  such  a  term,  if  it  be  disputed,  the 
sequel  will,  we  presume,  abundantly  prove.  Meantime,  before  hearing 
the  witnesses  or  submitting  the  induction,  it  may  not  be  uninteresting  to 
pursue  the  analogy  a  iitUe  lardier,  and  to  sliow,  a  priori,  that  such  a  spe- 
cific precept  is  to  be  expecteih 

Will  it  not  be  conceded  by  all,  that  whatever  good  reason  can  be  given 
why,  not  a  general  but  a  specific  word  was  chosen  by  God  in  command- 
ing circumcision  to  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  the  same  demands  a  term 
as  specific  and  inteilififible  from  the  Christian  Lawgiver  in  reference  to  the 
institution  of  baptism  ?  Now,  as  Jesus  Christ  must  have  intended  some 
particular  action  to  be  performed  by  his  ministers  and  submitted  to  by 
the  people,  in  the  command  to  baptize  them,  it  follows  that  he  did  select 
such  a  word,  or  that  he  would  not  or  could  not  do  it.  This  is  a  dilemma 
from  which  escape  is  not  easy.  If  any  one  say  that  he  could  not,  then 
either  the  language  which  he  spake  or  his  knowledge  of  it  was  defective. 
If  the  former,  then  the  language  was  imfit  to  be  the  vehicle  of  a  divine 
communication  to  man;  if  the  latter,  his  divine  character  and  commission 
are  direcdy  assailed  and  dishonored.  Or,  if  any  one  say  he  could  have 
done  it  but  would  not,  he  impeaches  either  his  sincerity  or  benevolence, 
or  both  :  his  sincerity,  in  demanding  obedience  in  a  particular  case,  for 
which  he  cares  nothing  ;  his  benevolence,  in  exacting  a  particular  service 
in  an  ambiguous  and  unintelligible  term,  which  should  perplex  and  con- 
found his  consciencious  followers  in  all  the  ages  of  the  world.  Follows 
it  not,  then,  that  he  could,  that  he  would  find  such  a  word ;  and  that  he 
has  done  it ;  and  that  baptizo  is  that  specific  word  1 

Before  summoning  our  most  authoritative  witnesses  to  the  meaning  of 
this  important  word,  [baptizo^  I  shall  assert  a  few  facts,  which,  I  pre- 
sume, will  not  be  denied  by  any  one  properly  acquainted  with  the  origi- 
nal language  of  the  New  Testament:  1.  Baptizo  is  not  a  radical,  but  a 
derivative  word  ;  2.  Its  root  \J)aplo~\  is  never  applied  to  this  ordinance  ;  3. 
In  the  Common  Version  hapto  is  translated  both  in  its  simple  and  com- 
pound form,  always  by  the  word  "dip:"  4.  Baptizo  is  never  translated 
by  "  dye,"  "  stain,"  or  "  color;"  5.  Baptizo,  with  its  derivations,  is  the 
only  word  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  indicate  this  ordinance  ;  and  6. 
The  word  baptize  has  no  necessary  connection  with  water,  or  any  liquid 
whatever. 

Now,  from  these  indisputable  facts,  hereafter  to  be  developed,  some 
corollaries  are  deduced;  such  as — baptizo  indicates  a  specific  action,  and 
consequently,  can  have  but  one  meaning.  For,  if  a  person  or  thing  can 
be  immersed  in  water,  oil,  milk,  honey,  sand,  earth,  debt,  grief,  affliction, 
spirit,  light,  darkness,  &c.,  it  is  a  word  indicating  specific  action,  and 
specific  action  only. 

Baptizo,  confessedly  a  derivative  from  bapto,  derives  its  specific 
meaning,  as  well  as  its  radical  and  immutable  form,  from  that  word.     Ac- 


56  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

cording  to  the  usage  of  all  languages,  ancient  and  modern,  derivative 
words  legally  inherit  the  specific,  though  not  necessarily  the  figurative 
meaning  of  their  natural  progenitors  ;  and  never  can  so  far  alienate  from 
themselves  that  peculiar  significance  as  to  indicate  an  action  specifically 
different  from  that  intimated  in  the  parent  stock.  Indeed,  all  the  inflec- 
tions of  words,  with  their  sometimes  numerous  and  various  families  of 
descendants,  are  but  modifications  of  one  and  the  same  generic  or  speci- 
fic idea. 

We  sometimes  say,  that  words  generally  have  both  a  proper  and  a  fig- 
urative sense.  I  presume  we  may  go  farther  and  aflarm,  that  every  word 
in  current  use  has  a  strictly  proper  and  a  figurative  acceptation.  Now,  in 
the  derivation  direct,  (for  there  is  a  direct  and  an  indirect  derivation,)  the 
proper  and  natural  or  original  meaning  of  the  term  is  uniformly  transmit- 
ted. Let  us,  for  example,  take  the  Saxon  word  dip  through  all  its  flex- 
ions and  derivations.  Its  flexions  are,  dip,  dips,  dippeth,  dipped,  dip- 
ping. From  these  are  derived  but  a  few  words,  such  as  the  nouns,  dip- 
ping, dipper,  dip-chick,  dipping-needle.  Now  in  all  the  flexions  and 
derivations  of  this  word,  is  not  the  root  [dip^  always  found  in  sense  as 
well  as  in  form  ?  Wherever  the  radical  syllable  is  found,  the  radical  idea 
is  in  it.  So  of  the  word  sj)rinkle :  its  flexions  are,  sprinkle,  sprinkleth, 
sprinkling,  sprinkled ;  and  its  derivatives  are  the  nouns  sprinkling  and 
sprinkler.  Does  not  the  idea  represented  in  the  radical  word  [sprinkle^ 
descend  through  the  whole  family  ?  We  shall  visit  a  larger  family. 
From  the  verb  read,  whose  flexions  are,  reads,  readeth,  reading ;  come 
the  descendants,  reading,  (the  noun,)  readable,  readableness,  readably y 
reader,  readership.  The  radical  syllable  is  not  more  obvious  than  the 
uniformity  of  its  sense  throughout  the  whole  lineage.  Let  us  now 
advance  to  the  two  Greek  representatives  of  the  words  dip  and  sprinkle. 
These  are  ancient  families,  and  much  larger  than  any  of  the  modern. 
Bapto,  the  root,  has  some  seven  hundred  flexions,  besides  numerous 
derivatives.  We  shall  only  take  the  indicative  mood,  through  one  tense 
and  through  one  person  :•  Bapto,  ebapton,  bapso,  ebapsa,  ebaphon,  ba- 
pho,  bebapha,  ebebaphein.  Its  derivatives  are  baptizo,  and  its  regular 
flexions — more  than  seven  hundred,  including  all  its  forms  of  mood, 
tense,  participle,  person,  number,  gender,  ease :  from  which  spring 
baptismos,  baptisma,  baptisis,  baptistes,  baptomai,  baptizomai,  baptos, 
daptisterion,  bapha,  baphikos,  bapheis.  These,  through  their  some  two 
thousand  flexions  and  modifications,  retain  the  bap,  and,  as  uniformly, 
the  dip  represented  by  it.  The  same  holds  good  of  its  distant  neighbor, 
raino,  "  I  sprinkle."  It  has  as  many  flexions  and  nearly  as  many  deri- 
vatives as  bapto.  It  has  raino,  rainoinai,  rantizo,  rantismos,  rantisma, 
ranter,  rantis,  rantos,  with  their  some  two  thousand  flexions.  These  all 
exhibit  the  radical  syllable  rain  or  ran,  and  with  it  the  radical  sprinkle. 
Now,  as  it  is  philologically  impossible  to  find  bap  in  rain,  or  rain  in 
bap;  so  impossible  is  it  to  find  dip  in  spnnkle,  or  sprinkle  in  dip. 
Hence  the  utter  impossibility  of  either  of  these  words  representing  both 
actions.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  man  of  letters  and  proper 
reflection  can  for  a  moment  suppose,  that  bapto  can  ever  mean  "  sprin- 
kle," or  raino  "  dip." 

This  my  first  argument  is,  I  own,  a  work  of  supererogation :  inas- 
much as  all  admit  that  baptizo,  and  not  bapto,  is  the  word  that  the  Mes- 
siah chose  to  represent  the  action  he  intended,  called  baptism  ;  and  all 
the  learned  admit,  that  its  primary,  proper,  and  unfigurative  meaning  is» 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  57 

"  to  dip."  Hence  if  all  that  I  have  said  on  flexion  and  derivation  were 
grammatically  and  philologically  heterodox,  as  well  as  illogical,  my 
cause  loses  nothing.  I  feel  so  rich  in  resources,  that  I  can  give  this  and 
many  such  arguments  for  nothing,  and  still  have  much  more  than  a  com- 
petency for  life.  But,  be  it  all  strictly  and  philologically  true  and  solid, 
(as  I  unhesitatingly  affirm  it,)  this  single  argument  establishes  my  first 
proposition  without  farther  eflbit.  For,  as  all  allow  that  dip  is  the  pri- 
mary and  proper  meaning  of  bapto,  and  color,  stain,  dye,  wet,  its 
figurative  or  secondary  meanings  ;  and,  as  all  admit  that  baptizo  is  the 
word  that  the  Christian  Lawgiver  consecrated  to  indicate  this  ordinance; 
and,  as  it  is  incontrovertibly  derived  from  bapto,  and  therefore  inherits 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  bap,  which  is  "  dip ;"  then,  is  it  not  irresisti- 
bly evident  that  baptizo  can  never  authorize  or  sanction  any  other 
action  than  dipping,  or  immersion,  as  found  in  Christ's  commission  ? 
Such  is  my  first  argument ;  which,  if  false,  I  lose  nothing ;  which,  if 
true,  my  proposition  is  already  established. 

But  we  must  have  arguments  and  illustrations  for  the  unlearned  as  well 
as  for  the  learned.  Before  we  advance  to  our  second  argument,  founded 
on  baptizo  itself,  I  shall,  in  three  English  words,  selected  at  random, 
show  that  neither  number  nor  variety  of  derivations  from  a  common 
stock,  can  ever  nullify  the  original  idea  or  action  suggested.  I  take  a 
verb,  a  noun,  and  a  preposition,  with  their  whole  families.  I  open  at  the 
verb,  adduce:  duce,  (from  duco,  "I  lead,")  is  the  root.  The  family 
lineage  is,  abdiice,  adduce,  conduce,  deduce,  educe,  induce,  introduce, 
obduce,  produce,  reduce,  seduce,  traduce,  circumduction,  deduction, 
induction.  Next  comes  the  noun,  guard,  from  which  the  verb,  guard, 
guarding,  guarded,  guarder,  guardly,  guardedness,  guardship,  guard- 
able,  guardful,  guardage,  guardance,  guardiant,  guardian,  guardian- 
ess,  guardianship,  guardianage,  guardless.  And  finally,  we  open  at 
the  preposition,  up,  whence  springs  upon,  upper,  uppermost,  tipperest, 
upivard.  Now,  can  any  one  for  a  moment  doubt,  that,  in  all  these  three 
examples,  the  radical  syllables,  duce,  guard,  or  up,  retain  the  same 
sense,  whatever  it  may  be,  generic  or  specific,  through  every  branch  of 
their  respective  families  ? 

Ancient  Greek  grammarians  sometimes  arranged  their  verbs  in  the 
form  of  trees,  making  the  origin  of  the  family  the  root  ;  the  next  in  im- 
portance the  trunk ;  the  next  the  larger  branches,  and  so  on  to  the  top- 
most twig.  In  this  way  both  flexions  and  derivations  were  occasionally 
exhibited.  This  fact  I  state,  because  it  suggests  to  me  a  new  form  of 
presenting  this  my  first  argument,  to  the  apprehension  of  all  my  hearers. 
A  great  majority  of  our  citizens  are  better  read  in  forests,  fields  and  gar- 
dens, than  in  the  schools  of  philology  or  ancient  languages.  Agricultu- 
rists, horticulturists,  botanists,  will  fully  comprehend  me  when  I  say,  in 
all  the  dominions  of  vegetable  nature,  untouched  by  human  art,  as  the 
root,  so  is  the  stem,  and  so  are  all  the  branches.  If  the  root  be  oak,  the 
stem  cannot  be  ash,  nor  the  branches  cedar.  What  would  you  think, 
Mr.  President,  of  the  sanity  or  veracity  of  the  backwoodsman,  who  would 
affirm  that  he  found  in  a  state  of  nature,  a  tree  whose  root  was  oak, 
whose  stem  was  cherry,  whose  boughs  were  pear,  and  whose  leaves 
were  chestnut  ?  If  these  grammarians  and  philologists  have  been  happy 
m  their  analogies  drawn  from  the  root  and  branches  of  trees,  to  illustrate 
the  derivation  of  words,  how  singularly  fantastic  the  genius  that  creates  a 
philological  tree,   whose  root  is   bapto,   whose   stem  is   cheo,  whose 


58  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

branches  are  rantizo,  and  whose  fruit  is  katharizo!  Or,  if  not  too  ludic- 
rous and  preposterous  for  English  ears,  whose  root  is  dip,  whose  trunk 
is  pour,  whose  branches  are  sprinkle,  and  whose  fruit  xs  purification  ! 

My  first  argument,  then,  is  founded  on  the  root,  bapto,  whose  proper 
signification,  all  learned  men  say,  is  dip,  and  whose  main  derivative  is 
baptizo — which,  by  all  the  laws  of  philology,  and  all  the  laws  of  nature, 
never  can,  never  did,  and  never  will  signify  "  to  pour"  or  "  to  sprinkle." 

I  now  proceed  to  baptizo  itself — the  word  pre-ordained  by  the  Messiah, 
to  indicate  his  will  in  this  sacred  ordinance.  Meanwhile,  I  have  not  for- 
gotten in  this  long  preamble,  that  the  meaning  of  baptizo  as  well  as  bapto^ 
is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  decided  by  impartial  and  disinterested  wit- 
nesses, whose  testimony  is  to  be  fairly  stated,  candidly  heard,  and  impar- 
tially weighed,  before  the  case  is  finally  adjudicated. 

My  v/ilnesses  are  so  numerous  that  I  must  call  them  forth  in  classes, 
and  iiear  them  in  detail.  I  shall  first  summon  the  Greek  lexicographers, 
the  most  learned  and  most  competent  witnesses  in  this  case,  in  the  world. 
These  gendemen  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  inductive  philosophers. 
Philology  is  the  most  inductive  of  all  sciences.  The  meaning  of  a  word 
is  ascertained  by  the  usage  of  those  writers  and  speakers,  whose  knowl- 
edge and  acquirements  have  made  them  masters  of  their  own  language. 
From  this  class  of  vouchers  we  derive  most  of  our  knowledge  of  holy 
writ,  and  of  all  that  remains  of  Grecian  literature  and  science.  We, 
indeed,  try  the  dictionaries  themselves  by  the  classics,  the  extant  authors 
of  the  language.  We  prove  or  disprove  them  by  the  same  inductive  ope- 
ration, by  which  we  ascertain  the  facts  of  any  science,  mental  or  physical. 
I  rely  exclusively  upon  the  most  ancient,  the  most  impartial,  and  the  most 
famous  lexicographers.  I  therefore  prefer  those  on  my  respondent's 
side  of  the  question,  to  those  on  my  own ;  and  I  prefer  those  who  lived 
and  published  before  the  controversy  became  so  rife,  as  it  has  been 
during  the  present  century. 

1.  We  shall  first  hear  the  venerable  Scapula,  a  foreign  lexicographer, 
of  1579.  On  bapto,  the  root,  what  does  this  most  learned  lexicographer 
depose?  Hear  him:  "  bapto — mergo,  immergo  item  tingo  (quod  sit  im- 
mergendo,")  To  translate  his  Latin — To  dip,  to  immerse;  also,  to  dye, 
because  that  may  be  done  by  immersing.  Of  tlie  passive,  baptoinai,  he 
says,  "  Mergor  item  lavor" — To  be  immersed,  to  be  washed.  Of  baptizo 
— "  Mergo  sen  immergo,  item  submergo,  item  abluo,  lavo" — To  dip,  to 
immerse ;  also,  to  submerge  or  overwhelm,  to  wash,  to  cleanse. 

2.  Next  comes  the  more  ancient  Henricus  Stephanus,  of  1572.  Bap- 
to and  baptizo — "  Mergo  seu  immergo,  ut  quse  tingendi  aut  abluendi 
gratia  aqua  immergimus" — To  dip  or  immerge,  as  we  dip  things  for  the 
purpose  of  dyeing  them,  or  immerge  them  in  water.  He  gives  the  pro- 
per and  figurative  meanings,  as  Scapula  gives  them. 

3.  We  shall  next  hear  the  Thesaurus  of  Robertson.  My  edition  was 
printed  at  Cambridge,  1676.  It  is  the  most  comprehensive  dictionary 
I  have  ever  seen.  It  contains  eighty  thousand  words  more  than  the  old 
Schrevelius.  It  is  indeed,  sometimes  titled,  Cornelii  Schrevelii  Lexicon 
Manuale  Grseco  Latinum  Copirossissimi  Audactum.  His  definitions 
are  generally  regarded  as  the  most  precise  and  accurate.  He  defines  bap' 
tizo  by  only  two  words — mergo  and  lavo — one  proper  and  one  figurative 
meaning — to  immerse,  to  wash. 

4.  Schleusner,  a  name  revered  by  orthodox  theologians,  and  of  envia- 
ble fame,  says,  (Glasgow  Ed.  1824,)  "  1st.  Proprie,  immergo  ac  intingo, 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  59 

in  aquam  immergo.  Properly  it  signifies,  I  immerse,  I  dip,  I  immerse 
in  water.  2d.  It  signifies,  I  wash  or  cleanse  by  water — (quia  hand  rare 
aliquid  immergi  ac  intingi  in  aquam  solet  ut  lavetur) — because  for  the 
most  part,  a  thing  must  be  dipped  or  plunged  into  water,  that  it  may  be 
washed."  Thus  he  gives  the  reason  why  baptizo  figuratively  means 
"  to  wash," — because  it  is  frequently  the  effect  of  immersion. 

5.  After  Schleusner,  we  shall  hear  the  distinguished  Pasor.  My  copy 
is  the  London  edition  of  1650.  "  Bapto  et  baptizo — mergo,  immergo 
tingo  quod  sit  immergendo,  difiert  a  dunai  quod  et  profundiun  petere  est 
penitus  submergi."  Again  he  adds — "  Comparantur  alflictiones  gurgiti- 
bus  aquaram  quibus  veluti  merguntur  qui  miseriis  et  calamitatibus  hujus 
vitas  conflictantur  ita,  tamen  merguntur  ut  rursus  emergant."  All  of 
which  we  translate  as  follow :  '*  To  dip,  to  immerse,  to  dye,  because  it 
is  done  by  immersing.  It  differs  from  dunai,  which  means  to  sink  to 
the  bottom,  and  to  be  thoroughly  submerged."  Metaphorically,  in 
Matthew,  afflictions  are  compared  to  a  flood  of  waters,  in  which  they 
.seem  to  be  immersed,  who  are  overwhelmed  with  the  misfortunes  and 
miseries  of  life  ;  yet  only  so  overwhelmed  as  to  emerge  again. 

6.  After  these  venerable  continental  authorities,  we  shall  now  intro- 
duce a  few  English  lexicographers,  both  general  and  special.  Park- 
hurst's  lexicon  for  the  New  Testament  deposes,  that  baptizo  first  and  pri- 
marily means  to  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge  in  water ;  but  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  occurs  not  strictly  in  this  sense,  unless  so  far  as  this  is  included 
in  "  to  wash  one's  self,  be  washed,  wash  the  hands  by  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping them  in  water."  Mark  vii.  4 ;  Luke  xi.  38.  To  immerse  in 
water,  or  with  water,  in  token  of  purification  from  sin,  and  from  spiritual 
pollution  ;  figuratively — "  to  be  immersed  or  plunged  into  a  flood  or  sea, 
as  it  were,  of  grievous  affliction  and  sufferings."  So  the  Septuagint  and 
Josephus  use  it.  He  anomai  me  baptizei — Iniquity  plunges  me  into 
terror. 

7.  Next  comes  Mr.  Donnegan,  distinguished  and  popular  in  England 
and  America.  "  Baptizo — to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to  sub- 
merge, to  sink  thoroughly,  to  saturate;  metaphorically,  to  drench  with 
wine,  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw.  Baptismos — immersion,  submer- 
sion, the  act  of  washing  or  bathing.  Baptiztes,  (a  baptist) — one  who 
immerses,  submerges.  _  Baptisma — an  object  immersed,  submerged, 
washed  or  soaked." 

8.  Rev.  Dr.  John  Jones,  of  England,  deserves  the  next  place  at  least 
in  rank.  Bapto,  he  defines,  "I  dip,  I  stain;"  and  baptizo,  "I  plunge, 
I  plunge  in  water,  dip,  baptize,  bury,  overwhelm." 

9.  Greenfield,  editor  of  the  Comprehensive  Bible,  the  Polymicrian 
New  Testament,  &c.  &c.,  whose  reputation  as  a  New  Testament  lexicog- 
rapher is  well  known,  says,  "  Baptizo  means  to  immerse,  immerge,  sub- 
merge, sink," — "I.  N,  T. — To  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  cleanse,  to 
immerse,  baptize,  and  perform  the  rite  of  baptism." 

10.  Two  Germans  of  distinction  may  be  next  heard.  Professor  Rost, 
whose  reputation  is  equal  to  that  of  any  other  German  linguist,  in  his 
Standard  German  Lexicon,  defines  bapto  by  words  indicating  to  plunge, 
to  immerse,  to  submerge. 

11.  Bretschneider,  said  to  be  the  most  critical  lexicographer  of  the 
New  Testament,  affirms  that  "  an  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature 
of  baptism."  He  defines  it,  "  Proprie,  saepius  intingo,  ssepius  lavo," 
and  adds,  "  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word :  for  in  baptizo  is  contained 


60  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion  under  water :  at  least,  so  is  baptisma  in 
the  New  Testament."  But  more  fully  he  explains  as  follows  :  Baptizo, 
in  N.  T.  non  dicitur  nisi  de  submersione  solemni  et  sacra  qua  utebantur 
Judaei,  ut  vel  ad  vitse  emendationem  aliquem  obstringerent,  vel  peccato- 
rum  ejus  culpam  delerent.  Ritu  solemni  submergo  aquis,  baptizo  (ut 
patres  Latini  loquuntur,)  et  legitur  in  N.  T.  simpiicitur  ;  activum  :  bap- 
tizo aliquem,  Jo.  i.  25,  &;c. — passive  immergor  in  aquas  solemni  ritu, 
baptisma  initior,  Matt.  iii.  16;  Marc  i.  4,  &c.;  Rom.  vi.  2;  osoi  ebap- 
tisthemen ;  quotquot  sacra  submersione  obstricti  sumus  Christo,  etiam 
obstricti  sumus,  ut  in  consortium  mortis  ejus  veniamus,  i.  e.  moriamur  pec- 
cato,  ut  ipse  pro  peccatis  mortuus  est.  Baptisma,  immersio,  submersio  ^ 
in  N.  T.  tantum  de  submersione  sacra,  quam  patres  bapiismum  dicunt. 
Dicitur  de  Johannis  baptisrao.  Sic.  In  the  New  Testament  baptizo  is 
not  used,  unless  concerning  the  sacred  and  solemn  submersion  which 
the  Jews  used,  that  they  might  oblige  an  individual  to  an  amendment  of 
life,  or  that  they  might  release  him  from  the  guilt  of  his  sins.  In  the 
New  Testament,  without  any  adjunct,  it  means,  I  baptize  in  water  in  the 
solemn  rite,  (as  the  Latin  Fathers  use  it.)  Actively,  I  baptize  one — 
passively,  I  am  immersed  into  water  in  the  solemn  ordinance — I  am  initi- 
ated by  baptism.  Matt.  iii.  16;  Mark  i.  4  ;  Rom.  vi.  2.  Baptisma,  immer- 
sion, submersion.  In  N.  T.  it  is  used  only  concerning  the  sacred  submer- 
sion, which  the  Fathers  call  baptism.   It  is  used  concerning  John's  baptism. 

12.  Bass,  an  English  lexicographer  for  the  New  Testament,  gives 
baptizo^  "to  dip,  immerse,  plunge  in  water,  to  bathe  one's  self;  to  be 
immersed  in  sufferings  or  afflictions."  If  Pickering  could  be  regarded 
as  a  new  or  distinct  lexicographer,  we  should  add  his  testimony,  as  it  is 
corroborative  of  the  above.  He  gives  '■'■  Baptisma — immersion,  dipping, 
plunging ;  metaphorically,  misery  or  calamity  with  which  one  is  over- 
whelmed." 

13.  I  shall  conclude  this  distinguished  class  of  witnesses  from  the 
nigh  school  of  lexicography  with  the  testimony  of  Stokius,  who  has 
furnished  us  with  a  Greek  clavis  and  a  Hebrew  clavis — one  for  the 
Hebrew  and  one  for  the  Greek  Scriptures.  My  edition  is  the  Leipsic  of 
1752.  This  great  master  of  sacred  literature  says,  "  Generatim  ac  vivi 
vocis  instictionis  ac  immersionis  baptizo  notionem  obtinet.  Speciatim 
proprie  est  immergere  ac  intingere  in  aquara ;"  which  we  translate, 
"  Baptizo  generally,  and  by  the  force  of  the  word,  indicates  the  idea  of 
simply  dipping  and  diving;  but  properly,  it  means  to  dip  or  immerse  in 
water."  He  defines  baptisma  in  like  manner — "  It  generally  denotes 
immersion  and  dyeing  ;  but  by  the  innate  force  of  the  term,  it  properly 
imports  immersion  or  the  dipping  of  a  thing  in  water,  that  it  may  be 
Washed  or  cleansed."  And  mark  especially,  the  following  frank  declara- 
tion of  this  distinguished  theologian  and  critic:  "The  word  is  trans- 
ferred to  denote  the  first  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  which  they 
call  the  sacrament  of  initiation ;  viz:  baptism.  In  which  sacrament  those 
to  be  baptized  were  anciently  immersed  in  water,  as  now-a-days  they  are 
only  sprinkled  with  water,  that  they  may  be  washed  from  the  pollution 
of  sin,  obtain  the  remission  of  it,  and  be  received  into  the  covenant  of 
grace,  as  heirs  of  eternal  life." 

So  depose  these  thirteen  great  masters  on  the  native,  original  and 
proper  meaning  of  the  word  in  debate :  to  whose  testimony  I  might  add 
that  of  another  thirteen  dictionaries,  both  classical  and  theological,  Greek 
and  Latin  ;  such  as  Wilson's  Classic  Dictionary,  1678;  Bailey,  of  1772  ; 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  61 

Robertson;  Hedericus,  1778;  Ash,  1775:  Charles  Richardson;  Cal- 
inet;  Schcettgenius,  1765;  Suicerus;  Schilhornius ;  Cliznetus,  1661; 
Leigh's  Critica  Sacra:  and  Tromius'  Concordance.  These  all  are  re- 
spectable authorities,  and  some  of  them,  indeed,  rank  with  those  of  the 
first  class.  They  all  concur  with  Suicerus,  in  defining  baptizo  as  pro- 
perly denoting  immersion  or  dipping  into.  But  as  they  are  in  general 
but  a  mere  monotonous  repetition  of  the  first  thirteen,  I  shall  not  quote 
them  in  extenso. 

But,  to  sum  up  this  class  of  evidence,  and  to  show,  from  the  highest 
source  of  American  theological  authority,  that  I  have  neither  misquoted 
nor  misinterpreted  the  verdict  of  this  illustrious  jury  of  thirteen  unchal- 
lenged judges,  I  will  quote  the  words  of  Prof.  Stuart,  of  the  Andover 
Theological  School:  '■'■  Bapto,  baptizo,  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse 
into  any  liquid.  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note,  are  agreed 
in  this." — Bib.  Repos.  1833,  p.  298.  Professor  Stuart  is  my  American 
apostle,  standing  to  this  argument,  as  Paul  stood  in  comparison  to  the 
original  twelve — himself  the  only  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  though  the  thir- 
teenth, as  respected  the  original  twelve,  selected  of  and  for  the  Jews. 

Before  dismissing  this  class  of  witnesses,  it  is  pertinent  to  my  proposi- 
tion, that  I  state  distinctly  three  facts:  1.  These  lexicographers  were  not 
Baptists,  but  Pedo-baptists  ;  2.  Not  one  of  them  ever  translated  any  of 
these  terms  by  the  word  sprinkle;  3.  Not  any  one  of  them  ever  trans- 
lated any  of  these  terms  by  the  word  pour.  Consequently,  with  all  their 
prejudices  they  could  find  no  authority  for  so  doing,  else  doubtless,  they 
could  have  done  it. 

I  hope  my  hearers  will  pardon  the  introduction  of  so  many  Greek  and 
Latin  words.  The  occasion  demands  it.  From  the  course  pursued  by 
our  neighboring  denominations,  we  are  compelled  to  lay  the  corner-stone 
of  our  superstructure,  not  only  deep  in  the  earth,  but  upon  a  solid  Greek 
basis.  The  foundation  being  laid  upon  a  Grecian  rock,  and  the  wall 
above-ground,  our  labors  will,  we  hope,  be  more  intelligible,  and  conse- 
quently more  agreeable  and  more  interesting  to  us  all. 

We  have,  then,  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  lexicographers 
known  in  Europe  and  America,  that  the  proper  and  everywhere  current 
signification  of  baptizo,  the  word  chosen  by  Jesus  Christ  in  his  commis- 
sion to  the  apostles,  is,  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse ;  and  that  any  other 
meaning  is  tropical,  rhetorical,  or  fanciful.  This  being  so,  then  our  first 
proposition  must  be  undoubtedly  true.  But,  besides  these,  I  have  vari- 
ous other  classes  of  witnesses  to  adduce,  in  solemn  confirmation  of  the 
testimony  of  this  most  learned,  veritable  and  venerable  class  of  men. 

Before  I  sit  down,  permit  me  to  assure  you,  Mr.  President,  and  through 
you,  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  and  this  great  concourse,  that  it  is  by  constraint, 
and  not  willingly,  I  have  summoned  those  witnesses  whose  testimony  you 
have  already  heard,  and  others  from  whom  you  are  yet  to  hear  in  the  pro- 
gress of  this  discussion.  It  is  our  Pedo-baptist  friends  who  have  imposed 
on  us  this  task.  It  is  they  and  not  we,  that  are  demanding  new  transla- 
tions, ingenious  and  learned  criticisms.  It  is  they  who  call  for  dictiona- 
ries and  grammars,  for  divers  versions,  for  ancient  fathers,  for  the  venera- 
ble decrees  of  synods  and  councils,  and  for  all  manner  of  extrinsic  helps 
and  vouchers. 

I  have  had  the  misfortune,  sir,  to  be  represented  times  without  number, 
as  desirous  of  introducing  a  new  version  of  the  New  Testament,  to  favor 
my  peculiar  views  and  tenets.     But,  sir,  a  more  unjust  and  unfounded 

F 


62  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

assertion  has  rarely  been  circulated  among  the  American  family.  So  far 
as  my  peculiar  tenets  are  involved,  the  common  Testament  and  common 
sense  are  all-sufficient.  I  ask  no  other  earthly  auxiliaries.  In  proof  of 
this  declaration,  I  now  say,  in  your  presence,  gendemen,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  this  great  congregation,  that  if  my  friend  Mr.  Rice,  dare  risk  his 
cause  on  that  version  of  the  Scriptures  read  in  his  own  church,  I  will  meet 
him  on  that  book  alone,  and  from  its  plain  grammatical  construction,  sus- 
tain not  only  the  propositions  before  us,  but  every  other  doctrine  I 
believe  and  teach ;  and  that  too  without  substituting  one  new  reading, 
change  or  alteration  from  what  is  presented  by  the  authority  of  Queen 
Victoria,  or  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Scotch  and  American  Presby- 
terian Church.  Now,  sir,  when  it  is  known,  as  we  presume  it  will  be, 
before  this  debate  closes,  that  the  Bishops'  Bible  published  in  the  tenth 
year  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  on  which  so  much  of  the  present  King 
James'  Bible,  as  appertains  to  the  action  of  baptism,  is  especially  based, 
was  got  up  by  the  present  Pedo-baptist  authority,  at  the  very  crisis  when 
immersion  was  being  repudiated  to  make  way  for  affusion  in  both 
Scotland  and  England,  it  will  doubtless  appear  that  I  make  a  most  liberal 
offer,  when  I  agree  to  risk  the  defence  of  those  propositions  touching 
baptism,  exclusively  on  that  version,  founding  upon  it  every  scriptural 
argument  Avhich  I  shall  offer  in  the  support  of  each  and  every  one  of 
those  propositions.  One  point,  at  least,  I  must  gain  from  this  overture, 
whatever  be  its  reception  on  the  part  of  my  respondent.  If  he  accede  to 
it,  I,  in  common  with  the  audience,  will  gain  much  time  in  coming  to  a 
satisfactory  issue ;  if  he  do  not  accede  to  it,  I  shall  never  need  another 
argument  to  prove,  whether  Reformers  or  Presbyterians  have  the  greater 
confidence  in,  or  afiection  for,  the  common  version,  so  far  at  least  as  the 
establishment  of  our  respective  tenets  are  concerned.  It  is  now,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, entirely  in  tiie  hands  and  at  the  option  of  Mr.  Rice,  whether  before 
an  English  audience,  we  shall  exclusively  employ  an  English  Bible,  and 
the  common  version,  as  tiie  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  the  ultimate 
appeal  on  every  proposition  ;  or  whether  we  shall  abandon  it  as  a  whole, 
and  only  use  it  in  a  discretionary  way,  just  as  we  may  regard  it  favora- 
ble to  our  respective  tenets. 

I  am,  however,  prepared  for  any  course  the  gentleman  pleases.  I  have 
just  as  many  learned  authorities,  as  much  documentary  evidence  of  all 
sorts  around  me,  or  at  my  disposal  on  the  premises,  as  I  desire,  or  can 
expect  to  use  in  the  most  protracted  discussion.  On  him  then  be  the 
entire  responsibility,  and  not  on  me,  for  the  direction  which  the  present 
controversy  may  take. 

But  while  I  do,  ex-animo,  adopt  the  common  version,  as  all-sufficient, 
and  alone  sufficient  for  my  use  in  this  debate,  I  would  not  be  understood, 
as  at  all  approving  of  it  as  the  most  faithful,  correct  and  intelligible  trans- 
lation of  the  original  Scriptures,  which  we  have  or  can  have,  in  our  ver- 
nacular. It  is  however  with  much  pleasure,  that  after  having  more  or 
less  examined  many  versions,  and  possessing,  as  I  do,  some  fifteen  or 
twenty  varieties  of  them,  I  can  and  do  avow  my  full  conviction,  that  by  a 
candid  person,  of  the  most  ordinary,  or  extraordinay  attainments,  the 
way  of  salvation,  our  whole  duty  and  happiness,  can  be  learned  with  the 
greatest  certainty  and  assurance,  from  the  most  imperfect  version  I  have 
ever  seen.  I  am  therefore  willing,  if  circumstances  should  command  me, 
to  meet  any  virtuous  man,  on  any  version  extant,  and  maintain  all  that  I 
now  stand  pledged  to  maintain  on  the  present  occasion. — [Time  expired. 


DEBAl'E  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  63 

Wednesday,  Nov.  15 — 11 1  o' clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  first  reply.] 

Mr.  President — With  regard  to  the  reformation  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury and  its  glorious  results,  I  perfectly  agree  with  my  friend,  whose 
address  you  have  just  heard.  And  I  am  truly  happy  to  appear  before 
this  large  audience  to-day  in  the  defence  of  the  great  doctrines  and  truths 
elicited  by  the  investigation  of  those  eminent  men,  who  were  the  hon- 
ored instruments  of  rescuing  the  Scriptures  from  ecclesiastical  despot- 
ism, and  proclaiming  to  the  world  the  fundamental  truth,  that  the  Bible 
teaches  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  believed,  or  to  be  done,  to  secure 
eternal  life. 

I  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  disadvantage  under  which  I  attempt  to  per- 
form this  duty,  partly  from  the  fact,  that  I  meet  in  debate  one  so  much 
ray  senior,  whose  arguments  and  statements  may  be  supposed  to  have  an 
authority  which  cannot  accompany  such  as  I  may  offer.  Besides,  I  meet 
a  gendeman  who  has  been  engaged  for  thirty  years  past  in  discussing  the 
very  points  now  at  issue — one  who,  if  not  the  originator,  is  certainly  the 
leading  man  of  a  numerous  body  of  professing  christians,  by  whom  he 
is  regarded  almost  as  an  oracle.  In  the  opinion  of  many  I  shall  doubtless 
be  chargeable  with  presumption  in  venturing,  under  such  circumstances, 
to  become  his  opponent.  But  when  I  consider  what  multitudes  of  the 
wisest  and  best  men,  in  past  ages  and  in  the  present,  have  maintained  and 
do  maintain  the  principles  for  which  I  now  contend ;  and  when  I  remem- 
ber that  my  friend  himself,  when  perhaps  younger  than  I,  ventured  to 
wage  war  upon  the  christian  world,  I  think  I  may  justly  claim  acquittal 
of  the  charge. 

It  is  true,  as  he  remarked,  that  in  the  Reformation  all  error  was  not 
detected  and  repudiated ;  but  it  will  scarcely  be  denied,  that  so  much  of 
the  truth  was  discovered  and  embraced  as  was  essential  to  the  existence 
of  the  church  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  And  if  this  be  admitted,  the 
doctrine  of  my  worthy  friend  cannot  be  sustained ;  for  certain  it  is,  that 
the  Reformers  did  not  ascertain  that  immersion  into  water  is  the  only 
apostolic  or  christian  baptism.  If,  then,  the  Scriptures  do  teach  this  doc- 
trine, they  failed  to  discover  one  of  the  most  important  features  of  the 
christian  system ;  and  they  and  their  followers  were  alike  unbaptized, 
and  were  aliens  from  the  church  of  Christ.  Nay,  if  this  doctrine  be  true, 
there  is  not  now  a  true  church  on  earth,  save  the  few  who  have  been  so 
happy  as  to  make  this  remarkable  discovery  ! 

A  word  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  this  discussion.  We  are  unwilling 
to  receive  any  credit  not  due  us,  however  disposed  my  friend  Mr.  C. 
may  be  to  award  it  to  us.  It  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  he  has  given 
a  correct  account  of  the  matter.  I  will  read  an  extract  from  the  second 
letter  of  Rev.  Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Campbell,  which  places  the  subject  in  a 
very  different  light.  '* There  is,"  says  Mr.  B.,  "evidently  a  misappre- 
hension on  the  part  of  one  of  us  as  it  regards  our  interview  at  Richmond, 
in  August  last.  Let  the  facts  speak  for  themselves.  They  are  briefly 
the  following :  At  the  close  of  your  address  at  Richmond,  on  the  3d  of 
August,  your  friend  Mr.  Duncan  approached  me,  and  asked  my  opinion 
as  to  the  address,  which  I  gave  with  as  much  candor  as  it  was  sought. 
After  other  interrogatories  were  propounded  and  answered,  he  inquired 
if  I  thought  discussion  advisable,  to  which  I  gave  an  affirmative  reply. 
He  then  remarked  that  he  had  engaged  to  dine  with  you,  and  would 
ascertain  your  feelings  and  wishes    on   the  subject.     All   this  occurred 


64  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

before  we  left  the  church.  About  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  Mr. 
Duncan  sought  a  second  interview  with  me,  and  requested  me  to  call  in 
company  with  him  at  your  room,  stating  that  you  desired  an  interview 
with  me  on  the  subject  about  which  he  and  I  had  conversed  in  the 
forenoon.  I  conformed  to  his  wish,  and  accompanied  him  to  your  room, 
which  ultimated  in  a  mutual  agreement  to  discuss  certain  points  of 
difference,  for  the  edification  of  the  church  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
cause  of  Christ,  with  a  definite  and  expressed  understanding  that  neither 
was  to  be  considered  the  challenging  party." 

From  this  letter  it  appears,  that  the  debate  originated  with  Mr.  Dun- 
can, Mr.  Campbell's  friend,  and  not  with  Presbyterians.  With  its 
origin,  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  say,  I  had  nothing  to  do.  It  was 
agreed  upon  before  I  heard  of  it.  I  was  afterwards  requested,  and  con- 
sented to  be  one  of  the  five  who  should  undertake  to  conduct  it. 

My  friend  in  his  address  paid  me  quite  an  unmerited  compliment. 
I  regret  that  I  had  not  written  something,  as  he  has  done,  that  might  be 
considered  a  suitable  return.  But  I  am  so  little  accustomed  to  writing 
speeches,  and  withal  am  so  poor  a  reader  of  them,  that  I  shall  be  under 
the  necessity  of  returning  the  compliment  as  well  as  I  can  extempo- 
raneously. 

He  has  represented  me  as  extremely  anxious  to  press  into  this  discus- 
sion. The  truth,  however,  is,  that  I  nominated  successively  two  indi- 
viduals to  manage  the  debate,  both  of  whom  declined.  I  had  had  as 
much  public  discussion  as  I  desired  ;  but  my  brethren  have  thought 
proper  to  devolve  upon  rc\Q  the  duty  of  defending  our  views  on  this 
occasion.  But  Mr.  C.  would  liave  you  believe  that  I  am  quite  a  furious 
warrior — that,  like  the  persecuting  Saul,  I  have  pursued  the  Reformers  to 
strange  cities,  even  as  far  as  Nashville.  I  have  had,  it  is  true,  more 
frequent  discussions  than  most  of  my  brethren,  owing  chiefly  to  the 
peculiar  situation  in  which,  in  the  early  part  of  my  ministry,  I  was 
placed.  Providentially,  I  was  settled  where  Romanism  exerted  a  pre- 
vailing influence.  It  became  necessary  for  me  to  engage  in  a  war 
against  that  system,  which  continued  for  some  seven  years.  During  that 
period,  I  was  employed  in  defending  those  great  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation on  which  Protestant  Cliristendom  are  mainly  agreed. 

With  the  followers  of  Mr.  C.  I  have  not  sought  controversy.  The 
first  discussion  I  ever  had  with  a  Reformer,  occurred  in  Stanford,  Ky., 
where,  at  the  close  of  a  sermon  I  preached  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  a 
Mr.  Kenrick  arose  and  requested  the  privilege  of  replying,  which  was 
granted.  I  had  previously  received  from  him  a  challenge  to  a  discus- 
sion, of  which  I  took  no  notice.  My  second  discussion  was  with 
President  Shannon,  who  visited  Paris — the  place  of  my  residence,  and 
made  a  public  attack  upon  our  Confession  of  Faith ;  to  which,  as  in 
duty  bound,  I  responded.  This  led  to  a  rather  informal  controversy, 
which  resulted  in  a  written  discussion.  In  Nashville,  it  is  true,  I  had  a 
discussion  with  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  friends.  I  visited  that  city  in 
fulfillment  of  a  previous  promise,  to  hold  a  protracted  meeting.  Whilst 
there  I  was  requested  by  a  number  of  the  citizens  to  preach  on  the 
subject  of  baptism.  I  consented,  and  the  appointment  was  announced. 
On  the  next  morning  I  was  called  on  by  four  prominent  and  very  respect- 
able Reformers,  who  gave  me  a  challenge  to  meet  in  debate  their  most 
prominent  man.  I  informed  them,  that  as  I  was  a  stranger  in  Nashville, 
having  no  particular  responsibility  there,  I  should  leave  my  friends  to 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  65 

determine  whether  I  ought  to  accept  their  invitation.  My  friends  deci- 
ded that  it  was  my  duty  to  accept.  I  accordingly  did  so,  and,  having 
but  four  days  to  remain,  engaged  in  a  brief  discussion  with  Mr. 
Fanning. 

These  facts  show  how  I  have  persecuted  the  Reformers,  even  to 
strang-e  cities  !  Mr.  Campbell  has  published  the  charge  against  me  of 
waging  furious  war  against  his  church ;  but  let  facts  be  known,  and  tb'» 
charge  is  refuted. 

This  discussion,  it  should  be  known,  is  in  no  sense  an  ecclesiastical 
affair.  The  synod  of  Kentucky  could  not  become  a  party  to  it ;  nor  had 
that  body  any  authority  to  appoint  a  representative  to  conduct  such  a 
discussion.  It  is,  therefore,  strictly  an  individual  concern.  It  is  true, 
some  of  my  brethren  have  devolved  upon  me  the  important  and  difficult 
task  of  defending  what  we  believe  to  be  revealed  truth ;  but  I  claim  not 
the  high  standing  in  my  church  which  my  friend  has  been  pleased  to 
assign  me.  Whilst,  however,  I  occupy  an  humble  place  amongst  the 
minsters  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  I  have  no  fears  of  being  unable  to 
sustain  the  principles  in  regard  to  which  so  great  a  part  of  Christendom 
are  agreed. 

A  large  portion  of  the  speech  of  my  friend  was  occupied  with  matters 
in  which  we  are  all  deeply  interested,  concerning  which  he  has  said 
much  that  is  true  ;  but  certainly  those  tilings  have  no  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  subject  now  under  discussion.  I  will,  therefore,  proceed 
immediately  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

Let  the  audience  distinctly  understand  the  proposition  which  Mr.  C. 
affirms.  He  undertakes  to  prove,  not  that  immersion  is  the  best  mode 
of  administering  baptism,  nor  that  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  it  was 
sometimes  practiced,  but  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance — that  nothing  short  of  the  entire  submersion  of  the  body 
in  water  is  apostolic  or  christian  baptism  ;  and  consequently,  that  the 
whole  christian  world  not  thus  immersed,  are  unbaptized,  and  are  out  of 
the  church  of  Christ.  It  is  an  arduous  undertaking  ;  but  my  friend  has 
bound  himself  to  sustain  this  proposition.  If  this  doctrine  is  true,  it  is 
certainly  one  of  the  most  singular  truths  discovered  in  any  age  of  the 
world.  The  Bible  is,  especially  on  all  important  points,  a  plain  book. 
This  Mr.  C.  acknowledges.  Then  how  shall  we  account  for  the  fact, 
that  not  more  than  one  in  a  thousand,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to 
the  present  time,  has  ascertained  that  immersion  is  essential  to  christian 
baptism  ?  From  a  very  early  period  it  is  certain  that  different  modes 
were  practiced.  In  the  writings  of  the  christian  fathers  we  read  of  three 
immersions,  and  of  partial  immersions — ter  caput  mergitare — to  immerse 
the  head  thrice.  And  it  is  fact,  that  as  far  back  as  history  can  take  us, 
pouring  and  sprinkling  were  practiced  ;  and  baptism  thus  administered 
was  universally  considered  valid.  Now  if  those  who  practiced  trine 
immersion,  whose  prejudices  were  all  in  favor  of  immersion,  and  whose 
vernacular  tongue  was  the  Greek,  could  not  see  that  immersion  only  is 
christian  baptism  ;  I  am  obliged  to  doubt  whether  Mr.  Campbell  or  any 
other  man  at  this  day  will  be  able  to  prove  it.  I  cannot  believe  that  he 
can  now  make  it  clear,  that  the  most  learned,  wise,  and  good  men,  who 
for  long  years  studied  the  Bible  on  their  knees,  have  lived  and  died  in 
the  firm  belief  that  they  had  been  baptized  and  were  members  of  the 
church  of  the  great  Redeemer,  when  in  truth  they  were  unbaptized,  afiiJ 
*'  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel !" 
5  f2 


66  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

It  strikes  me,  that  if  all  those  of  whom  I  have  spoken,  failed  to  dis- 
cover in  the  Bible  this  important  doctrine,  it  must  be  taught,  if  taught  at 
all,  most  obscurely.  If  Mr.  C.  hnd  taken  the  ground,  that  it  is  really 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  though  with  much  obscurity ;  there  might  have 
been  perhaps  some  plausibility  in  the  declaration,  at  least  a  possibility, 
that  he  is  in  the  right.  But  when  he  asserts,  that  it  lies  upon  the  very 
surface,  that  it  is  so  clearly  taught,  that  nothing  but  folly  or  perverseness 
can  prevent  the  discovery  of  it;  we  are  bound  to  believe,  either  that  he  is 
■wholly  mistaken,  or  that  the  multitudes  of  apparenUy  wise  and  good 
men  of  whom  I  have  spoken,  were  in  truth  most  perversely  rebellious  or 
most  profoundly  stupid!  When  we  read  of  such  men  as  the  celebrated 
Commentator,  Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  (and  he  is  one  among  hundreds)  who 
for  long  years  carefully  searched  the  Scriptures,  that  he  might  know  the 
truth  on  this  subject,  coming  finally  to  the  clear  conclusion  that  baptism 
is  scripturally  performed  by  pouring  or  sprinkling;  shall  we  be  told, 
that  the  Bible  most  plainly  leaches,  that  nothing  short  of  immersion  is 
christian  baptism?  I  repeat  it — this  discovery,  if  indeed  it  be  true,  is 
certainly  the  most  singular  of  all  the  discoveries  made  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  christian  era  ! 

Three  things,  and  only  three,  have  been  commonly  regarded  as  essen- 
tial to  the  validity  of  baptism,  viz  :  1st.  That  it  be  performed  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  2d.  That  it  be  ad- 
ministered by  an  ordained  or  properly  authorized  minister  of  the  Gospel  ; 
and,  3d.  That  water  be  the  fluid  employed.  The  precise  mode  of  apply- 
ing the  water  has  been  regarded  as  essential  by  only  a  mere  handful!, 
compared  with  even  Protestant  christians.  I  shall  indeed  be  surprised  if 
Mr.  C,  should  now  make  it  manifest,  that  they  were  all  deceived  in  a 
matter  so  important  as  he  regards  this. 

My  worthy  friend  has  proposed  to  take  the  common  translation,  (King 
James',)  and  rest  the  whole  controversy  upon  it.  But  he  was  careful 
not  to  make  this  proposition,  until  he  had  appealed  to  the  Greek  lexi- 
cons, ancient  and  modern!  But  having  first  adduced  these  authorities, 
and  having  heretofore  proclaimed  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  that  the  com- 
mon version  is  not  a  translation,  but  a  gross  perversion  of  the  original 
Greek ;  he  gravely  proposes  to  determine  the  whole  controversy  by  the 
English  translation !  If  he  had  ventured  to  make  this  proposition  at  first, 
I  might  witii  perfect  safety  have  accepted  it.  But  he  has  appealed  to  the 
Greeks,  and  to  the  Greeks  we  will  go,  though,  I  think,  with  less  obscu- 
rity of  criticism  than  has  characterized  his  remarks. 

The  evidence  in  support  of  his  views,  he  would  have  us  believe,  is  so 
abundant,  that  he  has  a  great  deal  to  spare.  I  am  inclined  to  think,  that 
he  will  need  it  all.  Perhaps  it  would  be  wise  in  him  not  to  be  too  gene- 
rous. 

Much  of  his  criticism  I  am  obliged  to  consider  wholly  incorrect.  If  I 
can  understand  him,  he  maintains,  that  when  a  word  has  in  it  a  leading 
syllable,  as  bap,  in  the  word  bapto,  it  never  in  any  of  its  inflexions  loses 
the  original  or  radical  import — that  bap  expresses  dip,  and  consequently, 
wherever  you  find  bap,  you  find  the  idea  of  dipping  or  immersing. 
Now  it  is  certain,  (and  I  can  prove  it  by  some  of  the  most  learned  men 
on  his  own  side  of  the  question,)  that  there  is  no  such  general  rule. 
Take,  for  example,  the  English  word  prevent.  It  is  derived  from  the 
Latin  words  p)-e  and  venio,  and  signifies  literally  to  come  before ;  and 
then  to  anticipate,  and  in  this  sense  it  was  first  employed  in  the  English 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  67 

language.  But  is  this  the  sense  in  which  it  is  now  used  by  correct  wri- 
ters and  speakers  ?  The  word  retains  the  leading  syllable  vent;  but,  I 
ask,  has  it  not  entirely  lost  its  original  meaning?  Is  it  not  now  univer- 
sally employed  in  a  secondary  sense,  to  hinder?  When  Mr.  C.  was 
about  to  give  a  new  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  he  asserted  that 
this  word  had  lost  its  original  meaning,  and,  to  prove  it,  quoted  the  pas- 
sage— "  Mine  eyes  prevent  the  dawning  of  the  morning."  And  this  was 
one  of  the  evidences  of  the  necessity  of  a  new  translation.  I  agree  with 
him,  that  this  word  has  lost  its  original  meaning. 

Again — what  is  the  literal  or  radical  meaning  to  the  word  conversa- 
tion? It  signifies  turning  about  from  one  thing  to  another.  Hence  it 
was  formerly  used  to  signify  conduct;  and  in  this  sense  it  is  almost  uni- 
formly used  in  our  translation  of  the  Bible.  But  is  this  its  present  mean- 
ing? Has  it  not  lost  its  original  import  and  assumed  a  meaning  quite 
different?  It  is  now  certainly  used  in  the  sense  of  talking — oral  com- 
munication. 

Mr.  Carson,  one  of  the  most  learned  critics  who  has  written  in  favor 
of  immersion,  fully  sustains  the  principle  for  which  I  am  contending. 
He  asserts,  that  words  very  often  lose  entirely  their  original  signification, 
and  a  secondary  meaning  comes  to  be  the  true  and  proper  meaning.  It 
is  not  true,  therefore,  that  words  of  any  class  always  retain  their  original 
philological  import.  On  the  contrary,  their  meaning  is  perpetually 
changing;  and  usage  only,  as  the  ablest  critics  declare,  can  determine 
it.  But  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  revert  to  this  point,  and  to  read  some 
of  Mr.  Carson's  remarks  upon  it,  I  will  for  the  present  pass  it. 

I  must  not  omit  to  notice  a  remark  of  my  friend  in  regard  to  new 
translations.  The  Pedo-baptists,  he  says,  and  not  the  immersion- 
ists,  call  for  new  translations.  I  had  not  learned  that  they  have  either 
made  or  desired  a  new  translation.  I  knew  that  Mr.  Campbell  had 
made  one,  and  that  in  every  case  but  one  he  had  translated  the  word 
baptizo,  to  immerse.  I  was  also  aware,  that  our  Baptist  brethren  had 
got  a  translation  of  their  own,  in  which  they  rendered  the  word  to  im- 
merse in  all  cases  except  two.  But  I  did  not  know,  that  the  Pedo-bap- 
tists desired  any  change.  I  had  supposed,  that  they  were  well  satisfied 
with  the  common  version. 

In  the  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  allow  me  to  turn  your  atten- 
tion to  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  by  im- 
mersionists,  that  the  controversy  turns  mainly  on  the  meaning  of  these 
words.  The  main  battle,  as  they  themselves  admit,  is  to  be  fought  on 
this  ground.  And  let  it  be  particularly  remarked,  that  it  is  acknowledged 
by  the  advocates  of  immersion,  that  these  two  words,  so  far  as  mode 
is  concerned,  have  precisely  the  same  meaning,  viz  :  to  immerse.  So 
says  Mr,  Carson. 

My  friend  has  appealed  to  the  lexicons,  as  the  highest  authority,  and 
has  quoted  a  number  of  them  in  support  of  his  views.  I  will  appeal  to 
the  same  lexicons.  He  attaches  great  importance  to  the  fact,  that  some 
of  them  are  ancient  lexicons.  And  yet  on  another  occasion  he  main- 
tained, that  in  these  latter  days  we  enjoy  superior  advantages,  and  hare 
consequendy  more  light  on  these  subjects — that  we  have  ail  the  light 
possessed  by  the  older  critics,  with  the  addition  of  all  the  improvements 
of  later  times.  And  he  offered  this  as  one  of  the  reasons  in  favor  of  a 
new  translation.  If  this  be  true,  I  do  not  know  why  the  modern  critics 
should  possess  less  authority  with  the  gentleman,  than  those  of  more  an- 


68  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

cient  date.  But  I  will  appeal  to  the  ancient,  as  well  as  the  modern  lexi- 
cons.    I  will  commence  with 

Hedericus,  who  defines  the  word  bapto — Mergo,  immergo,  (2)  Tingo, 
intingo,  (3)  Lavo,  &c., — to  immerse,  to  plunge,  to  dye — to  wash,  &lc. 

Scapula  defines  it — Mergo,  immergo — Item  tingo — inficere,  imbuere — 
Item  lavo — to  immerse,  to  plunge — also,  to  stain,  dye,  color — also,  to 
wash. 

Coulon — Mergo,  tingo,  abluo — to  immerse,  to  dye,  to  cleanse. 

Ursinus — To  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  (abluo,  aspergo.) 

Schrivellius — Mergo,  intingo,  lavo,  haurio,  &c.,  to  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash, 
to  draw  water. 

Groves — To  dip,  plunge,  immerse,  to  wash,  to  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle, 
to  steep,  imbue,  to  dye,  Sic. 

Donnegan — To  dip,  to  plunge  into  water,  to  submerge,  to  wash,  to 
dye,  to  color, — to  wash,  &c. 

The  lexicons,  you  will  observe,  not  only  define  the  word  bapto,  to  dip, 
plunge,  dye,  but  also  lavo,  to  wash.  Now  every  one  at  all  acquainted 
with  Latin,  knows  that  lavo  signifies  simply  to  wash,  without  regard  to 
mode — that  it  never  expresses  mode.  Scapula  defines  this  word  not  on- 
ly to  dip,  dye,  &c.,  but  to  loash,  (in  any  mode  ;)  and  he  is  one  of  the  first 
authorities  adduced  by  Mr.  Campbell.  Groves  goes  even  further,  and 
defines  it  to  wet,  tnoisten,  sprinkle,  &c.  How  ignorant  he  must  have 
been,  not  to  have  learned  Mr.  Campbell's  rule,  that  wherever  you  find  bap 
you  find  also  the  idea  of  dipping!  How  strange  that  he  should  have 
been  so  unwise  as  not  only  to  define  it  to  wash,  but  also  to  wet;  not  only 
to  wet,  but  to  moisten  ;  not  only  to  moisten,  but  to  sprinkle!  But  in  due 
time  I  will  prove  that  wiser  men  than  Groves  have  done  the  same  thing. 

To  wash,  every  one  knows,  does  not  express  mode,  neither  do  the 
words  dye,  color.  Each  of  the  lexicons  just  quoted  gives  several  defini- 
tions of  bapto }  at  least  two  of  which,  to  wash  and  to  color,  exclude 
the  idea  of  mode ;  whilst  some  of  them  define  it  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle. 
I  have  not  seen  the  tree  of  which  my  friend  has  spoken ;  but  it  is  certain, 
unless  the  lexicographers  are  all  in  error,  that  bapto  does  not  uniformly 
signify  to  immerse.  Even  Carson,  the  great  Baptist  critic,  admits  that  il 
does  not  always  express  mode.     I  will  read  on  pages  62,  63,  64 : 

"A  word,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "may  come  to  enlarge  its  meaning,  so  as 
to  lose  sight  of  its  origin.  This  fact  must  be  obvious  to  every  smatterer 
in  philology.  Had  it  been  attended  to.  Baptists  would  have  found  no 
necessity  to  prove  that  bapto,  when  it  signifies  to  dye,  always  properly 
signifies  to  dye  by  dipping  ;  and  their  opponents  would  have  seen  no  ad- 
vantage from  proving  that  it  signifies  dying  in  any  manner.''^  Again, 
^'^  Bapto  signifies,  to  dye  by  sprinkling,  as  properly  as  by  dipping; 
though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter."  Again,  "Nor  are  such 
applications  of  the  word  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr.  Gale  as- 
serts. They  are  as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning.  It  is  by  extension 
of  literal  meaning,  and  not  by  figure  of  any  kind,  that  words  come  to  de- 
part so  far  from  their  original  signification." 

Observe,  Carson  says,  bapto  originally  signified  to  dip,  then  to  dye  by 
dipping,  and  then  to  dye  in  any  manner,  even  by  sprinkling.  Now  if 
it  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling,  why  can  it  not  signify  to  wet  by  sprink- 
ling? Is  there  any  rule  or  principle  of  interpretation,  which  teaches  that 
a  word  may  denote  the  sprinkling  of  a  colored  fluid,  and  be  incapable  of 
expressing  the  sprinkling  of  a  colorless  fluid  ?     If  there  is,  let  it  be  pro- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  (Jy 

duced.  If  there  is  not,  bapto  will  express  the  sprinkling  of  water,  as  well 
as  of  any  other  fluid.  Mr.  Carson,  moreover,  declares  that  such  applica- 
tions of  the  word  are  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor  ov  figure,  as  Dr. 
Gale,  another  learned  immersionist,  maintained,  but  that  they  are  as  liter- 
al as  the  primary  meaning — that  it  is  by  the  extension  of  the  literal 
meaning,  and  not  by  figure  of  any  kind,  that  words  depart  so  far  from 
their  original  significatioa.  The  word  bapto,  therefore,  not  only  expres- 
ses the  application  of  a  fluid  by  sprinkling,  but  this  is  a  /i7era/#signi{ica- 
tion.  Now  Carson,  who  was  a  zealous  immersionist,  did  not  intend  to 
concede  any  thing  more  than  candor  and  truth  demanded.  We  have, 
therefore,  evidence  conclusive  that  bapto  signifies  not  only  to  dip,  plunge, 
&c.,  but  to  wash  and  to  sprinkle. 

We  will  now  examine  the  testimony  of  the  lexicons  concerning  the 
word  baptizo,  the  word  uniformly  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express 
christian  baptism. 

Scapula,  one  of  the  old  lexicographers  to  whom  Mr.  C.  appealed,  thus 
defines  the  word  baptizo  :  "Mergo,  seu  immergo — Item  tingo:  ut  qufe  tin- 
gendi  aut  abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus — Item  mergo,  submergo,  ob- 
ruo  aqua — Item  abluo,  lavo,  (Mark  7,  Luke  II,)  to  dip  or  immerse — al- 
so, to  dye:  as  we  immerse  things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing 
them  ;  also,  to  plunge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water;  also,  to  cleanse, 
to  wash.  (Mark  7,  Luke  11.)  JJaptismos,  he  thus  defines  :  "Mersio,  lotio, 
ablutio,  ipse  immergendi,  item  lavandi  seu  abluendi  actus,"  (Mark  7,  &c.) 
Immersion,  washing,  cleansing,  the  act  itself  of  immersing ;  also  of  ivash- 
ing,  or  cleansing,'"  (Mark  7,  &c.) 

Hedericus  i\\VLS  i\e^nes  baptizo:  "Mergo,  immergo,  aqua  abruo, — (2) 
Abluo,  lavo;  (3)  Baptizo,  significatu  sacro"— To  dip,  immerse,  to.  cover 
with  water ;  (2)  to  cleanse  ;  to  ivash  ;  (3)  to  baptize  in  a  sacred,  sense. 

Stephanus  defines  it  thus  :  "  Mergo,  seu  immergo,  ut  quae  tingendi  aut 
abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus — Mergo,  submergo,  obruo  aqua;  abluo, 
lavo^' — To  dip,  immerse,  as  we  immerse  things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring 
or  washing;  to  merge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water — to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

Schleusner  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  plunge,  immerse,  but  to  cleuiise, 
wash,  to  purify  with  water  ;  (abluo,  lavo,  aqua  purgo.) 

Parkhurst  defines  it:  "To  immerse  in  or  wash  with  water  in  token 
of  purification." 

Robinson  defines  it:  "To  immerse,  to  sink;  for  example,  spoken  oi 
ships,  galleys,  &c.  In  the  New  Testament,  to  wash,  to  cleanse  by  wash- 
ing— to  wash  one's  self,  to  bathe,  perform  ablution,''^  &.c. 

Schrivellius  defines  it:  "Baptizo,  mergo,  abluo,  lavo — to  baptize,  to 
immerse,  to  cleanse,  to  wash." 

Groves — "  To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge  ;  to  wash,  cleanse., 
purify — Baptizomai,  to  wash  one's  self,  bathe,"  &;c. 

Bretschneider, — "Proprise  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo  ;  deinde(l)  lavo, 
abluo  simpliciter — medium,  &-c.;  lavo  me,  abluo  me:"  properly  often  to 
dip,  often  to  wash;  then  (1)  simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse;  in  the  middle 
voice,  "  I  wash  or  cleanse  myself." 

Suidas  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  sink,  plunge,  immerse,  but  to  wet, 
wash,  cleanse,  purify,  &c.,  (madefacio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  mundo.) 

fVahl  defines  it,  first — to  wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse;  secondly, 
to  immerse,  &;c. 

Greenfield  defines  it:  to  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink;  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse;  to  immerse. 


70  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

I  have  now  adduced  the  principal  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern ;  and 
it  is  a  fact,  that  with  remarkable  unanimity,  they  testify  that  the  word 
baptizo  signifies  not  only  to  sink,  dip,  plunge,  &c.,  but/o  ivash,  to  cleanse, 
to  purify.  Scapula,  the  learned  lexicographer,  to  whom  Mr.  C.  ap- 
pealed with  so  much  confidence,  defines  it  not  only  to  dip,  plunge,  &c., 
but  to  wash,  to  cleanse;  and,  mark  the  fact,  he  rei'ers  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  the  place  in  which  we  find  the  word  used  in  the  sense  of  wash- 
ing, clejyising.  Now  every  one  at  all  acquainted  with  Latin,  knows 
that  the  words  lavo  and  abluo, — to  wash,  to  cleanse, — do  not  express 
mode.     They  signify  washing  and  cleansing  in  any  mode. 

Let  me  here  distinctly  remark,  that  1  am  not  contending  that  the  word 
baptizo  definitely  expresses  pouring  or  sprinkling.  I  maintain  that,  as 
used  in  the  Scriptures,  it  expresses  the  thing  done — the  application  of 
water  to  a  subject — but  not  the  mode  of  doing  it;  that  the  mode  in  which 
baptism  was  administered  cannot  be  determined  by  the  word,  but  must 
be  learned  from  the  connection  and  circumstances,  or  from  other  sources. 

Hedericus  defines  the  word — first,  to  immerse  or  plunge,  and  second- 
ly, to  ivash,  cleanse,  without  reference  to  mode.  Schleusner,  besides 
the  definition  to  plunge,  &c.,  gives  three  others,  which  express  the  thing 
done,  but  not  the  mode  of  doing  it:  viz.  abluo,  lavo,  aqua  purgo — to 
cleanse,  to  wash,  to  purify  with  water.  Parkhurst  makes  it  mean  either 
to  immerse  in,  or  wash  with  water.  Robinson,  one  of  the  first  lexico- 
graphers, first  gives  the  definition  to  immerse,  to  sink,  &c.,  but  in  the 
New  Testament  the  first  meaning  he  finds  is  to  wash,  to  cleanse  by 
washing,  to  perform  ablution.  Bretschneider  gives  as  the  general  mean- 
ing oi  baptizo,  "  Proprie  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo" — properly  often  to 
dip,  often  to  wash — thus  putting  these  two  definitions  upon  a  perfect 
equality  with  each  other.  This  is  all  for  which  I  contend.  But  as  his  is  a 
lexicon  of  the  New  Testament ;  x\\e  first  meaning  he  there  finds,  is  "  lavo, 
abluo  sempliciler;"  simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse.  Here,  certainly,  is  no 
immersing.  I  deem  the  authority  of  Bretschneider  more  important,  not 
only  because  he  is  one  of  the  most  learned  lexicographers,  but  because 
he  was  evidently  partial  to  immersion.  Yet,  as  a  scholar,  he  was  con- 
strained to  give  lavo,  abluo,  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  as  a  literal  meaning  of 
baptizo.  Suidas,  one  of  the  oldest  lexicographers,  as  we  have  seen,  de- 
fines it  not  only  to  plunge,  sink,  &c.,  but  to  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  &,c. 
and  every  one  knows  that  a  thing  may  be  wetted,  washed,  or  cleansed, 
without  being  immersed.  Greenfield  defines  it,  as  you  see,  to  sink,  to 
wash,  &c. 

Now  let  it  be  remarked,  that  each  of  these  lexicographers,  ancient  and 
modern,  establishes  all  for  which  I  contend.  With  entire  unanimity  they 
declare  that  the  word  baptizo  does  not  signify  simply  and  only  to  im- 
merse, but  that  it  means  also  to  wash,  cleanse,  &c.  It  certainly  has 
these  different  meanings.  Now  if  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  can  prove  that  the 
Savior  and  the  inspired  writers  employed  it  in  the  sense  of  immersing, 
he  will  have  gained  his  point.  But  if  he  cannot  prove  that  it  was  used 
by  them  in  the  specific  sense  of  immersing,  and  not  in  the  general  sense 
of  washing,  cleansing,  he  is  defeated.  For  if  it  should  be  true,  that  they 
used  it  in  the  general  sense  of  washing,  &-c.,  how  can  Mr.  C.  prove,  by 
the  force  of  the  word,  the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending?  I  main- 
tain that  they  did  use  it  in  the  general,  and  not  in  the  specific  sense  ; 
and  I  expect  to  prove  it  by  the  Scriptures. 

My  friend  says,  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  required  to  be  expressed 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  71 

by  a  specific  term.  Now  I  would  like  to  see  any  man  attempt  to  deter- 
mine by  the  Greek  or  the  Hebrew  word  employed,  what  was  the  pre- 
cise modus  operandi  of  circumcision.  lie  could  not  do  it.  I  should 
like  to  see  any  one  attempt  to  give  those  words,  as  applied  to  denote 
circumcision,  a  literal  translation.  Such  a  translation,  I  presume,  would 
appear  rather  ludicrous. 

But  mark  this  fact:  a  number  of  washings  are  commanded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  mode  of  performing  which  is  not  specified.  The  word 
employed  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  Septuagint  is  a  generic 
term,  signifying  simply  to  ivash.  The  washing,  therefore,  might  be 
performed,  (and  the  command  obeyed,)  in  different  modes  ;  because  no 
particular  mode  was  prescribed.  In  these  instances  the  thing  to  be  done 
was  important,  but  the  mode  of  doing  it  was  not. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  maintains  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  essential  to 
the  ordinance,  and  that  the  command  to  baptize  must  have  been  denoted 
by  a  specific  term.  Let  him  first  prove  that  it  cannot  be  validly  admin- 
istered but  in  one  particular  mode  ;  for  until  he  has  established  this  posi- 
tion he  cannot  prove,  a  priori,  that  the  Savior  must  have  used  a  specific 
term.  He  might  as  easily  prove,  that  in  appointing  the  washings  of  the 
Levitical  law,  just  mentioned,  Moses  must  have  used  a  specific  term; 
which  is  contrarj'  to  fact. 

I  do  not,  however,  maintain  that  the  mode  in  which  baptism  is  to  be 
administered  is  unimportant,  though  I  do  contend  that  it  is  not  essential. 
But  though  the  word  baptizo  does  not  definitely  express  the  mode,  it 
may  be  learned  from  the  design  of  the  ordinance,  and  from  the  circum- 
stances attending  the  administration  of  it;  and  these  evidences  are  deci- 
dedly in  favor  of  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Let  the  facts  now  established  be  remembered,  viz  :  that  the  words 
bapto  and  baptizo  have  several  meanings — that  they  are  used  sometimes 
in  the  sense  of  dipping,  plunging,  sinking ;  sometimes  in  the  sense  of 
washing,  cleansing,  purifying;  sometimes  in  the  sense  of  pouring, 
sprinkling.  In  the  classics  I  can  prove,  that  four  times  in  five  baptizo 
expresses  sinking  to  the  bottom.  Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  the 
lexicons  refer  to  the  Bible  for  the  use  of  baptizo  in  the  general  sense  of 
washing,  cleansing. 

Perhaps  I  ought  not  to  anticipate  my  friend  in  his  argument.  He  has 
appealed  to  the  lexicons ;  and  I  have  now  proved  that  they  do  not  sustain 
his  doctrine.  I  might  admit,  that  the  primary  or  original  meaning  of 
baptizo  was  to  immerse,  though  it  cannot  be  proved.  I  can  admit  this, 
and  still  prove,  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  such  was  its 
meaning  among  the  Jews,  as  used  to  denote  their  religious  washings, 

I  am  willing,  at  any  time,  to  go  with  my  friend  to  classic  usage,  and  to 
prove  that  it  will  not  sustain  him.  I  am  also  prepared,  and  it  is  my  pur- 
pose, to  go  to  the  usage  of  the  word  in  the  Bible;  and  this,  according  to 
the  decision  of  the  best  critics,  must,  after  all,  determine  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  Thus  I  expect  to  make  it  manifest,  that  baptism  is  validly 
and  scripturally  performed  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

I  am  gratified  to  learn  the  estimation  in  which  x\Ir.  C.  holds  professor 
Stuart,  whom  he  styles  his  .American  apostle.  He  tells  us,  Stuart  admits 
that  all  critics  and  commentators  of  any  note  agree  in  defining  baptizo  to 
dip,  to  plunge.  This  is  true,  but  is  not  the  Avhole  truth.  Let  us  have 
the  whole  testimony  of  this  apostle.  Stuart  also  says,  baptizo  means  to 
overwhelm,  which  certainly  is  not  identical  with  dip,  plunge.     He  goes 


72  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

further,  and  tells  us  that  it  signifies  to  wash,  to  cleanse ;  and  maintains, 
that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that,  as  used  among  the  Jews,  it  sig- 
nified to  immerse ;  and  he  gives  several  examples  in  which  it  evidently 
has  not  that  meaning,  but  signifies  to  wash  by  applying  water  to  the  sub- 
ject. I  am  willing  to  take  tiie  testimony  of  our  American  apostle.  He 
does,  indeed,  say,  i\\^i  baptizo  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge;  but  he  does 
not  admit  tliat  such  is  its  ordinary  meaning  in  the  Scriptures.  Nay,  he 
positively  denies  that  there  is  in  the  New  Testament  a  single  command 
to  immerse  any  one,  and  calls  upon  those  who  say  there  is,  to  produce  it. 
I  will,  if  it  should  be  necessary,  turn  to  the  pages  and  read  the  declara- 
tions to  wliich  I  refer. 

I  am  willing,  if  Mr.  C.  wishes  it,  to  appeal  to  critics  and  learned  men; 
and  I  will  find  as  many  to  sustain  me,  as  he  can  produce  against  me. 
Or  I  am  willing  to  appeal  directly  to  the  Bible.  But  for  the  present  I 
close  my  remarks. — [_Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  15 — 12i  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  second    address.]] 

I  think  it  is  usual,  Mr.  President,  and  a  rule  in  all  scholastic  discus- 
sions, that  the  respondent  shall  confine  himself  to  the  arguments  of  the 
affirmant,  on  whom  the  omis  probandi  rests.  Till  the  affirmant  has 
offered  all  his  proofs,  it  is  not  usual  for  the  respondent  to  anticipate  him. 
His  duty  it  is  to  respond  to  such  arguments  as  he  relies  on,  rather  than 
to  those  which  he  has  not  brought  forward.  However,  as  these  intro- 
ductory speeches  are  usually  more  general  than  special  in  character,  I 
am  willing  to  overlook  the  aberrations  observable  in  the  desultory  re- 
marks of  my  worthy  friend. 

It  may  occasionally  become  necessary  for  me  to  advert  to  the  com- 
ments of  the  gentleman  upon  the  arguments  which  I  shall  off'er  as  we  pro- 
ceed. He  begins  by  declaring  himself,  if  not  relevantly,  at  least,  clearly 
and  forcibly,  on  the  premises.  He  observes,  that  large  majorities  of  learned 
men  are  against  me.  I  will  however  show,  at  the  proper  time,  that  every 
reformer  is  agreed  with  us  as  to  the  antiquity  and  propriety  of  immer- 
sion, as  well  as  in  the  etymology  of  the  terms  in  debate — his  own  Cal- 
vin, and  all  the  rest.  As  to  the  great  superiority  of  numbers  on  the  side 
of  the  Pedo-baptists,  it  is  a  great  mistake.  I  have  been  often  surprised 
to  find  that  this  groundless  opinion  should  have  obtained  so  generally  in 
this  country.  Talk  about  the  immense  numbers  of  Pedo-baptists,  aS 
contrasted  with  those  who  practice  immersion!  The  gentleman  must 
certainly  have  forgotten  his  ecclesiastical  readings.  He  ought  to  know 
very  well,  that  the  great  mass  of  Christendom  have  always  immersed. 
He  speaks  in  his  hyperbolical  way,  of  a  thousand  to  one  against  the  im- 
mersionists.  I  will  not  be  so  particular  as  to  state  the  fractional  ratios 
of  all  ages,  but  in  the  bold  style  of  my  friend,  I  will  say  that  the  whole 
christian  world  for  the  first  thirteen  centuries,  and  for  the  last  five,  at 
least  one  half  have  immersed.  I  repeat,  sir,  almost  the  whole  church 
immersed  for  the  first  thirteen  hundred  years,  and  at  least  one  half  of  it 
for  the  last  five  hundred  years.  So  that  the  gendeman  is  entirely  mista- 
ken in  representing  us  as  in  a  fearful  minority.  So  far  as  numbers  are 
concerned,  we  have  in  all  time,  a  decided  and  overwhelming  majority.  But, 
at  present,  I  lay  no  stress  upon  numbers,  I  have  said  thus  much  with 
reference  to  the  emphasis  my  friend  appeared  to  place  upon  the  antiquity 
and  universality  of  his  views.     His  views  and  practice  are  neither  so 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  73 

ancient  nor  so  universal  as  ours.     I  now  pledge  myself  to  sustain  this 
assertion  at  the  proper  time. 

With  regard  to  the  origin  or  occasion  of  this  discussion,  it  is  alledged 
that  my  friends  had  something  to  do  with  it,  of  which  I  know  nothing, 
and  for  which,  were  it  so,  I  am  not  answerable.  I  was  asked  by  a  friend, 
while  in  Richmond,  August,  1842,  whether  I  was  willing  to  have  an 
mterview  with  Mr.  Brown,  should  he  call  upon  me  touching  my 
sermon  delivered  in  that  place?     To  which  I  promptly  assented. 

After  an  introduction  to  Mr.  Brown,  he  observed  that  he  desired  to 
know  whether  I  would  be  willing  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  the  points 
of  difference  between  Presbyterians  and  us.  To  which  I  assented  on 
certain  conditions.  One  of  the  most  prominent  of  which  was,  that  it 
should  have  the  authority  of  both  parties,  and  come  out  under  their 
denominational  sanctions.     To  which  he  consented. 

Mr.  Rice  has  represented  this  as  a  mere  personal  affair.  I  do  not  so 
understand  it.  I  know  that  in  my  interview  with  Mr.  Brown,  it  was 
proposed  that  the  Presbyterian  synod  of  Kentucky  should  make  the  se- 
lection of  a  debatant  to  meet  me  in  the  discussion  of  these  questions.  I 
did  not  think,  at  the  time,  and  I  presume  he  did  not,  that  the  synod  had 
no  authority  to  select  any  person  to  represent  the  Presbyterian  church 
on  such  an  occasion;  that  when  assembled  together  in  synod,  they  could 
not  ecclesiastically  make  such  a  nomination.  I  am,  however,  officially 
informed,  that  a  conference  relative  to  this  discussion,  was  actually  held 
while  the  synod  was  in  session ;  that  five  persons  were  selected  for  this 
occasion,  one  of  which  was  to  be  the  debatant.  I  will,  however,  read  the 
result  of  this  conference  in  letters  received  from  Mr.  Brown. 

Under  date  of  January  3d,  1843,  Mr.  Brown  writes  as  follows: — 

"I  also  stated  that  the  persons  selected  were  chosen,  not  by  the  synod, 
but  in  conference,  and  that  some  of  them  were  known  and  acknowledged 
to  be  the  most  prominent  men  in  our  church." 

Again,  under  date  of  the  8th  of  March,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Brown  says : — 
"  Your  perfect  willingness  to  meet  those  individuals,  is  in  full  view  of  the 
fact,  distinctly  stated  in  my  former  communication  that  they  were  not 
appointed  by  the  synod,  but  only  agreed  upon  at  the  synod." 

With  regard  to  filling  vacancies,  it  was  also  agreed  that  any  vacancy 
occurring' "  should  be  filled  by  the  five  originally  appointed." 

This  is  again  reiterated  under  date  of  the  15th  of  May  : — "  We  offer 
you  a  Presbyterian  minister  as  your  opponent,  who  shall  be  selected  by 
us,  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  arrangements  made  at  synod, 
viz : — that  we  should  select  one  of  our  number  to  meet  you  in  debate. 
Now  you  have  your  choice  to  retreat  or  to  accept." 

Once  more,  under  date  of  June  16th,  1843  :  »'  But,  sir,  we  are  five  in 
number,  and  the  gentleman  who  is  ready  to  debate  with  you  has  been 
selected  by  four  of  us,  of  whom  Mr.  Young  is  one  :  so,  you  have  quite 
as  many  witnesses  as  you  desire.  We  have  selected  the  man  into  whose 
hands  we  think  proper  to  commit  the  defence  of  our  cause.  His  stand- 
ing is  well  known  both  in  Kentucky  and  out  of  it.  We  will  not  select 
another;  you  can  either  debate  with  him  or  retreat  from  the  discussion." 
Mr.  Rice  is  then  the  elect  Presbyterian  clergyman — elected,  not  by, 
but  at  synod,  in  conference  of  the  ministry,  and  that  is  enough  for  me. 
I  care  not  how  the  ministry  elected  him ;  the  fact  of  his  election  is  incon- 
trovertible. It  is  not  therefore  a  personal  affair  between  Mr.  Rice  and 
myself. 

G 


74  BEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

With  regard  to  the  lexicographic  authorities  we  have  quoted,  I  am 
glad  to  find  that  the  gentleman,  £!VIr.  Rice]  has  not  excepted  to  one  of 
them.  I  have  proposed  a  very  respectable  class  of  witnesses,  but  I  have 
not  yet  begun  to  descant  upon  their  testimony.  I  had  intended  also  to 
have  quoted  some  thirteen  other  authorities,  of  the  same  class,  and  coi'^ 
roboralive  of  the  same  position. 

[He  gives  the  dates  of  the  imprints  of  several  lexicons,  some  thirteen, 
which  !ie.  might  have  adduced,  and  says:] 

These  all  concur  with  those  already  quoted :  and  sustain  my  criticism 
on  the  words  bapto  and  haptizo.  I  have  examined,  in  all,  some  thirty- 
five  ainhorities  of  this  class,  ancient  and  modern,  and,  in  regard  to  the 
whole  family  of  words,  they  exhibit  a  concurrence  of  testimony  uniform 
and  perfect  as  can  be  found  on  any  other  word  in  the  language. 

My  iriend  did  not  seem  to  understand  my  criticism  on  the  syllable  hap. 
I  did  not,  nor  do  I  argue,  that  words  never  change  their  meaning — never 
depart  from  their  etymological  import.  Nay,  I  have  often  asserted  that 
an  almost  infinite  variety  of  changes  has  occurred,  and  will  occur,  in  the 
words  of  all  living  tongues.  These  were  substantially  my  own  words, 
quoted  by  my  friend  to  show  that  the  meanings  of  words  are  constantly 
undergoing  change  in  the  current  usage  of  a  living  language. 

I  presume  that  the  gentleman  did  not  intend  to  misrepresent  me  in  this. 
I  affirmed  that  the  meaning  of  the  radical  syllable  of  a  specific  word  re- 
mains the  same  in  its  various  flexions;  and  also  that  all  words  originally 
specific,  never  so  change  their  meaning  as  to  lose  their  original  import — 
that  terms  expressing  specific  action  never  change.  And  I  now  call  upon 
the  gentleman  to  produce  an  exception  to  this  rule.  That,  however,  is 
what  I  am  persuaded  he  cannot  do. 

With  me,  Mr.  President,  all  active  verbs  indicate  either  generic  or 
specific  action.  Generic  words  are  frequendy  changing  their  import;— 
they  are  such  words  as  informally  express  action  passion  or  emotion. 
For  all  words  of  mode,  as  Mr.  Caison  would  call  them,  (thereby  impro- 
perly admitting,  in  this  case,  that  there  may  be  a  mode  of  baptism,)  have 
but  one  meaning.  His  words  of  mode  are  all  included  in  my  specific 
terms  ;  words  indicating  specific  forms  of  action.  It  is  essential  that  it 
be  singular,  in  order  to  its  being  specific.  If,  therefore,  I  establish  the 
fact,  tliat  haptizo  is  a  specific  word,  indicating  specific  action,  then  all 
its  other  meanings  are  figurative  ;  and  so  I  shall  prove  with  reference  to 
this  word. 

^,  Every  person  who  pays  attention  to  the  etymology  and  philology  of 
language,  knows  that  all  words  are  used  figuratively.  Not  even  the 
name  of  the  Deity  is  exempt  from  this  law  of  language.  The  word  God 
is  transferred  to  any  thing  that  can  be  deified — to  men's  appetites  and 
passions.  There  is  no  word  so  sacred  as  to  be  exempted  from  the  pos- 
sibility of  being  accommodated  in  this  way.  But  no  specific  word, 
(thoiigh  it  may  be  used  figuratively)  can  be  made  to  have  a  signification 
specifically  different  from  the  proper  idea  or  action  for  which  it  origin- 
ally stood  ;  for  the  moment  you  change  it,  it  forever  loses  its  first  'mean- 
ing. For  example — if  you  prove  that  haptizo  originally  signifies  to  dip, 
you  cannot  by  any  possibility  make  it  signify  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour. 
For  were  we  to  make  immersion  an  indictable  offence,  as  it  has  been, 
and  suppose  that  A  was  indicted  for  having  immersed  B,  but  during  the 
trial  it  appeared  in  evidence  that  he  only  poured  a  little  water  upon  him, 
either  pouring  or  immersion  must  cease  to  be  specific  actions,  and  mean 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  75 

the  same  thing,  or  A  would  be  discharged,  and  the  complainant  would 
pay  the  costs.  For  that  would  destroy  its  specific  character — its  first 
meaning ;  and  besides,  such  a  liberty  would  destroy  the  precision  and 
utility  of  speech. 

Before  entering  further  into  these  matters,  or  bringing  it  to  a  close, 
there  are  some  things  of  secondary  importance  bearing  upon  it,  adverted  to 
in  the  speech  which  you  have  just  heard,  to  which  I  will  briefly  allude. 

The  reason  I  prefer  the  older  lexicons  is  this  :  they  were  made  before 
this  controversy  had  become  rife.  For  example:  Mr.  Groves,  a  late 
lexicographer,  or  some  other  person,  has  foisted  the  word  sprinkle  in- 
to his  Greek  and  English  dictionary,  as  one  of  the  meanings  oibap- 
tizOi  a  most  daring  innovation  I  Whether  Groves  or  some  other  person 
has  interpolated  it  we  know  not ;  the  person  to  whom  it  is  attributable  is 
unknown  to  us.  And  yet,  I  dare  say,  the  editor,  whoever  he  was,  did 
it  conscientiously.  I  even  presume  that  my  friend,  [Mr.  Rice]  were  he 
to  make  a  dictionary  of  the  Greek  language,  would  also  insert  the  word 
sprinkle  as  one  of  its  meanings.  Such  is  the  force  of  prejudice  and  usage 
on  the  minds  of  men,  that  many  good  Pedo-baptists,  in  their  preachings, 
always  give  the  words  pour  and  sprinkle  as  meanings  of  baptizo.  I  have 
been  astonished  at  the  liberty  taken  with  the  older  lexicons  by  some  of 
our  modern  editors.  For  example :  The  lexicon  of  Schrevellius  has 
passed  through  seventeen  editions  ;  it  gave  but  two  meanings  to  baptizo, 
to  wit — mergo,  lavo ;  but  now,  in  four  recent  editions,  somebody  has 
presumed  to  increase  the  meanings  of  this  word  to  four.  It  is  on  this 
account  that  I  prefer  the  earlier  lexicons.  These  give  the  definition  of 
words  as  they  were  used  before  this  controversy  began. 

With  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  I  request  the  par- 
ticular attention  of  the  audience ;  for  it  is  on  this  point,  as  the  gentleman 
has  correctly  observed,  the  controversy  must  be  decided.  It  shall  be  my 
purpose  and  object  then,  to  establish  the  fact,  that  baptizo  is  a  specific 
word,  and  as  such,  can  have  but  one  proper,  original,  and  literal 
meaning. 

Asserting  that  the  action  of  baptism  is  not  implied  in  the  word,  my 
friend  has  said,  that  no  man  could  learn  the  action  of  circumcision  from 
the  word.  Strange  indeed!  Is  not  ^'■cutting  roicnd''^  its  meaning,  its 
specific  meaning?  Certainly  that  is  as  expressive  of  the  action  as  any 
word  can  be.  True,  the  history  and  precept  of  the  ordinance  shows  us 
on  what  part  of  the  body  the  action  was  performed.  A  positive  ordi- 
nance, binding  on  the  nation  of  Israel,  under  the  penalty  of  death,  it  was 
expedient  and  necessary  to  indicate  by  a  specific  term,  so  plain  and  so 
definite  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  misunderstand  it;  and  because 
circumcision  is  exactly  such  a  term,  this  is  the  best  and  the  only  reason 
that  can  be  given  for  its  selection. 

Hence,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  when  the  Great  Lawgiver  of 
the  christian  religion  came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  would  institute  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  he  had  some  specific  idea  in  his  mind.  Indeed,  it 
is  impossible  to  suppose  that  he  had  not.  He  must  have  intended  some 
particular  thing  to  be  done.  He  must  have  had  some  specific  design  in 
his  mind ;  and  he  could  not  have  been  consistent  with  himself,  had  he 
not  selected  a  word  expressive  of  that  specific  design.  How,  then,  could 
the  anther  of  this  institution  do  otherwise  than  select  a  specific  word'^ 
the  best  word  in  human  speech  to  express  his  design?  Having  it  wholly 
in  his  power  to  select  his  own  term,  would  it  have  been  consistent,  rea- 


76  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

soiling  a  priori,  for  him  to  select  the  word  pouring-,  when  he  intended 
immersion  ?  or  the  word  immersion,  when  he  intended  sprinkling  ?  No, 
reasoning  from  analogy,  evident  it  is,  that  the  Author  of  our  religion 
would  give  a  term  essentially  specific. 

But  now  there  are  three  words  submitted  to  us  by  our  Pedo-baptist 
brethren,  which  are  alledged  to  express  this  design :  they  are  sprinkle, 
pour,  dip.  These  are  all  specific  words.  Sprinkling  is  well  defined  and 
understood  amongst  all  men;  so  is  pouring;  so  is  dipping.  Is  it  not 
impossible  to  conceive  that  each  of  these  terms  has  been  chosen  to 
express  the  same  specific  idea  and  design  1  Could  the  Messiah,  to 
express  and  define  one  action,  have  selected  a  word  signifying  three  dis- 
tinct actions  ?  I  cannot  admit  it.  No  three  actions  can  be  more  differ- 
ent than  sprinkling,  dipping,  pouring.  When  we  sprinkle  an  individual, 
we  put  something  upon  his  person  ;  and  when  we  immerse  an  individual, 
we  put  the  person  into  something.  In  the  former  case,  we  change  the 
position  of  the  matter  with  regard  to  the  person ;  and  in  the  latter  case, 
we  change  the  position  of  the  person  with  regard  to  the  matter. 

In  baptism,  we  have  an  inward  spiritual  intention  and  transition,  or  a 
passing  from  one  state  to  another  ;  and  if  the  outward  action  is  to  exhibit 
the  intention  and  transition,  how,  I  ask,  are  we  to  regard  these  three 
terms,  sprinkling,  pouring  and  dipping,  as  expressive  of  the  same  inten- 
tion ?  They  are  each  specifically  dilferent  from  the  others.  No  one 
term  could  express  the  meaning  of  these  three.  Every  one  of  them  has 
its  representative  in  the  original. 

There  is  no  opposing  these  lexicons.  They  universally  agree  with  us 
in  determining  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  That  the 
original  meaning  of  the  term  is  to  dip,  to  immerse,  is,  indeed,  a  matter 
hardly  to  be  debated  at  this  day  ;  and  1  was  glad  to  hear  my  friend  admit, 
what  is  univei'sally  admitted  and  agreed  to,  that  this  word  had  but  one 
meaning.  Now  tins  being  conceded,  how  comes  it  to  pass,  that,  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  the  word  has  come  to  signify  a  plurality  of  actions  !  But  I  can 
tjemonstrate  that  the  term  has  uniformly  meant  the  same  thing,  from  the 
earliest  ages  of  the  world,  in  its  religious  as  well  as  in  its  classical  usage. 

In  the  law  of  Moses  we  have  an  ordinance  for  cleansing  a  leper  ;  and  I 
presume  that  my  friend  will  admit  that  the  cleansing  of  a  leper  from  his 
disease,  was  indicative  of  the  cleansing  of  a  sinner  from  his  sins.  Well : 
this  ceremony  is  solemnly  put  to  record  in  Lev.  xiv. ;  and  it  is  remarka- 
ble, that,  in  a  single  sentence  of  this  chapter,  the  three  words  which  are 
sometimes  called  baptism,  are  brought  together  in  solemn  contrast.  They 
are  all  found  in  the  law  for  purifying  the  unclean,  and  cleansing  the  leper. 
Blood  was  to  be  sprinkled,  oil  was  to  be  poured,  hysop  was  to  be  dipped, 
and  then,  after  these  ceremonies,  the  unclean  was  to  bathe.  In  giving  a 
detailed  account  of  these  ceremonies,  the  inspired  writer  has  presented 
these  words  in  contrast  thus  :  "  And  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the  log 
of  oil,  and  pour  it  into  the  palm  of  his  own  left  hand,  and  shall  dip  his 
right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil 
with  his  finger  seven  times  before  the  Lord."  In  cleansing  from  the 
leprosy,  the  way  is  prepared  by  first  sprinkling  with  blood  seven  times, 
then  the  priest  was  to  dip  his  finger  in  the  olive  oil,  and  sprinkle  the  olive 
oil  seven  times  before  the  Lord.  First,  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the 
unclean,  then  oil  was  poured  upon  his  head,  and  afterwards  he  was  com- 
manded to  wash  his  clothes,  shave  his  hair,  and  bathe  himself  in  water, 
that  he  might  be  clean. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  77 

This  is  from  the  oldest  record  in  the  world.  We  have  no  writings 
more  ancient  than  the  five  books  of  Moses.  These  have  fixed  an  ever- 
lasting contrast  between  the  words  sprinkle,  pour,  and  dip, — so  that  each 
must  forever  indicate  a  distinct  action,  fixed  among  the  legal  ceremonies 
of  a  t^'pical  people.  Since  the  time  when  the  leper  was  cleansed  by  hav- 
ing blood  sprinkled  upon  him,  oil  poured  upon  him,  and  his  flesh  bathed 
in  water — from  that  time  till  now,  these  words  have  been  used  as  distinct 
in  meaning,  and  as  immutable  as  the  law  of  Moses. 

In  the  case  of  cleansing  an  unclean  person,  made  so  by  the  touch  of  a 
dead  animal,  a  positive  ordinance  was  got  up.  It  is  recorded  in  the  xix. 
of  Numbers. 

The  manner  of  preparing  the  water  of  separation  to  be  used  for  such 
purification  is  very  minutely  set  forth.  The  ashes  of  a  red  heifer,  with- 
out spot,  and  upon  which  never  came  yoke,  were  to  be  kept  for  the  con- 
gregation of  the  children  of  Israel  for  a  water  of  separation  ;  and  the  text 
says :  *'  It  is  a  purification  for  sin."  »'And  for  an  unclean  person  they 
shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  run- 
ning water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel ;  and  a  clean  person  shall 
take  hysop  and  dip  it  in  the  water  ;  and  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle 
upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day  and  on  the  seventh  day  :  and  on  the 
seventh  dav  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  him- 
self in  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even."  I  can  conceive  of  no  authority 
more  sacred  than  this. 

Here  the  individual  is  commanded  to  observe  three  things  ;  and  they  are 
to  be  done  in  reference  to  the  cleansing  of  his  person  from  legal  impu- 
rity, or  from  a  disease  that  indicates  sins.  Can  any  one  say  that  these 
are  not  separate  and  specific  actions  ? 

With  regard  to  the  translation  of  the  word  baptizo  by  the  term  sink, 
my  friend  remarked  that  he  could  bring  many  respectable  authorities  to 
prove  that  this  was  a  legitimate  and  proper  meaning  of  the  term :  that 
it  means  going  to  the  bottom  ;  and  hence  the  person  baptized  must  be  sunk 
to  the  bottom.  It  is  not  true  that  immersion  is  such  a  very  general  terra; 
and  I  would  remind  my  fellow-citizens  that  the  question  in  debate  is  not 
whether  we  shall  dip  to  the  bottom,  nor  whether  we  shall  perform  only  a 
partial  dipping;  it  is  not  whether  we  ouglit  to  dip  so  far,  or  so  deep,  but 
whether  immersion  simply,  to  the  bottom  or  not,  is  the  action  comman- 
ded. 

We  have,  however,  an  exemplification  at  hand,  which  ought  forever  to 
settle  this  matter.  It  is  a  case  in  which  the  word  baptize  is  used  in  a 
contrast  that  forbids  sinking  to  the  bottom.  It  is  a  remarkable  passage 
found  in  one  of  the  sybilline  oracles,  a  poetic  prediction  concerning  the 
fortunes  of  the  ancient  city  of  Athens.  The  poet  says:  ^8skos  baptizee 
dunai  cle  toi  ou  Ihemis  esti — "Thou  mayest  be  dipped,  O  bladder!  but 
thou  art  not  fated  to  sink:''''  showing  that  in  ancient  times,  it  was  a  part  of 
the  signification  of  baptizo  to  emerge  again,  as  well  as  to  immerge,  ma- 
king it  equivalent  to  kafadiisis  and  anadusis  combined.  Certainly  and 
clearly  it  is  that  the  word  baptizo  never  meant  to  sink  to  the  bottom,  ex- 
cept by  chance.  Bapto  may  leave  the  substance  some  considerable  time 
underwater  or  any  liquid:  indicating  that  a  change  might  come  upon 
the  substance,  and  that  it  might  acquire  some  new  matter  which  it  had 
not  before,  being  put  into  the  liquid.  But  baptizo  permits  the  subject  to 
stay  under  the  water  but  a  very  litde  time,  and  then  emerge  again.  In  the 
etymology  and  philology  of  the  Greek  language,  the  word  baptizo  never 

g2 


78  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

can  be  shown  to  mean  going  to  the  bottom  and  staying  there.  Duoo 
dunai,  and  their  compounds  indicate  that. 

It  would  be  entirely  impertinent,  before  such  an  audience  as  this,  to  en- 
ter into  any  discussion  and  criticism  upon  the  meaning  of  the  termination 
zo  ;  a  question  upon  which  philologists  and  critics  have  written  much. 

Grammarians  and  critics  have  speculated  on  the  termination  zoo  with 
great  freedom.  Some  make  it  the  symbol  of  frequent  action,  and  call  those 
verbs  so  ending,  frequentatives :  others,  of  diminished  action,  and  call 
them,  diminutives.  They  make  a  few  specifications.  But  they  seem  not 
to  remember  that  a  change  on  the  end  of  a  word,  when  agreeable  to  the 
ear,  soon  loses  its  meaning  by  being  extended  to  many  words,  for  the 
sake  of  euphony.  So  of  the  termination  zoo.  I  can  give  as  many 
specifications  of  rapid  action,  if  required,  as  can  be  given  of  frequent  ac- 
tion in  words  of  this  ending. 

I  have  a  new  theory  of  my  own  upon  this  subject,  or  rather  it  is  a  the- 
ory adopted  from  an  old  one,  as  it  ought  to  be  called.  It  goes  to  explain 
a  material  fact  in  the  history  of  hapto. 

My  idea  is  that  the  word  originally  meant,  not  that  the  dipping  should 
be  performed  frequendy,  but  that  it  indicated  the  rapidity  with  which  the 
action  was  to  be  performed ;  that  the  thing  should  be  done  quickly ;  and 
for  this  reason  the  termination  zo  is  never  used  when  the  word  is  employ- 
ed in  connection  with  the  business  of  dyers  and  tanners.  But  the  word 
baptizo  is  always  used  to  express  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  This  is  the 
best  reason  I  can  give  for  the  change  of  the  termination  into  zoo. 

With  regard  to  the  frequent  occurrence  of  this  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament usage,  I  said  that  there  might  be  some  good  reason  given.  And 
that  reason  is  found  in  the  fact  that  bapfo  means  to  dip,  without  regard  to 
continuance  long  or  short,  but  baptizo  intimates  that  the  subject  of  the 
action  is  not  necessarily  long  kept  under  that  into  which  it  is  immersed. 
— [^Time  expired. 

IVednesday,  Nov.  15 — \2h  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President: — 1  have  no  objection  to  the  rule  suggested  by  my 
friend,  Mr.  C,  requiring  the  respondent  to  follow  the  affirmant,  provided 
there  be  also  a  rule  obliging  the  latter  to  proceed  in  the  argument.  But 
I  must  protest  against  being  required  to  say  but  litde  on  the  subject  in 
hand,  because  the  affirmant  has  done  so. 

With  regard  to  the  ecclesiastical  character  of  this  discussion  I  remark, 
that  there  are  but  two  ways  in  which  things  of  this  kind  can  be  done, 
viz :  either  by  the  church  as  a  body,  or  by  individuals.  The  synod  of 
Kentucky  had  no  authority  to  select  persons  for  such  a  purpose.  My 
appointment  to  conduct  this  debate,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  made 
by  that  body.  And  if  all  the  elders  and  ministers  of  the  synod  had,  as 
individuals,  agreed  to  select  me,  it  would  have  been  only  the  act  of  so 
many  individuals,  for  which  the  Presbyterian  church  in  Kentucky  would 
have  been  no  more  responsible  than  if  it  had  been  done  in  England. 
The  debate  is,  therefore,  an  individual  affair.  It  has  never  been  stated 
by  us  how  many  persons  were  consulted  about  it,  or  what  number  agreed 
to  my  appointment  to  conduct  it.  Nor  does  it  appear  by  how  many  my 
friend  was  appointed,  or  whether  he  was  appointed  at  all.  There  is  no 
ecclesiastical  body  connected  with  his  church,  sustaining  the  same  rela- 
tion to  it,  which  is  sustained  by  the  synod  of  Kentucky  to  our  church. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  79 

His  appointment,  therefore,  must  have  been  simply  by  individuals. 
How  many  have  been  concerned  in  it,  or  what  importance  his  church 
may  attach  to  it,  I  know  not.  But  I  am  not  wiUing  to  involve  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  in  matters  with  which  they  have  nothing  to  do. 

My  worthy  friend  made  a  statement  concerning  the  early  reformers 
which  is  calculated  to  make  an  impression  favorable  to  his  cause.  He 
says  that  all  the  early  reformers  were  immersionists,  and  that  the  great 
majority  of  christians  have  always  practiced  immersion;  that  I  must 
have  forgotten  my  reading.  I  presume  I  was  understood  by  the  audi- 
ence. I  said,  not  that  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  in  every  thousand 
were  opposed  to  immersion,  but  that  they  did  not  believe  immersion 
essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance — that  they  never  did  make  the 
discovery  which  my  friend  has  made,  that  nothing  short  of  immersion  is 
baptism.  And  if  he  can  name  one  of  the  reformers  who  made  the  dis- 
covery for  which  he  is  now  contending,  that  immersion  only  is  christian 
baptism,  I  hope  he  will  not  fail  to  do  it.  In  the  third  and  immediately 
following  centuries  trine  immersion  was  practiced,  the  subjects  being 
divested  of  their  garments.  Yet  those  who  adopted  this  practice  never 
learned  that  baptizo  means  only  to  immerse.  Gradually  again  pouring 
and  sprinkling  became  most  common.  Yet  immersion  continued  to  be 
very  frequently  practiced  even  to  the  times  of  Luther  ;  but  all  conceded 
the  validity  of  pouring  and  sprinkling.  None  disputed  what  had  been  so 
long  admitted. 

But  my  friend  Mr.  C.  has  said,  that  as  biblical  criticism  progressed, 
we  have  gained  more  light  on  such  subjects.  So  it  appears,  that  as'more 
light  has  been  obtained,  the  great  majority  of  christians  have  abandoned 
the  defence  and  the  practice  of  immersion.  He  cannot,  however,  point 
to  one  reformer,  of  any  considerable  standing,  who  maintained  the 
doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending.  However  favorable  some  of  them 
may  have  been  to  the  practice  of  immersion,  not  one  of  them  ever  admit- 
ted that  our  Savior  commanded  immersion  only.  They  with  one  con- 
sent admitted  sprinkling  and  pouring  to  be  valid  baptism  ;  and  they  re- 
garded themselves  as  obeying  the  command  of  Christ — "Go  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them" — when  they  administered  the  ordinance  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  Having  been  baptized  by  sprinkling,  they  lived 
and  died  in  the  belief  that  their  baptism  was  valid. 

Both  modes  were  anciently  practiced.  And  if  our  immersionist 
friends  had  continued  on  the  ground  of  the  old  immersionists — if  they 
had  simply  maintained  that  immersion  is  the  iireferable  mode,  they 
might  have  enjoyed  their  opinion  without  controversy.  But  when  they 
contend  that  all  who  have  received  the  ordinance  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling are  unbaptized,  and  that  sprinkling  is  a  human  invention,  they 
assume  a  position  occupied  by  very  few ;  and  we  are  constrained  to 
demur. 

Let  me  revert  to  the  principle  advanced  by  Mr.  C,  that  specific  words 
having  a  leading  syllable,  in  all  their  inflections  retain  their  original  import. 
Language,  he  admits,  is  always  changing;  and  usage  only  determines  the 
meaning  of  words.  But  the  principle  he  now  inculcates  is,  that  specific 
words  retain  their  original  meaning.  If,  for  example,  the  original  idea 
was  dip,  the  word  retaining  the  leading  syllable,  will  retain  also  this  idea, 
in  all  its  combinations.  Now  I  stand  in  opposition  to  this  principle. 
There  is  no  such  principle  recognized.  There  are  facts  (and  I  will  pro- 
duce them)  in  the  very  face  of  it.     For  example,  the  word  bapto,  as  Mr. 


80  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

C.  and  immersionists  generally  contend,  contained  originally  the  idea  only 
of  immersing.  I  now  understand  him  to  abandon  this  ground.  He 
now  says,  that  literally  it  signifies  to  dip,  and  figuratively,  to  dye. 
For  this  I  should  like  to  see  some  authority,  because  Mr.  Carson  says  it 
signifies  to  dye  as  literally  as  to  dip ;  and  he  asserts,  that  the  history  of  a 
thousand  words  proves  the  principle.  He  gives  an  example,  which  I  will 
read.  He  says,  (p.  60,)  that  "  Hyppocrates  uses  bapto  to  denote  dyeing 
by  dropping  the  dyeing  liquid  on  the  thing  dyed  :  »  When  it  drops  upon 
the  garments,  (baptetai,)  they  are  dyed.'  This,"  says  he,  "  surely  is 
not  dyeing  by  dipping."  What  is  there  figurative  here  1  There  is  a 
literal  fiuid,  dropped  upon  a  literal  garment;  and  when  a  thing  is  dyed 
by  dropping  or  sprinkling,  it  is  dyed  as  literally  as  if  done  by  dipping. 
I  will,  if  necessary,  furnish  other  examples.  On  the  61st  page  Carson 
gives  another — "  Nearchus  relates,  that  the  Indians  {baptontai)  dye  their 
beards."  There  are  many  similar  examples.  Dr.  Gale  maintained,  that 
when  bapto  signified  to  dye,  it  retained  the  idea  of  dipping ;  but  Mr. 
Carson  differs  from  him,  and  says,  the  history  of  a  thousand  words 
proves  that  it  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling  as  literally  as  by  dipping. 
Till  my  worthy  friend  produces  some  authority  in  support  of  the  princi- 
ple he  has  advanced,  I  must  beg  leave  to  dissent  from  it. 

Mr.  C.  says,  if  he  can  prove  that  baptizo  expresses  a  specific  action, 
he  proves  that  it  has  but  one  meaning — and,  therefore,  that  it  can  never 
express  the  act  of  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Carson  maintains,  that  bapto 
expresses  a  specific  action;  and  yet  he  proves,  that  it  has  another  mean- 
ing which  is  literal,  viz :  to  dye  by  dipping  or  by  sprinkling.  And  if 
it  expresses  the  coloring  of  a  thing  by  dropping  or  sprinkling,  it  has  cer- 
tainly not  the  original  idea  of  dipping. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  we  are  not  contending  that  baptizo  expresses 
definitely  the  act  of  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  circumstances  and  the 
connection  sometimes  prove,  that  sinking  or  plunging  is  the  thing  done; 
sometimes  thatpouring  or  sprinkling  is  the  thing  done;  sometimes  that^jar- 
tial  dipping  or  ivetthig  is  meant.  It  is  a  universal  rule  of  language,  that 
when  a  word  has  several  meanings,  the  connection  in  which  it  occurs,  must 
determine,  in  any  given  case,  which  is  the  true  meaning.  For  example,  the 
word  faith  has  in  the  Scriptures  three  distinct  meanings.  It  denotes  the  act 
of  believing,  or  the  exercise  of  the  mind  in  believing,  as  in  the  passage — 
"By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith."  It  denotes  the  truth  or  doctrines 
believed,  as  when  persons  are  said  to  "make  shipwreck  of  the  faith,"  And 
it  signifies  fidelity  or  faithfulness,  as  when  it  is  said,  "  What  if  some  did 
not  believe?  Shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  of  non-effect?" 
Now  how  are  we  to  determine,  in  any  particular  case,  which  of  these 
meanings  is  the  true  one?  Evidently  by  the  connection.  Dr.  Geo.  Camp- 
bell says  the  word  fiesh  has  in  the  Scriptures  six  meanings,  not  more  than 
one  of  which  is  found  in  any  classic  writer.  How  shall  we  determine,  in 
any  particvdar  case,  which   is  the  true  meaning,  but  by  the  connection? 

We  are  not  contending  that  baptizo  never  signifies  to  immerse,  but  that 
it  does  not  definitely  express  mode.  It  expresses  the  thing  done;  the 
circumstances  and  the  context  may  determine  the  mode  of  doing  it,  though 
the  word  itself  does  not. 

It  is  true,  as  my  friend  says,  that  if  a  man  were  indicted  for  dipping  a 
person,  and  it  were  proved  that  he  had  only  sprinkled  him,  the  action 
could  not  be  maintained  against  him.  This,  however,  only  proves  what 
no  one  denies — that  dipping  is  not  sprinkling.     But  let  him  prove  that 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  81 

baptizo  signifies  only  to  immerse,  and  I  will  yield  the  point.  That  it  is 
sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  dipping  I  admit,  and  that  it  is  sometimes 
used  in  the  sense  of  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  I  can  prove.  That  it  some- 
times signifies  simply  to  wash,  I  can  demonstrate  by  the  very  highest 
authority.     Each  of  these  statements  I  will  establish  in  due  time. 

But  I  fear  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  will  consider  me  as  anticipating  his  argu- 
ment. If  he  will  not  again  prefer  this  charge  against  me,  I  will  state,  as 
I  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  three  of  the  oldest  and  best  versions  have 
rendered  the  word  bapto  to  sprinkle  ;  and  one  of  the  most  learned  of  the 
Greek  fathers  gave  it  the  same  signification. 

SchriveUius,  Mr.  C.  says,  originally  gave  to  the  word  baptizo  but  two 
meanings — mergo  and  lavo — to  immerse  and  to  wash.  AVell,  this  is  all 
I  contend  for.  For  if  it  sometimes  signifies  to  dip,  and  sometimes  to 
wash,  how  shall  we  determine  in  any  case  which  is  the  true  meaning  ? 
Mergo  and  lavo  are  the  Latin  words  by  which  it  is  defined,  and  we  know 
that  lavo  signifies  to  wash  in  general,  without  reference  to  mode.  The 
most  ancient  lexicographers,  moreover,  define  baptizo  to  cleanse,  no  mat- 
ter in  what  mode  it  is  done.  If,  then,  this  word  has  sometimes  one 
meaning,  and  sometimes  another,  how  can  it  be  a  specific  term  expressing 
a  definite  action  ?  If  Mr.  C  cannot  prove  that  it  is  always  used  in  the 
definite  sense  of  immersing,  he  must  give  up  the  argument. 

It  is  true,  as  he  says,  that  the  word  circitmcision  signifies  cutting 
round ;  but  who,  I  ask,  could  have  imderstood  by  this  word  alone,  how 
the  ordinance  was  to  be  administered  ?  By  the  accompanying  directions 
it  might  be  known,  but  I  atfirm  that  no  man  could  determine  by  the  word 
alone,  what  precisely  was  the  action  to  be  performed. 

Again — take  the  word  deipnon,  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  Lord's 
supper.  From  this  word  we  could  not  determine  what  element  should 
be  used,  in  what  quantity  it  should  be  received,  or  in  what  manner  the 
ordinance  should  be  observed.  Yet  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  labors  to  prove, 
that  when  our  Savior  employed  a  particular  word  to  denote  an  ordi- 
nance, it  must  necessarily  express  the  mode  in  which  it  is  always  to  be 
administered  and  received  ! 

He  says,  he  is  glad  to  hear  me  express  my  conviction,  that  the  original 
meaning  of  baptizo  was  to  immerse.  I  did  not  say  so.  I  said,  I  coidd 
safely  admit  it,  though  he  could  not  prove  it.  Critics  are  not  agreed, 
whether  to  dip  or  to  dye  was  the  original  meaning.  Professor  Stuart 
expresses  the  opinion,  as  far  as  he  can  judge,  that  to  dip  was  the  original 
sense,  and  to  dye  a  secondary  meaning.  Others,  however,  contend  that 
to  dye  was  the  primary  or  original  meaning.  The  word  bapto,  as  far 
back  as  we  can  trace  it,  was  used  in  both  senses.  It  may  be  true,  there- 
fore, that  to  dye  or  color  was  the  original  meaning,  and  to  dip  a  second- 
ary meaning.  Critics  have  not  determined  this  question ;  nor  can  they 
prove,  that  to  immerse  was  the  original  meaning  of  the  word.  But,  as  I 
before  remarked,  I  can  concede  this  point,  and  yet  fully  sustain  my  posi- 
tion.    Still  Mr.  C.  cannot  prove  it,  and  therefore  I  shall  not  admit  it. 

Mr.  C.  asks,  how  could  baptizo,  if  it  signify  specifically  to  dip  or  im- 
merse, come  to  express  an  entirely  diflerent  action  ?  I  answer,  it  does 
not  definitely  express  dipping  or  immersing.  The  lexicons,  as  we  have 
seen,  define  it  to  u'ash  as  well  as  to  immerse.  Suppose,  then,  you  direct 
your  son  to  wash  his  hands,  and  he  has  water  poured  on  them  ;  does  he 
not  obey  your  command  ?  Or  suppose  he  dips  them  in  water,  does  he 
not  obey  you  ?  He  does.  You  direct  him  to  do  a  certain  thing,  but  do 
6 


82  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

not  prescribe  any  particular  mode  in  which  he  must  do  it.  He  may, 
therefore,  select  any  mode  he  prefers.  So  the  word  baptizo  expresses 
the  application  of  water  to  the  person  or  subject;  but  the  precise  mode 
of  its  application  must  be  determined  by  the  circumstances  and  the  design 
of  the  ordinance. 

JMy  friend  gave  us  a  dissertation  on  the  words  dip,  bathe,  pour,  and 
sprinkle,  as  they  occur  in  Leviticus.  If  he  would  not  consider  me  as 
anticipating  him,  I  could  prove,  that  the  word  bapto  is  used  in  the  Bible 
in  several  senses — dipping,  partial  dipping,  wetting  or  smearing.  Thus 
it  is  said,  the  priest  shall  "  dip  his  linger /rom  (cipo)  the  oil,"  &c.  Is  it 
true  that  he  did  literally  dip  his  finger /ro?}!  it?  Does  such  an  expression 
signify  to  dip  in  ?  Or  does  it  not  rather  mean,  as  professor  Stuart  says, 
to  ivet  or  smear  by  means  of  the  oil  ?  There  is,  properly,  no  dipping 
in  the  case.  The  priest  was  simply  to  moisten  or  wet  his  finger  with  the 
fluid,  so  as  to  sprinkle  it.  If  my  friend  will  not  charge  me  with  antici- 
pating him,  I  will  say,  that  the  word  bapto  occurs  in  the  Scriptures  again 
and  again  in  connection  with  the  preposition  apo,  from;  and  evidently  in 
such  cases  it  does  not  express  mode. 

There  are  in  the  Greek  language  words  that  definitely  signify  to  im- 
merse, and  words  which  signify  to  pour,  and  to  sprinkle;  but  I  deny, 
that  bapto  or  baptizo  definitely  expresses  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
modes.  I  can  find  a  Greek  word  that  does  uniformly  signify  to  im- 
merse ;  but  baptizo  is  not  the  word.  The  word  baptisma  is  the  name 
of  an  ordinance  instituted  by  our  Savior  for  the  benefit  of  his  church.  It 
denotes  the  application  of  water  to  a  proper  subject,  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity  ;  but  it  does  not  express  the  precise  mode  of  applying  the  water. 

But  Mr.  C.  has  insisted  so  much  on  the  necessity  of  employing  a  spe- 
cific term,  expressing  a  definite  action,  to  denote  a  religious  ordinance, 
that  I  must  read  a  passage  in  Numbers  xix.  19,  in  which  we  find  men- 
tioned one  of  the  washings  to  which  I  have  before  referred :  "  And 
the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day, 
and  on  the  seventh  day ;  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself, 
and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean 
at  even."  Here  we  find  sprinkling,  loashing,  and  bathing.  I  invite  your 
attention  to  the  phrase — "■he  shall  bathe  himself.''^  The  Hebrew  word 
translated  bathe,  is  rahats,  which  is  a  generic  term  signifying  simply 
to  ivash  ;  and  it  is  translated  in  the  Septuagint  by  the  Greek  word  louv, 
to  wash.  Here  the  unclean  person  is  commanded  to  do  a  certain  thing — 
to  wasli  himself;  but  does  the  word  employed  prescribe  the  m.ode  in 
which  he  is  to  do  it  1  It  does  not.  But  my  friend  insists,  that  the  word 
employed  must  express  a  definite  action — that  it  must  precisely  expres.g 
the  manner  in  which  the  ordinance  is  to  be  performed.  I  can  find  many 
examples  similar  to  the  one  just  adduced.  Now,  if  his  rule  requiring  a 
specific  term  is  good  in  one  instance,  why  not  in  another?  But  I  can 
point  to  other  rites,  the  mode  of  administering  which  is  not  expressed  by 
the  word  employed. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C.,  admits  that  baptizo  may  mean  sinking  to  the  bot- 
tom; but  he  seems  disposed  to  contend,  that  it  more  properly  implies 
that  the  thing  immersed  is  again  raised  out  of  the  water.  And  he  refers 
to  the  language  of  a  Greek  writer  concerning  Athens,  which  he  ex- 
plains to  mean — that  Athens  might  be  overwhelmed,  but  not  destroyed. 
But  if  I  understand  the  word  overwhelm,  I  should  think  a  city  over- 
whelmed is  well  nigh  destroyed.     But  by  an  appeal  to  classic  writers,  I 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  83 

can  prove,  that  in  four-fifths  of  the  instances  in  which  it  is  supposed  to 
favor  immersion,  it  signifies  sinking  to  the  bottom.  Suppose,  then,  an 
individual  should  understand  the  command  to  be  baptized  in  the  sense  of 
sinking  ;  what  could  be  the  result  ?  To  sink  is  the  common  meaning  of 
the  word  in  the  classics.  But  if  you  substitute  the  word  sink  for  baptize 
in  every  place  where  baptizo  occurs  in  the  Scriptures,  it  makes  nonsense. 

As  to  the  idea  advanced  by  my  friend,  that  the  syllable  zo  in  baptizo 
implies  that  the  action  is  to  be  performed  quickly,  I  know  of  no  evidence 
whatever  that  it  is  true.  Dr.  Carson  (I  believe  that  he  is  a  doctor,)  says, 
that  baptizo  denotes  the  putting  of  a  thing  into  water  ;  but  vi^hether  it  is 
raised  out  again  or  sinks  to  the  bottom,  cannot  be  ascertained  by  the 
word,  but  must  be  learned  from  the  circumstances. 
■  But  I  should  be  pleased  to  see  some  few  examples  adduced  from  the 
classics,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  expresses  the  action  contended  for  by 
Mr.  C.  as  essential  to  baptism.  For  I  believe  there  is  scarcely  an  in- 
stance in  which  it  expresses  the  actions  he  performs  in  baptizing. [ — Time 
expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  15 — H  oclock,  P.  M. 
[|mr.  Campbell's  third  address.] 

Mr.  President — An  objection  to  the  use  we  make  of  the  testimony  and 
criticism  advanced  from  Pedo-baptist  authority,  now  offered  by  my  friend, 
Mr.  Rice,  reminds  me  of  an  objection  advanced  by  some  modern  sceptics 
against  the  arguments  generally  relied  on,  in  proving  the  resurrection  of 
the  Messiah.  They  say,  your  testimony  is  all  one-sided.  Produce  any 
one  of  the  ancient  sceptics  who  admitted  the  fact.  Unfortunately  your 
testimony  is  all  on  the  wrong  side.  Produce  only  one  witness  who  was 
not  himself  a  believer.  That  is  indeed  impossible;  inasmuch  as  such  an 
admission  would  have  made  the  witness  a  christian.  So  in  the  present 
case.  If  those  Pedo-baptist  lexicographers  and  critics  adduced,  had  en- 
tertained no  excuse  for  their  position,  (either  in  the  metaphorical  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  or  in  the  unimportance  of  the  mode,)  they  would  have 
been  Baptists ;  and  then  their  testimony  would  have  been  more  plausibly 
repudiated,  because  indeed  one-sided. 

So  much  with  reference  to  the  remarks  made  on  professor  Stuart's  tes- 
timony, adduced  some  time  ago.  Mr.  Stuart  is  a  Pedo-baptist,  and  prac- 
tices sprinkling  ;  although  he  has  said  as  much  for  immersion  as  any  man 
could  say,  and  yet  continue  where  he  is.  It  is  indeed  most  true,  as  the 
gentleman  presumes,  that  he  [Prof.  Stuart]  is  wholly  indifferent  as  to 
the  mode.  He,  in  common  with  many  others,  says  that  immersion  was 
the  ancient  mode ;  nay,  he  is  compelled  to  admit  that  it  was  almost  the 
universal  practice  in  the  ancient  church;  yet  still  he  thinks  with  Calvin 
that  mode  is  of  no  importance,  and  that  we  may  alter  and  amend,  accord- 
ing to  circumstances,  so  that  we  do  not  make  it  a  new  rite.  The  same  is 
true  with  regard  to  all  the  authorities  brought  forward  by  my  worthy 
friend.  Their  testimony  is,  indeed,  in  one  sense,  ex  parte.  They  are  all 
of  his  own  party,  not  of  mine.  Every  dictionary  he  has  quoted  is  a  Pedo- 
baptist  dictionary  ;  and  yet  most  of  them  have  said  all  that  is  possible  to  be 
said  by  persons  not  wholly  with  us ;  while  indeed  they  all  give  the  true 
original  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  they  are  sure  to  give  a  tropical 
meaning,  that  squints  to  their  own  position.  They  must  do  tliis  or  abandon 
tlieir  position.  They  all  believed  in  this  practice  of  sprinkling;  while 
as  scholars,  in  their  definitions,  they  have  told  the  truth,  with  one  or  two 
exceptions,     AViih  one  consent  they  all  give  to  dip,  or  to  immerse,  as  the 


84  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

proper  original  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  Not  a  single  exception. 
Many  of  them  give  the  reason  for  other  meanings ;  such  as — to  wash, 
to  cleanse,  to  color.  They  all  concur  in  this,  that  such  meanings  are 
the  effect,  or  the  names  of  the  effects  of  immersing.  Not  one  of  them 
says  that  it  means  to  wash  or  cleanse  in  any  mode,  but  only  as  the  effect 
of  dipping  or  immersing.  Do  they  say  it  means  to  wash,  &c.,  they  im- 
mediately add,  because  it  is  done  by  immersing.  This  fact  cannot  be 
made  too  prominent.  But  what  have  we  to  do  with  the  effects  of  an  ac- 
tion, of  an  ordinance  of  God,  in  ascertaining  the  form  or  mode  of  the  or- 
dinance itself! !  Hence  all  the  learned  abjure  the  rhetorical  use  of  words 
in  expounding  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances,  as  we  shall  show  in  its 
proper  place. 

I  wish,  at  this  particular  crisis  of  the  discussion,  to  make  a  single  im- 
pression, clearly  and  indelibly,  upon  the  minds  of  the  audience.  It  is 
this  :  there  is  not  a  word  in  universal  speech  that  is  absolutely  incapable 
of  a  figurative  use.  Hence,  if  we  may  take  the  figurative  meaning  for 
the  true  and  proper,  there  is  an  end  to  all  discussion  in  ascertaining  posi- 
tive statutes  and  precepts  ;  for,  I  repeat  it,  there  is  not  in  universal 
speech  a  noun,  verb,  or  adjective,  that  may  not  be  used  figuratively.  In 
verbs,  very  often,  these  figurative  meanings  are  the  results  of  specific  ac- 
tions. Hence  where  dyeing,  washing,  cleansing,  are  given  as  meanings 
of  bapto  or  baptizo,  lexicographers  usually  give  the  reason  why  a  specific 
word  could  have  such  vague  and  general  meanings. 

I  have  said,  in  my  introductory  address,  that  the  word  baptizo  has  no 
more  reference  to  water,  than  it  has  to  oil,  or  sand,  or  any  thing  else ; 
that  it  has  reference  to  action  onl)%  and  consequently  can  have  but  one 
meaning,  which  is  most  obvious,  if  the  lexicons  can  be  taken  as  authority. 
I  again  say  there  is  neither  water  nor  washing  in  the  word  baptizo. 
Any  thing  dipped  into  any  thing,  and  covered  over  with  it,  fluid  or  not, 
is,  in  all  propriety,  said  to  be  baptized,  whether  in  oil,  sand,  wax,  tar, 
milk  or  water.  Why  persons  or  things  are  said  to  be  washed  or  cleansed 
by  being  immersed,  is  because  generally  they  are  immersed  into  clean 
water.  Otherwise  it  could  not  be  said  that  baptizo  means  to  wash  or 
cleanse.  It  would  be  as  proper  to  say  it  means  to  pollute,  to  mire,  to 
*laub,  if  persons  and  things  were  generally  immersed  in  mud,  and  mire, 
and  unclean  fluids.  Hence  some  things  dipped  are  said  to  be  dyed, 
others  colored,  others  cleansed,  others  washed,  according  to  the  material 
into  which  they  are  immersed.  No  figure  of  speech  more  common  than 
a  metonomy  of  the  effect  for  the  cause.  Now  what  relation  has  the  spe- 
cific action  to  the  effect  produced  by  it?  Can  one  word  mean  to  wash, 
to  mire,  to  cleanse,  to  pollute?  Such  is  the  logic  of  that  whole  school 
against  which  we  contend. 

But  the  question  recurs  whether  in  laws  or  ordinances  we  are  to  take 
the  figurative  or  the  literal  meaning  of  words.  This  is  the  great  question. 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  I  have  the  concurrence  of  all  the  learned  men  of 
the  world  known  to  me,  who  have  written  on  the  subject,  in  the  opinion 
that  we  are  not  to  take  the  figurative  meaning.  All  writers  on  law  say, 
with  Blackstone  and  Montesquieu,  that  in  the  interpretation  of  laws  and 
statutes,  terms  are  not  to  be  taken  rhetorically,  but  literally.  Both  in  the 
enactment  and  in  the  interpretation  of  laws,  the  common  meaning  of 
words  is  to  be  regarded,  and  not  the  remote  or  figurative.  A  number  of 
distinguished  names  Avill,  at  a  more  convenient  season,  be  presented  in 
proof  of  fliis  conclusion. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  85 

With  regard  to  the  passage  quoted  from  Mr.  Carson,  if  the  gentleman 
had  just  read  a  page  or  two  further  he  would  have  shown  his  author 
was  a  little  more  consistent.  It  is  of  little  consequence  to  us  to  ai-gue 
and  reply  to  conclusions  drawn  from  the  figurative  use  of  the  word. 

It  has  been  already  distinctly  stated  that  baptizo  is  the  only  word  used  to 
express  the  christian  ordinance ;  and  that  for  some  reason  (most  probably 
the  one  I  have  given)  it  never  signifies  to  dye.  Bapfo,  however,  tropic- 
ally signifies  to  dye.  Now  although  Dr.  Carson  argues  that  bapto  means 
to  dye,  without  regard  to  mode,  he  expressly  traces  the  origin  of  this 
sense  to  a  figure — the  effect  for  the  cause.  His  words  are,  page  60, 
"From  signifying  to  dip  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by  dipping,  because 
tliis  was  the  way  in  which  things  were  usually  dyed."  This  is  my  argu- 
ment concerning  both  these  words.  The  effect  of  dipping,  for  a  length 
of  time,  is,  in  some  substances,  coloring  or  dyeing;  the  efiiect  of  dipping 
in  clear  water,  for  a  short  time,  is  washing,  cleansing.  Mr.  Carson  goes 
farther,  it  is  alledged,  and  says  that  bapto  and  its  family  means  dye  or 
color,  without  any  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  it  Avas  effected.  This 
is  then  making  the  figurative  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word, — from  this 
I  dissent.  But  if  Mr.  Rice  rely  on  Carson  in  this  case,  why  not  rely 
upon  him  in  the  case  of  the  word  used  in  the  ordinance,  which,  according 
to  him,  signifies  to  dip,  and  nothing  else  ? 

I  most  readily  admit,  that,  in  the  language  of  poetry  and  of  imagination, 
objects  are  said  to  be  painted,  colored,  dyed,  not  only  in  this  mode,  and 
that  mode,  but  without  any  mode  at  all.  Thus  we  have  ornis  baptos,  the 
colored  bird,  of  Aristophanes;  the  pi cts:  volucres,  the  painted  birds,  of 
Virgil;  and  Milton,  in  describing  the  wings  of  Raphael,  sings  of  "colors 
dyed  in  heaven."  In  the  same  license  Homer,  in  his  reputed  battle  of 
the  frogs  and  mice,  represents  a  whole  lake  as  tinged  with  the  blood  of  a 
mouse.  But  what  does  all  this  prove  ?  That  because  birds,  flowers, 
clouds,  and  angels'  wings,  are  said  to  be  colored,  dyed,  or  painted,  with- 
out reference  to  any  mode,  that  in  the  language  of  narrative,  of  precept, 
and  of  positive  law,  a  person  is  baptized  without  any  mode  at  all ! ! 
I  have  only  one  remark  to  make  on  all  these  cases  and  usages  of  bapto, 
that  in  the  passive  form  things  are  said  to  be  dyed,  not  with  respect  to 
the  mode  in  which  the  process  was  completed,  but  with  respect  to  the 
effect  or  result  of  the  process ;  and  again,  nothing  is  said  to  be  dyed, 
painted  or  colored  by  bapto,  in  its  various  forms,  that  is  not,  at  the  time 
of  which  it  is  spoken,  covered  over  with  the  dye  color.  This  is  enough 
on  this  subject  so  far  as  the  root  bap,  or  the  Avords  bapto  and  baptizo  are 
concerned.  In  all  this  there  is  a  perfect  conformity  to  the  established 
laws  of  language  in  all  similar  cases. 

I  wish  Mr.  Rice  had  read  a  little  more  from  Mr.  Carson — such  as,  from 
the  same  pages  he  has  quoted,  "  With  regard  to  the  other  side,  (Pedo- 
baptist)  to  say  nothing  of  the  straining  to  squeeze  out  of  the  word  the 
several  meanings  of  sprinkling,  pouring,  washing,  wetting,  &;c.,  for  which 
there  is  not  any  even  plausible  ground,  the  obvious  fact  that  it  signifies 
dyeing  by  any  process  has  been  uncritically  pressed  to  prove  that  when  it 
relates  to  the  application  of  pure  water  it  denotes  all  modes  equally." 
We  may,  however,  hear  Mr.  Carson  a  little  further  on  this  subject,  (page 
59,)  "If  it  be  possible,"  says  he,  after  giving  many  examples  from  Hip- 
pocrates, "  to  setde  the  meaning  of  a  common  word,  surely  this  is  suf- 
ficient to  fix  the  meaning  of  bapfo  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy. 
In  the  words  of  the  Father  of  Medicine,  in  which  he  has  occasion  to 

H 


86  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

treat  of  every  mode  of  the  application  of  liquids,  and  which  consists  of 
no  less  than  five  hundred  and  forty-three  closely  printed  folio  pages,  all 
the  words  of  mode  are  applied,  and  bapto  invariably  is  used  when  he 
designates  immersion." 

Other  criticisms  and  reasonings  from  my  friend  Mr.  Rice,  not  included 
in  those  remarks,  shall  be  taken  up  in  their  proper  place.  We  must  not 
forget  that  we  are  furnishing  a  new  book  on  baptism,  and  other  matters 
connected  therewith.  We  must,  therefore,  have  supreme  regard  to  that 
as  we  proceed. 

So  far  as  I  lead  the  way,  I  propose  the  following  method : — On  rising 
I  shall  attend  to  so  much  of  my  respondent's  speeches  as  are  relevant  to 
the  premises  I  have  offered.  While  affirmant,  it  is  my  privilege  to  lead 
the  way.  Whatever  my  respondent  advances,  relative  to  my  arguments, 
shall  be  immediately  attended  to.  Other  matters,  calling  for  any  special 
attention,  shall  be  attended  to  at  proper  and  pertinent  seasons.  Should 
any  thing  of  this  sort,  which  Mr.  Rice  deems  important,  be  overlooked 
or  forgotten,  I  request  him  to  bring  it  up  to  my  attention,  and  I  shall  give 
to  it  all  due  regard.  I  shall  then  immediately  proceed  with  my  arguments, 
in  numerical  order,  to  which,  of  course,  I  shall  expect  a  particular  atten- 
tion in  the  same  order. 

As  the  matter  now  stands,  my  second  argument,  drawn  from  the  Greek 
lexicons,  is  fully  stated  and  considerably  illustrated.  Not  one  of  my  au- 
thorities being  challenged,  I  shall  hereafter,  in  the  discussion,  always  take 
for  granted  that  bapfizo,  the  word  in  debate,  does,  by  consent  of  all  the 
lexicons  oft'ered  on  the  occasion,  originally  and  properly  signify  to  dip  or 
immerse ;  that  these  words,  in  our  language,  properly  represent  it  in  its 
primitive  and  unfigurative  import ;  and  that  to  wash,  or  cleanse,  are  acci- 
dental and  figurative  meanings  of  the  word :  that  dip  and  immerse  are 
specific  terms,  and  that,  as  Carson  observes,  when  any  word  once  signi- 
fies to  dip,  it  never  can  signify  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  any  more  than  black 
never  can  signify  white,  nor  white  black,  being  specific  and  not  general 
terms.  To  proceed  argumentatively  and  logically,  it  now  becomes  my 
duty  to    examine    the    foundation    on  which    these    dictionaries    depend. 

III.  Arc.  This,  for  method's  sake,  I  shall  call  my  third  argument;  for 
though  intimately  allied  to  lexicography,  it  is  nevertheless  a  separate 
and  distinct  argument.  Dictionaries  being  founded  on  the  usage  of  the 
best  writers  in  the  language  of  which  it  is  a  dictionary,  we  must  look  to 
them  for  the  authority  of  the  lexicons.  We  shall  then  appeal  to  the 
classic  authors,  to  sacred  and  biblical  usage  to  sustain  the  definitions 
already  given.  This  is  going  to  the  proper  foundation.  Dictionaries  are 
not  the  highest  authority  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  exponents  of  the 
classic,  or  most  learned  and  approved  use  of  words — we  correct  the  dic- 
tionaries by  the  classics,  and  not  the  classics  by  the  dictionaries.  They 
are  therefore  the  ultimate  and  supreme  tribunal. 

Hence  the  importance  of  particular  attention  to  the  age  in  which  a  lan- 
guage was  best  understood,  and  to  the  time  and  persons  which  gave  us 
dictionaries.  There  is  one  fact  of  special  importance  here.  Dictionaries 
frequendy  give  the  particular  usage  of  the  times  of  their  authors  ;  for  ex- 
ample— Webster  explains  baptism  by  the  word  christen,  because  that 
was  a  common  use  at  the  time  he  made  his  dictionary.  Hence,  the  par- 
ticular age  in  which  a  dictionary  is  made  may,  more  or  less,  affect  the 
meaning  of  its  words.  Now,  had  it  been  the  object  of  those  who  made 
Greek  lexicons  to  do  as  Richardson,  Johnson,  Webster  and  others  have 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  8? 

done,  that  is,  to  £^ive  also  the  popular  meaning'  or  use  of  their  own  time, 
finding  persons  baptizing  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  like  Groves,  they 
would  have,  no  doubt,  made  pouring  or  sprinkling  the  sixth  or  seventh 
meaning  of  the  word.  My  preference  for  the  lexicons  made  before  sprink- 
ling became  rife  will,  therefore,  be  most  apparent  without  further  exposi- 
tion. No  Greek  lexicon  down  to  the  19lh  century,  ever  gave  sprinkle  or 
pour  for  baptism.  I  will  shew  the  reason  of  this  by  a  few  specimens  out 
of  a  mighty  multitude  prepared  for  this  occasion. 

I  need  scarcely  add  that  the  Greek  is  now  a  dead  language.  Its  words 
are,  therefore,  in  meaning,  all  stereotyped  in  the  classics  and  sacred  wri- 
tings. This  usage,  therefore,  is  all  we  have  to  inquire  into.  Take,  then, 
the  following  instances : 

1st.  Of  the  proper  meaning  of  baptizo : — 

"  Lucian,  in  Timon,  the  man-hater,  makes  hira  say — '  If  I  should  see  any 
one  flioating  toward  me  upon  the  rapid  torrent,  and  he  should,  with  out- 
stretched hands,  beseech  me  to  assist  him,  I  would  thrust  him  from  me, 
baptizing'  [baptizonta)  him,  until  he  would  rise  no  more.'" 

"  Plutarch,  vol,  x.  p.  18,  'Then  ^/(i/(^tH^  [baptizon)  himself  into  the  lake 
Copais.'" 

"  Strabo,  lib.  6,  speaking  of  a  lake  near  Agrigentum,  says — 'Things  that 
elsewhere  cannot  float,  do  not  sink  [baptizesthai.)  In  lib.  12,  of  a  certain 
river  he  says — 'If  one  shoots  an  arrow  into  it,  the  force  of  the  water  resists 
it  so  much,  that  it  will  scarcely  sink  [baptizesthai.) " 

"Polybius,  vol,  iii.  p.  311,  ult.  applies  the  word  to  soldiers  passing 
through  water,  immersed  [baptizomenoi)  up  to  the  breast." 

"The  sinner  is  represented  by  Porphyry,  p.  282,,  as  baptized  [baptizetai) 
up  to  his  head  in  Styx,  a  celebrated  river  in  hell.  Is  there  any  question 
about  the  mode  of  this  baptism!" 

"Themistius,  Orat.  iv.  p.  133,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale,  says,  'The  pilot  can- 
not tell  but  he  may  save  one  in  the  voyage  that  had  better  be  drowned,  [bap- 
tisai.)  sunk  into  the  sea,'  " 

"  The  Sybilline  verse  concerning  the  city  of  Athens,  quoted  by  Plutarch 
in  his  life  of  Theseus,  most  exactly  determines  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  As- 
kos  baptizee  dunai  de  tot  ou  themis  esti.''"' 

"  Thou  mayest  be  dipped,  O  bladder  !  but  thou  art  not  fated  to  sink." 

"  For  our  ship,"  says  Josephus,  "  having  been  baptized  or  immersed  in 
the  midst  of  the  Adriatic  sea." 

"  Speaking  of  the  murder  of  Aristobulus,  by  command  of  Herod,  he  says, 
'  The  boy  was  sent  to  Jericho  by  night,  and  there  by  command  having  been 
immersed  [baptizomenos)  in  a  pond  by  the  Galatians,  he  perished.'  The 
same  transaction  is  related  in  the  Antiquities  in  these  words :  'Pressing 
him  down  always,  as  he  was  swimming,  and  baptizing  him  as  in  sport, 
they  did  not  give  over  till  they  entirely  drowned  him,'  " 

*'  Homer,  Od.  i,  392:  As  when  a  smith  dips  or  plunges  [baptei)  a  hatch- 
et or  huge  pole-axe  into  cold  water,  viz  :  to  harden  them." 

*'  Pindar,  Pyth.  ii.  139,  describes  the  impotent  malice  of  his  enemies  by 
representing  himself  to  be  like  the  cork  upon  a  net  in  the  sea,  which  does 
not  sink  :  As  when  a  net  is  cast  into  the  sea,  the  cork  swims  above,  so  am 
I  unplunged  [abaptislos :)  on  which  the  Greek  scholiast,  in  commenting, 
eays :  '  As  the  cork  ou  dunei^  does  not  sink,  so  I  am  abaptistos,  unplunged, 
not  immersed.  The  cork  remains  abaptislos,  and  swims  on  the  surface  of 
the  sea,  being  of  a  nature  which  is  abaptislos ;  in  like  manner  I  am  abaptis- 
tos.^  In  the  beginning  of  this  explanation  the  scholiast  says  :  '  Like  the 
cork  of  a  net  in  the  sea,  ou  baptisomai,  I  am  not  plunged  or  sunk.''  The  fre- 
quent repetition  of  the  same  words  and  sentiment,  in  this  scholium,  shows, 
in  all  probability,  that  it  is  compiled  from  difierent  annotators  upon  the 
text.     But  the  sense  of  baptizo  in  all  is  too  clear  to  admit  of  any  doubt." 

"Aristotle,  de  Color,  c.  4,  says ;  By  reason  of  heat  and  moisture,  the 


88  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

colors  enter  into  the  pores  of  things  dipped  into  them,  {tou  baptomenou.)  De 
Anima.  iii.  c.  12,  If" a  man  dips  [bapsei)  any  thing  into  wax,  it  is  moved  so 
far  as  it  is  dipped.  Hist.  Animal,  viii.  c.  2,  speaking  of  certain  fish,  he 
says  :  They  cannot  endure  great  changes,  such  as  that,  in  the  summer  time, 
they  should  plunge  {baptosi)  into  cold  xoater.  Ibid.  c.  29,  he  speaks  of  giv- 
ing diseased  elephants  water  to  drink,  and  dipping  [baptouies)  hay  into 
honey  for  them." 

"Aristophanes,  in  his  comedy  of  The  Clouds,  Act  i.  scene  2,  represents 
Socrates  as  gravely  computing  how  many  times  the  distance  between  two 
of  its  legs,  a  flea  could  spring  at  one  leap  ;  and  in  order  to  ascertain  this, 
the  philosopher  first  melted  a  piece  of  wax,  and  then  taking  the  flea,  he 
dipped  ov  plunged  [enebaphes)  two  of  its  feet  into  it,  &c." 

"  Heraclides  Ponticus,  a  disciple  of  Aristotle,  AUegor.  p.  495,  says: 
When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot  from  the  fire,  B.nd  plunged  in  the 
water,  [udati  baptizetai,)  the  hea.t,  being  quenched  by  the  peculiar  nature 
of  the  water,  ceases." 

"  Herodotus,  in  Euterpe,  speaking  of  an  Egyptian  who  happens  to  touch 
a  swine,  says  :  Going  to  the  river  [Nile]  he  dips  himself  [ebaphe  eauton) 
with  his  clothes." 

"  Aratus,  in  his  Phsenom.  v.  650,  speaks  of  the  constellation  Cepheus, 
as  dipping  [baptoon)  his  head  or  upper  part  into  the  sea.  In  v.  858  he  says  : 
If  the  sun  dip  {baptoi)  himself  cloudless  into  the  western  flood.  Again,  in 
V.  951,  If  the  crow  has  dipped  [ebapsato)  his  head  into  the  river,  &c." 

*' Xenophon,  Anab.  ii.  2,  4,  describes  the  Greeks  and  their  enemies  aa 
sacrificing  a  goat,  a  bull,  a  wolf,  and  a  ram,  and  dipping  [bapiontes]  into  a 
shield  [filled  with  their  blood,]  the  Greeks  the  sword,  the  Barbarians  the 
spear,  in  order  to  make  a  treaty  that  could  not  be  broken." 

"Plutarch,  Parall.  Grsec.  Rom.  p.  545,  speaking  of  the  stratagem  of  a 
Roman  general,  in  order  to  insure  victory,  he  says:  He  set  up  a  trophy, 
on  which,  dipping  his  hand  into  blood,  [eis  to  aima — baptizas)  he  wrote  this 
inscrijition,  &c.  In  vol.vi.  p.  680,  (edit.  Reiske)  he  speaksof  iron  ^Zw«^ed 
[baplomenon)  viz.  into  water,  in  order  to  harden  it.  Ibid,  page  &'33,  plutige 
[baptison)  yourself  into  the  sea." 

"  Hcraclides,  AUegor.  says.  When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot  from 
the  fire  and  plunged  [baptizetai)  into  water." 

"  Heliodorus,  vi.  4.  When  midnight  \\d,A.  plunged  [ebaptizon)  the  city  in 
sleep." 

FIGURATIVE    USE. 

"Plutarch.     Overwhelmed  with  debts,  [bebaptismenon.y^ 

"  Chrysostom.     Overwhelmed  {baptizomenos)  with  innumerable  cares. 

*'  Lucian  iii.  page  81.  He  is  like  one  dizzy  and  baptized  or  sunk  {hebap- 
tismeno) — viz.  into  insensibility  by  drinking." 

"Justin  Martyr.     Overwhelmed  with  sins  [bebaptismenos.y 

"  Aristotle,  De  Mirabil.  Ausc.  speaks  of  a  saying  among  the  Phenicians, 
that  there  were  certain  places  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  which,  when 
it  is  ebb-tide,  are  not  overJiowed\me  baptizesthai,)  but  at  full-tide  are  over- 
Jlowed  [katakluzesthai;)  which  word  is  here  used  as  an  equivalent  for  bapti- 
zesthai.^^ 

"Plato,  Conviv.  page  176.  I  myself  am  one  of  those  who  were  drenched 
or  overwhelmed  [bebaptismenon)  yesterday,  viz.  with  wine.  In  another 
place  :  Having  overwhelmed  [baplisasa]  Alexander  with  much  wine.  Eu- 
thydem.  p.  267,  ed.  Heindorf,  A  youth  overwhelmed  (baptizomenon)  viz, 
questions." 

"  Philo  JudaeusjVoL  p.  ii.  478,  I  know  some,  who,  when  they  easily  be- 
come intoxicated,  before  they  are  entirely  overwhelmed  {jprinleleos  baptis- 
theiiai,)  viz.  with  wine." 

"  Diodorus  Siculus,  tom.  i.  page  107,  Most  of  the  land  animals  that 
are  intercepted  by  the  river  [Nile,]  perish,  being  overwhelmed  [baplizo- 
mena;)  here  used  in  the  literal  sense.    Tom.  i.  page  191,  The  river,  borae 


**■ 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  89 

along  by  a  more  violent  current,  overwhelmed  [ebaplise)  many  ;  the  literal 
signilication.  Tom.  i.  p.  129,  And  because  they  [the  nobles]  have  a  sup- 
ply by  these  means  [presents]  they  do  not  overiohelm  their  subjects  with 
taxes." 

It  were  easy  to  increase  this  list  by  quotations  from  other  Greek  wri- 
ters, authors,  poets,  scholiasts,  critics  and  Greek  Fathers,  all  in  fur- 
ther [)roof  of  the  same  import  of  the  word  in  question — such  as  Ana- 
creon,  Moschus,  Calliraachus,  Theocritus,  Dionysius  Halicarnassus,  on 
the  16th  Iliad,  v.  333;  Demosthenes,  Dio  Cassius,  Lycophron,  So- 
phocles, Esop,  Libanius,  Pseudo-Didymus,  Heliodorus,  Aphrodetus,  Lac- 
tantius,  Alcibiades,  Josephus,  Symmachus,  Athenaeas,  Porphyry,  Mar- 
cus Anotoninus  Pius,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Theophylact,  Basil,  Trypho  the  Jew,  in  Justin 
Martyr,  Origen,  &c. 

I  regard  it  as  more  pedantic,  than  necessary,  to  display  so  many  au- 
thorities. I  may,  however,  say  that  I  could  read  scores  of  such  as  you 
have  heard,  all  in  perfect  concurrence  with  those  read.  We  have  the 
entire  phalanx  of  all  classic  authority — poets,  philosophers,  orators,  his- 
torians, metaphysicians,  critics,  shewing  one  perfect  agreement  in  their 
use  of  baptizo  and  its  derivatives. 

It  has  been  a  question  amongst  theologians,  whether  the  sacred  use, 
that  is,  the  Jewish  and  Christian,  agrees  with  the  classic  use  of  this 
word ;  whether  in  one  sentence  the  New  Testament  writers  use  bapti- 
zo, as  do  all  other  writers  of  that  age ;  a  most  singular  question  in  such 
a  class  of  words — words  indicating  outward  physical  specific  action. 
Such  words  are  not  the  subjects  of  idiomatic  and  special  law.  It  would 
be  indeed  adopting  a  very  dangerous  principle  and  precedent,  that  this 
word  means  one  thing  out  of  the  New  Testament,  and  another  in  it. 
The  usage  of  the  age  and  the  context  must  in  all  cases  decide  the  precise 
meaning  of  any  word — a  law  of  philology  which  I  have  published  as 
often  as  any  of  my  contemporaries,  not  only  in  this  case,  but  in  all  others. 

Speakers,  by  a  particular  emphasis  and  tone,  are  capable  of  making  a 
particular  word  mean  just  what  they  please.  I  have  known  some  of  this 
class  of  persons  who  could  make  a  word  mean  what  they  pleased  by 
emphasis,  tone  and  action.  There  are,  too,  writers  in  every  age,  who 
use  terms  in  a  sense  very  remote  from  the  true.  But  whether  the 
apostles  were  such  men;  or  whether  we,  in  a  grave  discussion  like  this, 
are  to  decide  upon  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  such  corruptions,  and  li- 
cences, or  whether  we  shall  accept  the  sense  in  which  a  word  was 
used  by  those  who  lived  contemporaneously  with  the  apostles,  will 
hardly  admit  of  question,  or  of  doubt. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  admit,  and  can  prove,  the  most  exact  agreement 
between  the  classic,  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Septuagint  use  of  this 
word.  These  perfectly  corroborate  each  other.  All  use  the  word  as 
indicative  of  the  same  action,  universally  expressed  by  those  classic 
writers  adduced. 

We  have  the  entire  cohort  of  classic,  apostolic,  and  Jewish  writers,  as 
well  as  the  more  ancient  christian  fathers,  all  concurring  in  the  same 
view.  And  now  the  question  is,  whether  we  shall  take  a  meaning  univer- 
sally maintained  and  admitted,  or  whether  we  shall  now  invent  a  new 
one,  never  found  amongst  the  proper  and  fixed  meanings  of  the  term. 
Any  one  who  carefully  reads  the  commission — "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.     He  that  believeth  and 

u2 


90  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  con- 
demned," might  infer  from  the  solemn  position  of  the  word  baptism,  and 
the  emphasis  placed  on  it — from  the  fact  of  its  intermediate  position 
between  faith  and  salvation — that  it  is  one  of  the  most  definite,  clear,  and 
intelligible  terms  in  the  world. 

I  solemnly  affirm  it  now,  as  I  have  before  affirmed  it,  and,  as  I  believe, 
already  shown  it,  that  there  is  not  now,  nor  has  there  ever  been,  at  any 
past  period,  a  term  in  universal  speech,  more  definite  and  more  fixed  in 
its  meaning  than  this  same  specific  term  baptism,  now  before  us.  And 
this  1  further  argue  from  the  fact,  that  no  sacred  writer  has  ever  defined 
the  word.  Our  Savior  did  not  define  it;  John  the  Baptist  did  not  define 
it;  the  Apostles  never  defined  it.  Must  it  not  therefore  have  been  used 
by  them,  in  the  established  meaning  of  the  time  in  Avhich  they  lived  and 
taught  the  christian  religion! — [Time  expired. 

(^The  hour  having  now  arrived  for  the  close  of  the  session,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  presiding  moderator,  (Hon.  H.  Clay,)  Mr.  Rice  waived  his 
right  of  reply  till  to-morrow  morning  ;  and  the  adjournment  was  accord- 
ingly announced  in  form.] 

Tlmrsday,  Nov.  16 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  third  reply.] 

Mr.  President — It  is  exceedingly  important  in  this  discussion,  that  we 
distinctly  understand  the  point  in  controversy.  I  will  again  read  the  prop- 
osition, that  all  may  hear  it:  "  The  immersion  in  water  of  a  proper  sub- 
ject, in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one, 
only,  apostolic  and  christian  baptism."  This  Mr.  Campbell  affirms,  and  I 
deny.  I  desire  the  audience  to  mark  distinctly  what  he  undertakes  to 
prove,  viz:  that  the  entire  submersion  of  the  body  in  water,  is  absolutely 
essential  to  christian  baptism  ;  that  nothing  short  of  this  is  baptism : 
and,  consequently,  that  all  who  have  received  the  ordinance  in  any  other 
mode,  are  unbaptized,  and  are  not  in  the  church  of  Christ. 

This  is  the  position  of  my  friend.  And,  as  I  remarked  on  yestetday, 
so  I  say  again — if  this  discovery,  of  recent  origin,  be  real,  and  not  an 
entire  mistake,  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  discoveries  made  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  For  I  repeat  the  fact,  that  nine  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  in  every  thousand  of  those  in  favor  of  immersion,  as  well  as 
of  those  against  it,  have  failed  to  see  in  the  Bible  this  doctrine  which  Mr. 
C.  says,  is  so  plainly  taught,  that  he  that  runs  may  read  and  under- 
stand it ! 

Mark  again  how  he  undertakes  to  prove  this  important  proposition. 
His  main  argument  is  founded  on  the  meaning  of  the  words  hapto  and 
baptizo.  To  determine  the  meaning  of  these  words  his  first  and  main 
appeal  has  been  to  the  lexicons,  as  being  the  highest  authority.  Now 
observe  this  fact :  by  the  same  lexicons  to  which  he  has  appealed,  ancient 
and  modern,  I  have  proved  that  they  have  other  meanings,  essentially 
different  from  that  which  he  attaches  to  them.  He,  let  it  be  noted,  is 
bound  to  prove,  that  they  signify  to  immerse,  and  only  to  immerse  ;  for 
if  they  have  other  meanings,  the  connection  must  determine,  in  any  given 
case,  which  is  the  true  meaning.  The  sense  must  be  determined  by  the 
connection,  and  not  simply  by  the  words.  But  I  have  proved  by  the 
lexicons,  ancient  and  modern,  that  these  words  have  several  distinct 
meanings.     His  argument,  therefore,  has  wholly  failed. 

I  have  proved  that  these  words  signify  to  sink,  (and  the  word  sink  is 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  91 

quite  different  from  immerse,)  to  plunge,  to  dip,  to  dye,  stain,  color,  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle.  All  these  definitions 
have  been  found  in  the  different  lexicons.  And,  observe,  I  have  proved 
this,  not  by  the  modern  lexicons  only,  which  Mr.  C.  considers  of  less 
authority  than  the  ancient,  but  hy  both  ancient  and  modern;  such  as 
Hedericus,  Scapula,  Stephanus,  Suidas,  Schleusner,  Schrivellius,  Bret- 
schneider,  Parkhurst,  Robinson,  Greenfield,  Wahl,  &c.  &c.  I  have  ap- 
pealed to  all  these,  and  every  one  of  them  declares,  that  the  words  bapto 
and  baptizo  signify  not  only  to  dip,  to  plunge,  &c.,  but  also  to  wash, 
without  reference  to  mode. 

My  friend  has  told  you  that  modern  legicographers,  such  as  Groves, 
add  new  meanings  to  Greek  words — that  Webster,  for  example,  defines 
the  word  baptize  to  christen.  I  had  supposed  that  the  business  of  a 
Greek  lexicographer  was,  to  ascertain,  not  what  meanings  persons  in 
modern  times  attach  to  Greek  words,  but  in  what  senses  they  were  used 
by  Greek  writers.  And  if  so,  no  modern  lexicographer  will  give  to  a 
Greek  word  a  meaning  which  he  does  not  believe  to  have  been  attached 
to  it  by  Greek  authors,  Webster  was  defining  an  English  word ;  and  he 
gave  it  such  meanings  as  he  found  attached  to  it  by  those  who  speak  the 
English  language. 

Mark  again — these  lexicographers  do  not  define  the  words  iopfo  and 
baptizo  to  dye  and  to  wash  only  by  immersion.  There  is  not  one 
amongst  them  who  confines  tliem  to  washing  or  dyeing  by  immersion. 
They  generally  agree  with  Bretschneider,  who  defines  baptizo,  "  propr. 
sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo" — properly  often  to  immerse,  often  to  wash; 
and  in  the  New  Testament,  first,  "  lavo,  abluo  simpliciter'' — simply  to 
wash,  to  cleanse.  Schrivellius  defines  it,  mergo,  abluo,  lavo — to  im- 
merse, to  cleanse,  to  ivash.  They  do  not,  then,  say,  that  these  words 
signify  to  wash  or  to  dye  only  by  dipping. 

Nor,  allow  me  further  to  remark,  do  the  lexicographers  say,  that  the 
words  in  question  signify  to  wash  figuratively.  There  is  not  a  lexi- 
cographer, ancient  or  modern,  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  who  says  that 
baptizo  means  to  wash  figuratively.  It  would  indeed  be  marvellous  to 
say,  that  ivashing  or  sprinkling  is  figurative  immersion.  It  is  true, 
these  and  all  other  words  may  have  a  figurative  sense ;  and  I  have  given 
an  example  in  which  the  word  sprinkle  is  figuratively  used,  viz :  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews:  '.'Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science." Here  we  know  the  word  is  employed  figuratively,  because  a 
literal  fluid  is  not  supposed  to  be  used.  But  when  Ezekiel  says,  "  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  the  word  is  employed  in  a  literal 
sense,  because  literal  water  is  supposed  to  be  used.  Every  figure  must 
bear  some  resemblance  to  the  thing  of  which  it  is  the  figure.  But  what 
resemblance  is  there  between  sprinkling  and  immersing?  or  between 
washing  and  immersing?  Washing  may  be  a  consequence  of  immersion, 
but  certainly  it  cannot  be  -a  figure  of  it.  We  go  for  the  literal  mean- 
ing !  And  all  these  lexicons  define  baptizo,  to  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  in 
a  literal  sense, 

I  appeal  to  Carson,  one  of  the  most  zealous  immersionists.  He  de- 
clares, that  the  word  bapto  signifies  literally  to  dye  in  any  manner. 
(P.  64.)  "  Nor  are  such  applications  of  the  word  (bapto)  to  be  accounted 
for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr.  Gale  asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  the  primary 
meaning.  It  is  by  extension  of  literal  meaning,  and  not  by  figure  of  any- 
kind,  that  words  come  to  depart  so  far  from  their  original  signification." 


92  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Professor  Stuart  has  been  styled  by  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  his  American 
apostle.  Now,  let  us  have  the  whole  testimony  of  this  apostle.  Stuart 
does,  indeed,  say,  that  boptizo  signities  to  dip,  to  plunge,  as  Mr.  C.  has 
stated.  But  let  him  speak  for  himself.  On  page  29,  he  speaks  of  the 
word  as  used  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  Jirst  meaning  he  gives  is 
to  wash,  not  figuratively,  but  literally — "  to  wash  in  a  literal  sense." 

But  my  friend  has  told  us,  that  Stuart  acknowledges  that  the  ancient 
church  immersed.  He  does  say,  that  the  ancient  church  (in  the  third 
century)  immersed  three  times,  divesting  the  persons  of  all  their  gar- 
ments. But  he  does  not  admit,  that  Jesus  Christ  ever  commanded  any 
one  to  be  immersed.  I  will  read  a  paragraph  from  his  work  on  baptism  : 
(p.  18,)  "  But  we  have  already  seen,  in  numbers  6,  7,  above,  respecting 
classic  usage,  that  bapto  is  employed  in  the  sense  of  bathing  the  surface 
of  any  thing  with  a  fluid,  and  also  of  washing  it.  We  have  seen  in 
numbers  2,  5,  6,  of  examples  from  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  that 
the  word  baptize  sometimes  means  to  ivash,  and  bapto  to  moisten,  to 
wet,  or  bedew.  There  is,  then,  no  absolute  certainty,  from  usage,  that 
the  word  baptizo,  when  applied  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism,  means, 
of  course,  to  immerse  or  plunge.  It  may  mean  washing  ;  possibly  (but 
not  probably)  it  may  mean  copiously  moistening  or  bedewing ;  because 
words  coming  from  the  common  root  bap,  are  applied  in  both  these 
senses,  as  we  have  seen  above."  There  is  Stuart  for  you.  And  I  can, 
and,  if  necessary,  will  turn  to  the  page  where  he  declares,  that  there  is  not 
in  the  New  Testament  a  command  that  persons  should  be  immersed. 

Now  mark  what  I  have  proved ;  for  I  intend  that  every  hearer  shall 
understand  my  arguments  on  this  subject.  I  have  proved,  that  bapto  and 
baptizo  signify  not  only  to  sink,  dip,  plunge,  but  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  to 
purify,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  and  even  to  sprinkle;  and  I  will  yet  prove, 
by  even  higher  authority  than  the  lexicons,  that  they  have  these  mean- 
ings. Now  the  question  is — did  our  Savior  and  his  apostles  use  the 
word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  plunging  ?  or  did  he  use  it  in  the  sense  of 
washing,  cleansing,  purifying?  If  Mr.  C.  can  prove,  that  he  used  it 
in  the  sense  of  plunging,  he  will  have  gained  his  point ;  if  he  cannot,  his ' 
argument  fails  and  he  is  defeated.  I  defy  him  to  point  to  one  passage  in 
the  Scriptures  in  which  it  signifies  to  plunge  or  immerse. 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  the  examination  of  the  lexicons,  and 
we  have  found  them  testifying  that  the  word  baptizo  signifies  literally  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  as  well  as  to  plunge,  to  dip.  Now,  my  friend,  Mr.  C, 
must  be  in  error,  or  all  the  lexicographers  must  have  been  very  stupid. 
He  has  told  us,  that  wherever  we  find  bap,  we  find  also  the  idea  of  dip- 
ping. The  lexicographers  do  not  say  so,  and  I  have  proved  that  it  is 
not  true. 

He  informs  us,  that  he  is  now  going  to  pursue  a  regular  course  in  his 
argument.  He  appeals  to  the  classics.  I  also  go  to  the  classics,  and  I 
will  prove  that  they  do  not  sustain  him.  But  why  does  he  appeal  to  the 
classics,  unless  he  wishes  to  prove  the  lexicons  wrong  ?  He  has  admitted, 
however,  that  they  are  correct;  and  I  maintain,  that  they  have  correctly 
defined  the  words  in  question.  Their  definitions  are  founded  upon  a 
careful  examination  of  classic  usage ;  and  if  they  have  all  erred,  it  is 
scarcely  probable  that  we  shall  ascertain  the  truth.  But  I  am  prepared  to 
go  to  the  classics. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  admits,  that  so  far  as  mode  is  concerned,  bapto  and 
baptizo  have  the  same  meaning.     Now  let  me  quote  a  sentence  from 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  93 

Hippocrates.  He,  as  we  have  seen,  uses  the  word  bapto  to  denote  dye- 
ing a  garment  by  dropping  upon  it  the  coloring  fluid.  "  When  it  drops 
upon  the  garments,  (baptetai)  they  are  dyed,"  or  as  perhaps  my  triend 
woukl  say,  they  are  immersed.'  Then,  when  water  is  poured  upon  an 
individual,  of  course  he  is  immersed  ;  and  this  is  all  Mr.  C.  could  ask  ! 

Carson  quotes  the  following  sentence  from  Arrian's  Expedition  of 
Alexander  the  Great:  "  Nearchus  relates,  that  the  Indians  (baptontai) 
dye  their  beards  ;"  and  he  remarks — "  It  will  not  be  contended  that  they 
dyed  their  beards  by  immersion." — So  Mr.  Carson  is  with  us  again. 

^lian,  speaking  of  an  old  coxcomb  who  endeavored  to  conceal  his  age 
by  dyeing  his  hair,  says,  "  He  endeavored  to  conceal  the  hoariness  of  his 
hair,  by  dyeing  it" — (baphe.)  "  Baphe,'"  says  Carson,  "  here  denotes 
dyeing  in  general  ;  for  hair  on  the  head  is  not  dyed  by  dipping." 

Homer,  in  his  Battle  of  Frogs  and  Mice,  uses  the  following  language: 
"He  breathless  fell,  and  the  lake  was  tinged  (ebapteto)  with  blood."  Or 
would  you  say,  the  lake  was  immersed  in  his  blood ! 

Aristophanes  says,  "  Magnes,  an  old  comic  actor  of  Athens,  used  the 
Lydian  music,  shaved  his  lace,  and  smeared  it  over  (baptomenos)  with 
tawny  washes."  On  this  passage,  Dr.  Gale  remarks,  "  He  speaks  of  the 
homely  entertainments  of  the  ancient  theatre,  where  the  actors  daubed 
themselves  with  lees  of  wine  and  many  odd  colors,  before  iEschylus 
reformed  it,  and  introduced  the  use  of  masks  and  vizors.  Aristophanes 
expresses  this  by  baptomenos,  batracheiois,  not  that  he  supposes  they 
dipped  their  faces  into  the  color,  but  rather  smeared  the  color  on  their 
faces."     Bejlec.  on  WaWs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  v.  iii.  p.  109. 

Aristotle  speaks  of  a  substance,  which,  "  if  it  is  pressed,  dyes  (baptei) 
and  colors  the  hand." 

I  could  produce  many  other  examples  of  the  use  of  bapto,  where  it 
cannot  mean  to  dip,  or  immerse ;  but  it  is  unnecessary,  since  Mr.  Carson, 
the  learned  Baptist  critic,  admits  that  it  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling 
as  literally  as  by  dipping.  If,  then,  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo  agree 
in  meaning,  so  far  as  mode  is  concerned  ;  what  becomes  of  the  argu- 
ment of  Mr.  C.  for  immersion,  derived  from  the  meaning  of  baptizo  ? 

Let  me  now  turn  your  attention  to  the  classic  usage  of  the  word  bap- 
tizo. And  here  I  repeat  what  I  have  before  asserted,  that,  if  necessary,  I 
will  prove,  that  in  four-fifths  of  the  instances  in  the  classics  which  are 
supposed  to  favor  immersion,  this  word  signifies  sinking  to  the  bottom. 
And  is  that  the  actios  for  which  my  opponent  is  contending  ? 

But  here  is  a  passage  in  which  baptizo  signifies  moistening  or  wet- 
ting. Plutarch,  relating  the  stratagem  of  a  Roman  general  a  little  before 
he  died  of  his  wounds,  says:  "He  set  up  a  trophy,  on  which,  having 
baptized  (baptisas)  his  hand  in  blood,  he  wrote  this  inscription,"  &c. 
Did  he  immerse  his  hand  in  blood  in  order  to  write  ?  Is  not  baptizo 
here  used  simply  in  the  sense  of  ivetting  or  moistening  ? 

Hypocrates  directs,  concerning  a  blister  plaster,  if  it  be  too  painful, 
"  to  baptize  or  moisten  it  with  breast  milk  or  Egyptian  ointment."  Did 
he  intend,  that  the  plaster  should  be  immersed  in  breast  milk?  Is  this 
the  direction  which  physicians  are  accustomed  to  give  concerning  blister 
plasters  ?  Evidently,  the  word  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  moistening. 
Dr.  Gale,  n  learned  immersionist,  furnishes  us  Avith  an  example  in 
which  the  word  baptizo  certainly  does  not  express  the  action  for  which 
my  friend,  Mr.  C,  is  contending.  Aristotle  says,  "The  Phenicians, 
who  inhabit  Cadiz,  relate,  that  sailing  beyond  Hercules'  Pillars,  in  four 


94  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

days,  with  the  wind  at  east,  they  came  to  a  land  uninhabited,  whose 
coast  was  full  of  sea-weeds,  and  is  not  overflowed  (haptizesthai)  at  ebb ; 
but  when  the  tide  comes  in,  it  is  wholly  covered."  On  this  passage,  Dr. 
Gale  thus  remarks :  "  Besides,  the  word  baptizo,  perhaps,  does  not  so 
necessarily  express  the  action  of  putting  under  water,  as,  in  general,  a 
filing's  being  in  that  condition ;  no  matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether  it  is 
put  into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  on  it.'* — Eejlec.  on  iValVs  Hist. 
vol.  iii.,  p.  122. 

The  land,  we  are  told,  was  not  baptized  at  ebb,  but  was  overflowed  by 
the  tide.  Is  the  land  put  into  the  water,  or  does  the  water  flow  over  it? 
Gale  certainly  gives  up  the  question ;  for  he  says  baptizo  does  not  so  ne- 
cessarily express  the  action  (the  very  thing  my  friend  is  contending  for) 
of  putting  into  water,  as  in  general  a  thing's  being  in  that  stale,  no  matter 
how  it  comes  so. 

We  have  now  gone  somewhat  into  the  classics ;  and  I  care  not  to  what 
extent  the  investigation  may  be  pursued :  for,  as  before  remarked,  I  will, 
if  necessary,  prove,  that  in  four-fifths  of  the  instances  in  which  the  use 
of  the  word  is  supposed  to  favor  immersion,  it  occurs  in  relation  to  the 
sinking  of  ships,  the  drowning  of  men,  &c.  Surely  these  are  not  the 
actions  for  which  the  gendeman  is  contending.  There  are,  moreover, 
as  we  have  just  seen,  examples  in  which  this  word  comes  far  short  of 
immersion. 

One  of  the  most  serious  errors  of  the  gendeman,  and  of  those  who 
agree  with  him  on  this  subject,  is'  their  undue  reliance  upon  classic  usage 
to  determine  the  meaning  of  words  found  in  the  Scriptures.  The  pagan 
Greeks  are  certainly  unsafe  guides  in  the  exposition  of  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament;  so  the  best  critics  declare.  And  it  is  on  this  ac- 
count, that  we  have  Lexicons  of  the  New  Testament.  To  give  a  single 
example.  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  says,  the  wovd Jlesh  has,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, six  meanings,  not  more  than  one  of  which  is  found  in  classic 
authors.     The  principle  holds  good  in  regard  to  hundreds  of  words. 

I  am,  therefore,  inclined  to  come  to  the  Bible  usage — and  since  our, 
friends  (the  reformers,)  boast  of  going  by  the  Book,  I  would  a  litUe  prefer 
appealing  to  it.  I  am  prepared  to  prove  by  the  ablest  critics,  that  the 
usage  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Jews  in  their  religious  writings,  is  the  only 
tribunal  by  which  to  determine  the  meaning  of  words  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  and,  in  these  writings,  I  can  prove  that  the  word  baptizo  rarely, 
if  ever,  signifies  to  immerse. 

[Mr.  Rice  here  asks  the  moderators  whether  his  time  has  expired; 
and  being  informed  that  he  might  yet  occupy  two  minutes,  he  proceeds  :1 

Before  sitting  down  I  will  state  two  facts,  which  go  to  prove  that 
classic  usage  cannot  determine  the  meaning  of  words  used  in  the  New 
Testament: — 

First — The  inspired  apostles  did  not  speak  or  write  classic  Greek. 
They  were  .Tews ;  and,  as  critics  tell  us,  they  not  only  could  not  speak 
classic  Greek,  but  they  could  not  have  understood  it. 

Second — The  character,  manners,  habits,  customs  and  religion  of 
the  Jews  were  loidely  different  from  those  of  the  pagan  Greeks; 
hence  the  usage  of  ttie  latter  cannot  determine  the  meaning  of  words 
employed  by  the  former. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  fact,  that  the  pagan  Greeks  never  employed  the 
word  baptizo  with  reference  to  religious  washings,  but  always  with 
reference  to  things    in  common  life.      And  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  Jews 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  95 

(except  Josephus,  who  sought  to  imitate  the  classic  Greek,)  never  used 
it  in  their  rehgious  writings,  in  relation  to  matters  of  common  life,  but 
always  in  relation  to  religious  washings.  Now,  it  is  a  principle  of  inter- 
pretation, that  words  often  have  one  meaning  in  matters  of  common  life, 
and  quite  a  different  meaning  in  matters  of  religion.  Consequently,  even 
if  the  word  baptizo  had,  in  classic  usage,  the  meaning  for  which  my 
friend  (Mr.  C.)  contends;  it  would  by  no  means  follow,  that  it  has  the 
same  meaning  in  the  New  Testament. — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  16— lOA  o'clock,  A.  M. 
\w9..  Campbell's  fourth  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  much  gratified,  sir,  to  observe  the  improve- 
ment in  the  health  and  energy  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice.  He  seems  to 
have  slept  profoundly  on  the  work  of  yesterday,  and  appears  refreshed 
and  invigorated,  and  eager  for  the  work  before  him.  His  speech  this 
morning  is,  however,  but  a  reiteration  of  the  developments  of  yesterday. 
It  amounts  to  neither  more  nor  less  tlian  this ;  The  word  baptizo  some- 
times signifies  to  ivash.  He  talks  of  other  meanings.  They  amount, 
however,  to  no  more  than  this. 

I  concur  with  him,  indeed,  in  the  necessity  of  an  occasional  recapitula- 
tion, and  in  the  propriety  of  keeping  the  main  question  before  us.  It  is 
important  to  have  frequent  recurrence  to  the  points  at  issue,  and  to  the 
progress  made.  What  then  is  the  question — the  main  issue  ?  Not  whe 
ther  we  Baptists  are  right?  That  is  not  the  question.  Mr.  Rice  himself 
concedes  that  we  are  right  in  the  practice  of  immersion.  Greek  and  Ro- 
man, ancient  and  modern  christians,  all  sects  and  parties,  agree  that  im- 
mersion is  good  and  valid  baptism.  That  is  not  the  question,  nor  the 
point  to  be  discussed  and  decided  here.  We  have  a  tremendous,  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  those  who  so  believe.  Tlie  question  is,  whether 
our  Pedo-baptist  friends  are  right?  Whether  there  are  two  distinct  bap- 
tisms ;  one  immersing,  the  other  sprinkling  or  wetting  a  person  by  Divine 
authority.  Methinks  it  would  suffice  to  prove  to  ordinary  minds  that 
immersion  is  baptism;  and  then,  as  there  is  but  one  baptism,  sprinkling 
cannot  be  that  one  baptism.  But  let  me  ask,  what  are  the  essentials  of 
baptism  ?  They  are  usually  said  to  be  four  :  1.  A  proper  subject — 2.  A 
proper  action — 3.  The  Divine  formula  of  words,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  4.  A  proper  admin- 
istrator. These  are  the  sole  and  necessary  requisites.  A  failure  in  any 
one  of  these  may  aflfect  the  validity  of  baptism. 

The  question  now  before  us  concerns  the  action — the  thing  command- 
ed to  be  done.  This  is,  of  course,  the  most  important  point — the  signi- 
ficant and  all-absorbing  point.  Paul  gives  it  high  rank  and  consequence 
when  he  says,  "There  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  There  are 
not  two  modes  of  any  one  of  these.  When  we  have  ascertained  that  one 
action  called  baptism,  there  can  be  no  other.  I  said  yesterday,  and  I  re- 
peat it  this  morning,  that  it  is  wholly  sophistical  to  talk  of  two  modes  of 
baptism,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  two  ways  of  immersing  a  person.  In  this 
sense  there  may  be  a  plurality  of  modes.  A  person  may  be  immersed 
backwards  or  forwards,  kneeling  or  standing.  Other  modes  than  these 
there  cannot  be.  Sprinkling  is  not  a  mode  of  immersing  ;  neither  is  im- 
mersion a  mode  of  sprinkling.  If  sprinkling,  pourmg,  and  immersion  be 
modes  of  baptism,  then,  I  ask,  what  is  the  tiling  called  baptism  ?  Who 
can  explain  this?  Of  lohat  are  these  three  specifically  different  actions, 


96  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

\i 
the  mode  ?    If  sprinkling  be  a  mode,  and  pouring  a  mode,  and  immersing 
a  mode,  tlien  baptism  is  something  incognito — something  which  no  phi- 
lologist, or  lexicographer  can  explain.     I  pronounce  these  modes  an  un- 
meaning, sophistical  jargon,  which  no  one  can  comprehend. 

Baptism  is  not  a  mode — it  is  an  action.  The  word  that  represents  it 
is  improperly,  by  Mr.  Carson,  called  a  word  of  mode.  It  is  a  specific  ac- 
tion ;  and  llie  verb  that  represents  it  is  a  verb  of  specific  import;  else 
there  is  no  such  verb  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  or  Latin. 

I  had  the  iionor  of  tirst  exposing  the  sophistry  of  this  word  mode,  and 
of  publicly  repudiating  it  some  twenty-three  years  ago,  in  a  debate  on  this 
same  question.  I  showed  the  superior  prowess  of  the  Pedo-baptist  in 
introducing  this  term.  He  gained  half  the  controversy  by  calling  immer- 
sion a  mode  of  baptism.  When  the  honest  and  unsuspecting  Baptist  re- 
ceived the  imposition,  he  was  half  defeated.  He  felt  that  he  had  but  a 
mode,  and  the  Pedo-baptist  had  another  mode,  and  they  both  had  bap- 
tism!  The  controversy  was  then  reduced  to  a  question  of  mere  mode; 
whereas  the  true  and  real  debate  is  about  a  thing,  an  action,  and  not  at 
all  about  a  mode.  The  Messiah  commanded  a  solemn  and  most  signi- 
ficant action,  and  not  a  mode.  Since  1820  the  word  action  is  being  sub- 
stituted for  mode. 

The  gentleman  has  given  yon  several  quotations  from  classic  authors, 
a  number  of  which  I  intended  to  have  read,  and  some  of  them  belong  not 
to  the  word  in  debate.  For  good  reasons  our  Lawgiver  chose  the  word 
baptizo,  not  bapto.  The  former  is  therefore  found  120  times,  in  some 
of  its  Hexions  and  forms,  in  the  New  Testament,  while  we  have  the  lat- 
ter only  six  times.  They  are  both  said  to  be  specific  words  by  Mr.  Car- 
son ;  whilst  he  most  singularlv,  it  would  seem,  gives  bapto  both  a  speci- 
fic and  generic  meaning.  It  is  impossible  that  any  word  can  be  both  spe- 
cific and  generic.  Dyeing,  coloring,  staining,  and  dipping,  are  not  of  one 
class  of  words.  Dyeing  may  be  done  many  ways  ;  so  may  coloring, 
staining;  but  dipping  can  be  done  but  one  way.  Therefore  no  one  word 
can  be  specific,  which  represents  them  both,  in  its  true  and  proper 
meaning. 

Our  issue,  says  Mr.  Rice,  after  all,  depends  upon  the  lexicographers. 
They  are,  no  doubt,  a  proper  c6urt  of  appeal,  but  they  are  not  tlie  su- 
preme court  of  appeal.  They  have  themselves  to  appeal  to  the  classics 
and  approved  writers  for  their  authority.  They  are  often  wrong.  Mr. 
Carson  says  thev  are  all  wrong  in  affirming  that  tcash  is  a  secondary 
meaning  of  baptizo.  We  all  appeal  from  them  to  the  classics.  No  learned 
man  will  ever  rest  his  faith  upon  dictionaries.  He  will  appeal  from  them, 
in  very  many  cases,  to  their  teachers,  the  classics.  They  often  interpolate 
their  own  caprices,  and  insert  their  own  whims  and  prejudices.  Yet 
with  all  their  prejudices  and  caprices,  no  lexicographer  has  been  pro- 
duced, nor  can  there  be  one  now  produced,  who  during  1800  years,  (and 
before  that  time  we  have  none,)  translated  baptizo  by  sprinkle  or  poitr; 
while  they  all,  without  one  single  exception,  have  translated  the  word  im- 
merse, or  dip,  or  plunge,  or  immerge,  words  of  one  and  the  same  signi- 
fication. Nor  can  any  classic  author  be  produced  in  which  6a7?/«co  means 
to  sprinkle  or  pour.  This  is  full  proof  of  my  proposition,  let  men  assert 
what  they  please.  Many  Pedo-baptists  think  it  means  to  sprinkle,  and 
therefore  they  so  practice.  But  for  this,  I  again  say,  they  have  no  au- 
thority, classic,  lexicographic,  or  sacred. 

After  all,  this  is  a  question  of  authority.     My  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  has  his 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  97 

opinion,  and  other  men  have  their  opinions.  Every  man's  opinion  is 
equal  to  the  amount  of  his  intelligence  and  his  honesty.  The  opinions 
of  lexicographers  are  to  be  estimated  as  other  opinions.  My  opponent 
says  he  has  proved  from  the  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern,  that  baptizo 
has  several  distinct  meanings,  therefore  I  have  failed  in  proving  that  it 
has  but  one  proper  meaning.  All  this  is  easily  said,  and  quite  as  easily 
repeated.  But  it  is  only  an  opinion,  and  of  course  I,  as  well  as  many 
others,  am  of  a  different  opinion.  And  we  have  our  reasons  for  these 
opinions.  I  have,  indeed,  as  yet,  only  offered  a  portion,  a  very  small 
portion  of  my  evidence;  still  from  that  I  opine  it  is  quite  obvious  that 
there  is  no  authority  for  his  opinion.  I  have  been  quoting  all  my 
proofs  from  Pedo-baplists,  from  dictionaries  made  by  them,  both  classi- 
cal, and  also  theological.  They  generally,  indeed,  give  wash,  or  cleanse, 
or  some  purifying  word,  after  giving  ihe  proper  meaning.  They  always 
and  universally,  however,  despite  of  their  prejudices,  give  dip  as  the  pro- 
per and  native  meaning  of  the  word.  The  other  definitions,  as  we  shall 
still  more  fully  show,  are  accidental  or  contingent  acceptations,  rather 
than  meanings  of  the  word.  The  difference  between  our  witnesses  then 
is  this ;  Mr.  Rice  is  maintaining  his  opinions  by  witnesses  selected  out 
of  his  own  Pedo-baptist  parly,  while  I  am  quoting  his  own  witnesses, 
and  never  once  using  any  one  of  my  party,  ancient  or  modern.  He 
might  as  well  quote  the  clergymen  in  this  house,  of  his  own  church,  as 
the  authors  he  has  already  quoted,  to  maintain  his  conclusions ;  and  I 
might  as  well  quote  them  too,  to  prove  mine,  as  most  of  those  whom  I 
do  quote.  If  from  such  testimony  I  have  already  adduced  an  unanswer- 
able phalanx  of  proof,  how  strong  must  be  the  evidence  in  favor  of  our 
practice !     But  you  shall  yet  have  much  more  of  it. 

I  yesterday  proposed  an  English  discussion  for  an  English  audience. 
Mr.  Rice  ingeniously  refused  it,  on  grounds  so  transparent  that  all  could 
see  through  them.  I  had  read  a  few  lexicon  authorities,  which  would 
and  could  have  all  been  withdrawn  in  a  moment.  I  was  willing  to  rest 
the  whole  affair  upon  the  common  English  version — the  Pedo-baptist 
version  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  I  presumed,  however,  that  a 
majority  preferred  the  present  method  of  proceeding,  else  I  might  more 
amply  have  shown  how  easily  a  few  lexicographers  of  his  own  school 
might  have  been  disposed  of.  The  excuse  was,  as  all  saw,  more  ingeni- 
ous than  solid  ;  the  responsibility,  then,  rests  upon  himself. 

I  shall,  therefore,  patiently  proceed  with  the  various  arguments  pre- 
pared for  the  occasion.  But  for  the  remainder  of  this  address,  I  shall 
glance  at  some  things  not  yet  understood  by  all  present.  I  desire  all  to 
see  the  precise  point  in  this  branch  of  the  evidence:  In  the  first  place, 
then,  all  the  lexicons  give  dip  or  immerse  as  the  true,  proper,  primitive 
and  literal  meaning  of  baptizo.  They  give  wash,  wet,  moisten,  &c., 
as  the  secondary  meanings,  or  the  effects  of  dipping,  immersing,  &;c. 
Mr.  Carson,  who  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Rice,  is  a  profound  critic  of 
the  Baptist  school,  utterly  repudiates  the  idea  of  wash,  wet  or  moisten, 
as  meanings  of  a  word  that  has  not  in  it  one  drop  of  moisture,  fluid,  or 
liquid  of  any  sort.  He  disdains  such  lexicography  as  makes  a  word  of 
mere  mode,  as  he  calls  it,  mean  two  things  ;  and,  especially,  seeing  that 
any  thing  being  immersed  or  even  sprinkled  may  be  polluted  by  the 
action.  Now  that  a  word  can  mean  to  cleanse  and  to  pollute,  to  wash 
and  to  daub,  is  with  him  wholly  inadmissible.  But  I  am  willing  to  say 
that  metonymically  or  tropically,  baptizo  sometimes  may  mean  to  wash 
7  I 


98  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

or  10  cleanse ;  still  as  that  can  be  no  other  than  an  accidental  circum- 
stance, it  cannot  in  strict  propriety  be  called  a  meaning,  and  by  no  means 
a  jiroper  meaning  of  the  word.  But  even  were  it  shown  to  be  a  fixed 
meaning  of  the  word,  it  being  so  by  a  figurative,  and  not  by  any  proper 
intrinsic  force,  another  question  of  paramount  importance  must  be  estab- 
lished before  that  would  relieve  my  friend  in  the  least,  viz  :  Has  ever  a 
positive  ordinance  been  enacted  by  the  figurative  meaning  of  a  word  ? 

Mr.  Carson  is,  indeed,  a  profound  linguist  and  an  able  critic  ;  and  was 
himself  once  a  burning  and  a  shining  light  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  He 
is  also  well  esteemed  by  the  Edinburgh  reviewers.  He,  however,  is  not 
the  only  eminent  critic  who  argues  for  but  one  meaning  for  haptizo.  It 
is  becoming  fashionable  among  learned  men,  true  philologists,  to  give 
to  specific  verbs  but  one  meaning,  and  I  shall,  at  a  proper  time,  produce 
one  of  America's  most  distinguished  classic  scholars,  in  concun-ence  with 
Mr.  Carson  and  myself,  on  tliis  subject. 

But  in  reason's  name,  had  the  Messiah  commanded  his  apostles  to 
wash  the  nations,  while  converting  them  ;  why  did  he  not  take  the  word 
louo^  which  all  the  then  living  world,  Jew  and  Gentile,  would  have 
instantly  understood  ?  If  he  had  meant  loash  the  face,  why  not  have 
taken  nipto  ?  If  he  had  meant  to  V!et,  why  not  hrecho — if  to  sprinkle, 
why  not  raino?  These  words  exactly  indicated  those  meanings — and 
our  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  says  that  baptizo  is  a  word  of  diverse  senses ! ! 

1  have  examined,  one  by  one,  all  the  passages  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  in  which  the  words  nipto,  pluno,  louo,  raino,  cheo  occur,  and 
have  made  some  valuable  discoveries,  as  to  the  singular  definiteness  and 
precision  of  the  Greek  writers,  of  which  I  shall  iiereafter  speak.  At 
present  I  will  only  say,  that  when  applied  to  persons  louo,  washes  or  bathes 
the  whole  body  ;  nipto,  only  the  face,  hands  or  feet,  and  pluno,  invariably 
cleanses  the  garments.  They  are  never,  in  any  case,  substituted  the  one 
for  the  other.  I  ask  my  friend  for  a  single  exception  In  the  Bible.  They 
irequently  occur  in  the  same  line,  on  the  same  occasion,  in  the  same 
verse,  and  touching  the  same  person,  but  are  never  confounded.  If,^ 
then,  three  kinds  of  washing  are  defined  by  these  words,  in  laws  canon- 
ical, how  can  it  be  reconciled  to  the  Divine  character,  and  to  that  of  His 
moral  government,  to  have  chosen  for  the  one  baptism  a  generic  word, 
that  may  mean  any  thing  which  any  one  may  please  to  affix  to  it?  Mr. 
Rice  has  repeatedly  said  that  wash  is  a  meaning  of  baptizo,  and  that 
wash  is  certainly  not  a  word  of  mode.  But  there  is  no  philology  in  the 
observation.  The  effects  of  a  specific  action  may  be  very  numerous  and 
diverse — dip,  for  example,  may  heat  or  cool,  cleanse  or  pollute,  wash  or 
daub  a  subject : — follows  it,  then,  that  these  are  all  specific  words  of  the 
same  significance,  because  the  meanings  or  effects  of  one  specific  action ! 

But  to  return  to  his  favorite  louo,  tvash.  I  think  I  can  satisfy  even 
himself,  that  as  a  meaning  of  baptizo,  wash  is  so  only  as  an  effect  of  the  ac- 
tion. Allow  me  to  prepare  the  way  by  the  statement  of  a  philological  law. 

In  a  logical  definition,  the  term  and  its  definition  must  be  convertible^ 
To  speak  to  every  person's  apprehension — the  definition,  when  substi- 
tuted for  the  term  expressed,  must  always  make  good  sense.  Philanthro- 
py is  the  love  of  man — the  love  of  man  is  philanthropy — are  converti- 
ble propositions.  So  are — man  is  a  rational  animal,  and  a  rational  ani- 
mal is  a  man.  Louo  and  baptizo  must  be  convertible  terms,  if  the  one 
fully  defines  the  other.  But  is  that  the  fact  ?  He  may  find  baptizo  re- 
presented by  tvash  in  some  of  our  dictionaries,  but  in  not  one  of  them 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  99 

can  he  show  wash  represented  by  bapto  or  haplizo.  I  say  no<  one;  a 
clear  proof  that  the  one  is  not  the  definition  of  the  other.  Take,  how- 
ever, dip,  immerse,  and  he  will  find  baptizo  representing  them  in  every 
Greek  and  English  dictionary,  but  never  ivash  and  baptizo .'  To  those 
who  comprehend  it,  this  is  an  unanswerable  refutation  of  the  assumption 
that  baptizo  means  to  wash,  or  that  Avash  and  baptizo  are  convertible 
terms.  I  wish  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  would  demonsti-ate  a  little  more  and 
assert  a  little  less,  and  make  an  effort  to  sliow  how  immersing  a  person 
in  mud  could  cleanse  him;  or  how  immersing  a  person  in  pure  water 
could  color  him ;  or  how  immersing  one  in  sand  could  wet  him.  And 
yet  immersion  means  washing,  and  washing  means  immersion.  Credai 
Judseus  Appella,  non  Ego.  Yet  in  baptizing,  Mr.  R.  neither  washes 
nor  immerses. 

I  am  told,  however,  I  am  not  fully  understood  on  the  oft  repeated  and 
all-important  distinction  of  generic  and  specific  terms.  I  shall,  therefore, 
once  for  all,  more  fully  deliver  myself  on  this  essential  difference — a 
point  in  this  discussion  of  no  ordinary  importance.  Tree,  for  example, 
is  a  generic  term,  because  it  comprehends  under  it  many  species  of  trees. 
We  have  the  species  oak,  hiekoiy,  ash,  maple,  &c.,  all  included  under 
the  term  tree.  Animal  is  a  genus,  under  which  we  have  the  species 
man,  horse,  sheep,  dog,  &c.  Now  a  specific  term  includes  but  one  class 
— and  not  two  under  it ;  whereas  a  generic  term  may  have  two  or  three 
hundred  species  under  it.  To  travel  is  a  generic  term  ;  because  there  are 
various  ways  of  traveling ;  such  as  walking,  riding,  sailing,  &c.  Now, 
the  reason  why  specific  terms  can  have  but  one  meaning  is  apparent 
from  the  fact,  that  a  second  meaning  would  destroy  the  first.  For  exam- 
ple— if  to  walk  means  both  to  ride  and  walk,  when  told  that  a  person  was 
walking,  how  could  we  distinguish  the  action  performed  ? 

It  is  a  common  observation,  that  the  genus  includes  the  species,  but 
the  species  does  not  include  the  genus.  Thus,  the  word  animal  includes 
all  manner  of  quadrupeds,  but  the  word  quadruped  does  not  include  all 
manner  of  animals.  Washing  is  a  generic  term,  under  which  sprinkling, 
pouring,  dipping,  may  be  specific  terms.  Not  necessarily,  but  accident- 
ally they  may  be  specific  terms;  for  it  depends  upon  what  is  sprinkled 
or  poured  upon,  or  what  a  thing  is  dipped  into,  whether  or  not  it  be 
washed.  But  suppose  they  are  all  three  modes  of  washing,  then  they  arc 
all  specific  words.  And  if  the  Lord  chose  any  one  of  them  in  preference 
to  the  others,  then  that,  and  that  only,  will  be  agreeable  to  his  will. 

Now  that  baptism  is  a  specific  action,  and  can  be  performed  acceptably 
only  in  one  way,  methinks  will  appear  very  obvious  to  all  candid  persons 
on  a  little  reflection.  Jesus,  our  Savior,  must  have  had  all  these  three 
actions  of  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersing  in  his  mind  before  he  or- 
dained any  one  of  them.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose,  that  of  three,  or 
even  two,  he  would  have  no  preference.  No  rational  being  can  think  of 
any  two  ways  of  effecting  any  object,  without  preferring  the  one  to  the 
other.  Now,  the  Lord  must  have  preferred  one  of  these  actions  to  the 
other,  and  havmg  a  specific  object  and  intention,  he  had  not  only  the  will 
but  the  authority  to  demand  and  enforce  it.  Well,  now  it  will,  it  must  be 
conceded,  that  he  chose  one,  and  but  one,  out  of  two  or  three  possible 
ways  of  accomplishing  that  end.  Suppose,  then,  the  object  to  have 
been  washing,  of  which  you  may  suppose  there  were  three  practicable 
ways.  Of  these,  we  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  he  preferred  one; 
and  that  he  would  and  could  specify  that  one,  no  one  can  deny.     Fol- 


100  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

lows  it  not,  then,  that  he  has  chosen  and  commanded  one  specific  act  to 
be  performed  in  the  most  solemn  manner?  Whosoever,  then,  has  not 
been  a  subject  of  that  act,  is,  of  course,  unbaptized.  I  see  no  way  of 
evading  this.  AVill  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  show  some  way  of  escape  from 
these  conclusions  ? 

He  says  that  washing  is  a  generic  term ;  then  these  three,  sprinkling, 
pouring,  and  dipping  are  specific,  himself  being  judge.  If,  then,  dip  is 
specific  in  English,  it  is  so  in  Greek  ;  and  if  baptizo  means  dip,  as  all 
the  world  agrees,  then  follows  it  not  that  baptizo  is  a  specific  word,  and 
has  but  one  meaning?  Had  the  Messiah,  in  giving  the  commission,  said, 
"  Travel  into  all  nations  and  preach  the  gospel,"  then,  this  word  being 
generic,  his  apostles  could  have  obeyed  the  precept  by  walking,  riding, 
sailing,  or  any  other  mode  of  traveling.  But  had  he  said,  "  Walk 
through  all  the  world,"  &;c.,  he  could  not  have  been  obeyed  by  riding. 

He,  however,  gave  them  specific  directions  what  they  should  do  in 
executing  his  will.  He  made  three  words  pregnant  with  their  whole  du- 
ties as  his  functionaries.  They  were  to  disciple,  baptize,  and  teach  all 
nations.  He  gave  then  the  two  generic  words  mathetcuo  and  didasko,  and 
the  one  most  specific,  because  it  required  an  outward,  formal,  and  well 
defined  action,  by  which  they  were  to  be  publicly  recognized  and  known 
as  his  followers.  True  faith  and  true  obedience  will  always  exact  a  lite- 
ral compliance  with  this  divine  institution. — \^Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  16 — 11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  fourth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  happy  to  return  the  compliment  of  my  worthy 
friend.  I  conclude  that  he  has  slept  as  soundly  as  myself.  For  I  must 
acknowledge,  I  was  somewhat  disappointed  in  the  display  he  made  on 
yesterday.  But  I  am  happy  to  see  him  coming  to  the  work  this  morning 
with  so  much  energy.  I  desire  to  get  into  the  heat  of  the  battle — the 
warmer  the  better,  provided  we  have  the  suaviter  in  modo,  fortiter  in 
re — soft  words  and  hard  arguments. 

He  is  certainly  mistaken  when  he  represents  us  as  admitting  that  im- 
mersionists  zxe  in  the  right.  We  do  admit  the  vo/iV/iV?/ of  baptism  by 
immersion;  but  we  admit  it,  only  because  we  do  not  believe  the  7«o(/e  of 
administering  it  essential  to  the  ordinance.  If  he  will  convince  me,  that 
the  mode  is  essential,  I  will  promptly  deny  the  validity  of  immersion. 
But  when  we,  for  such  a  reason,  admit  that  baptism  by  immersion  is  valid, 
we  certainly  do  not  thereby  acknowledge  that  it  is  performed  in  the  right 
mode.  On  the  contrary,  we  contend  that  the  scriptural  mode  of  admin- 
istering baptism  is  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  the  question  is,  whether  there  are  two  bap- 
tisms;  and  he  thinks  it  enough  for  him  to  prove  that  immersion  is  valid 
baptism.  But  if,  as  he  maintains,  the  precise  mode  is  essential  to  the  or- 
dinance, he  will  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  prove  that  immersion 
is  baptism.  Precisely  on  this  point  he  will  fail.  He  assumes  the  posi- 
tion, that  the  mode,  or  as  he  expresses  it,  the  action  is  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance.  This  is  one  of  tlie  points  he  came  here  to 
prove.  He  tells  us,  the  phrase  mode  of  baptism  is  a  perfect  sophism — 
perfect  gibberish;  that  it  is  as  absurd  as  to  talk  of  the  mode  of  sprinkling. 
He  takes  for  granted  the  precise  point  in  debate,  viz  :  that  the  word  bap- 
tizo signifies  simply  and  only  to  immerse.  But  that  is  to  be  proved;  and 
it  is  precisely  what  he  cannot  prove.     We  are  as  much  disposed  as  he. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BArTISM.  IQI 

and  those  who  agree  with  him,  to  obey  the  command  of  our  Savior  to  be 
baptized;  but  we  differ  from  them  as  to  the  mode  of  applying  the  water. 

Now  if,  as  the  lexicographers  declare,  baptizo  means  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  and  if  the  Savior  used  it  in  this  sense,  there  is  no  absurdity  in 
speaking  of  the  mode  of  baptism.  Are  there  not  different  modes  of  wash- 
ing? May  I  not  wash  my  hands  by  pouring  water  on  tiiem,  or  by  dip- 
ping them  into  water?  Let  the  gendeman  first  prove  that  the  mode  is  es- 
sential to  the  ordinance,  and  lha\.  baptizo  means  only  to  immerse,  and  then 
he  may  pronounce  the  mode  of  baptism  a  sophism,  unmeaning  "  gib- 
berish." 

The  gentleman  passes  over  ray  quotations  from  the  classics,  by  saying 
they  are  irrelevant ;  that  bapto  is  not  the  word  in  debate.  He  has,  from 
the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  admitted  that  bapto  and  baptizo 
have  the  same  meaning,  so  far  as  mode  is  concerned  ;  that  these  words 
express  the  same  specific  action.  Now,  when  I  prove  by  reference  to 
the  classics,  that  bapto  is  not  a  specific  term — that  it  does  not  definitely 
signify  to  immerse ;  he  replies,  that  bapto  is  not  the  word  in  debate  ! 
This  assuming  a  position,  and  then  retreating  from  it,  strikes  me  as  rather 
singular,  particularly  in  so  old  a  warrior!  Really  I  was  not  prepared  to 
expect  this,  I  supposed  that  when  he  put  his  foot  down,  he  would  stand 
firmly.  But  when  I  prove  that  the  dyeing  of  a  garment,  by  dropping 
upon  it  a  coloring  fluid,  is  expressed  by  the  word  bapto ;  and  that  the 
dyeing  of  the  hair  or  heard,  or  the  smearing  of  the  face,  is  denoted  by  the 
same  word;  what  is  his  reply?  0,  says  he,  bapto  is  not  the  word  in  dis- 
pute— the  references  to  the  classics  are  all  irrelevant !!! 

But  he  cannot  so  easily  escape  the  difficulty;  for  both  Dr.  Gale  and 
Carson,  learned  and  zealous  immersionists,  maintain  that,  so  far  as  mode 
is  concerned,  bapto  and  baptizo  have  precisely  the  same  meaning.  Mr. 
Carson  says — "  The  learned  Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflections  on  Mr.  Wall's 
History  of  Infant  Baptism,  after  giving  a  copious  list  of  quotations,  in 
which  bapto  and  baptizo  are  used,  says:  "I  think  it  is  plain,  from  the 
instances  already  mentioned,  that  they  are  {isodunamai)  exactly  the 
same  as  to  signification."  "As  far,"  says  Carson,  "  as  respects  an  in- 
crease or  diminution  of  the  action  of  the  verb,  I  perfecfly  agree  with  the 
writer.  That  the  one  is  more  or  less  than  the  other,  as  to  mode  or  fre- 
quency, is  a  perfectly  groundless  conceit;"  p.  12.  Now,  if  these  learn- 
ed immersionists  are  correct,  when  I  prove  that  bapto  is  employed  by  the 
Greeks  to  express  the  dropping  of  a  fluid  upon  a  garment,  I  have  also 
proved  that  baptizo,  which  has  the  same  meaning,  does  not  definitely 
signify  to  immerse. 

Dr.  Gale  contended,  that  in  all  cases  in  which  bapto  signifies  to  dye,  it 
retains  the  idea  of  dyeing  by  dipping ;  but  Mr.  Carson  contradicts  this 
position,  and  maintains,  that  it  means  to  dye  by  sprinkling  as  literally  as 
by  dipping.  Thus  these  learned  immersionists,  while  they  come  to  the 
same  conclusion,  cross  each  other's  path  in  reaching  it.  Indeed,  Carson 
charges  Gale  with  giving  up  the  question  !  So  far,  however,  as  relates  to 
an  increase  or  diminution  in  the  action  of  these  words,  they  are  perfectly 
agreed.  They  agree  in  affirming  that  these  words  express  the  same  spe- 
cifi,c  action.  What,  I  ask,  was  the  specific  action  in  the  dropping  of  a 
coloring  fluid  upon  a  garment?  or  in  coloring  the  beard,  or  the  hair?  or 
in  smearing  the  face  with  tawny  washes  ?  Carson  asserts,  that  bapto 
means  literally  to  dye  by  sprinkling.  Then  why  may  it  not  mean  to  wet 
by  sprinkling  ?  Where  is  the  rule  of  language  which  teaches  that  a  word 

i2 


102  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

may  express  the  sprinkling  of  a  colored  fluid,  and  yet  be  incapable  of  ex- 
pressing the  sprinkling  of  a  colorless  fluid? 

But  my  friend  (Mr.  C.)  was  mistaken,  when  he  told  you,  that  in  all  my 
examples  from  the  classics,  bnpto  and  not  baptizo  was  the  word  used.  I 
adduced  several  examples  of  the  use  of  baptizo  where  evidently  it  does  not 
mean  to  immerse.  I  referred  you  to  the  case  of  the  Roman  general  men- 
tioned by  Plutarch,  who,  when  dying  of  his  wounds,  baptized  (baptisas) 
his  hand  in  blood  and  wrote  on  a  trophy.  I  read  to  you  the  direction  of 
Hippocrates,  that  the  blister-plaster  should  be  baptized  (baptizein)  with 
l)reast-milk  and  Egyptian  ointment;  and  I  asked  my  friend  (Mr.  C.) 
whether  he  supposed,  that  the  plaster  was  to  he  plunged  into  breast-milk 
and  the  ointment?  Does  not  the  word  baptizo,  in  these  cases,  express  a 
partial  wetting  or  moistening?  I  produced  an  example  from  Aristotle, 
in  which  it  is  impossible  that  this  word  could  express  a  specific  action. 
And  I  proved,  that  Dr.  Gale,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  immer- 
sionists,  admitted  that  it  does  not,  perhaps,  so  necessarily  express  the  ac- 
tion of  putting  under  water,  as  in  general  a  thing's  being  in  that  stale,  no 
matter  how  it  comes  so.  But  the  action  of  putting  under  is  the  very  thing 
my  friend  (Mr.  Campbell)  is  laboring  to  prove  by  this  word.  Now, 
which  of  these  Doctors  shall  we  believe  ?  [y.  laugh]  No  !  my  friends,  the 
classics  do  not  sustain  him. 

But  what  about  the  lexicons?  They,  it  seems,  are  all  wrong  to-day; 
though  yesterday  my  friend  told  you,  they  were  the  very  highest  author- 
ity !  And  he  mustered  so  many  of  them,  that  they  appeared  quite  formi- 
dable enough  to  terrify  a  small  man  like  myself.  But  I  took  up  the  very 
weapons  with  which  he  expected  to  overwhelm  me,  and  turned  them 
against  him!  I  proved  that  the  old  lexicons,  of  whose  authority  he 
boasted,  define  the  word  baptizo  by  the  generic  terms  lavo,  abluo — to 
■wash,  to  cleanse.  Mr.  Campbell  replied,  that  they  gave  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  asjignrative  meanings  of  the  word.  This  allegation  was  imme- 
diately disproved.  I  proved  to  you,  that  the  learned  Bretschneider  de- 
i\nes  baptizo,  "  propr.  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo" — properly,  often  to 
dip,  often  to  tvash ;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  first,  "lavo,  abluo  sim- 
pliciter" — simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse.  What  reply  does  he  make  to 
these  facts?  Why,  he  abandons  the  lexicons,  and  says,  they  are  wrong; 
and  he  abandons  the  word  bapto.  So  far,  so  good !  We  are  making- 
encouraging  progress.     Two  of  the  strongest  positions  are  abandoned! 

My  friend  (Mr.  C.)  has  told  you,  that  no  lexicographer  has  defined  the 
word  baptizo,  to  sprinkle.  But  some  of  them  have  defined  bapto  to, 
sprinkle,  as  we  have  seen;  and  I  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  some  emi- 
nenfly  learned  men,  who  lived  hundreds  of  years  before  the  oldest  lexi- 
cons extant  were  made,  did  tl}e  same  thing.  They  lived  and  wrote  when 
the  Greek  was  a  living  language,  spoken  all  around  them.  Surely  they 
had  the  means  of  ascertaining  whether  bapto  was  ever  used  by  Greek 
writers  and  speakers  in  the  sense  of  sprinkling. 

I  am  not  much  alarmed  at  the  host  of  Pedo-baptists  with  whose  conces- 
sions my  friend  (Mr.  Campbell)  threatens  me.  I  know  something  of 
them.  It  ought  to  be  known,  that  many  Pedo-baptists  have  been,  in  their 
views,  decided  imn"iersionisls.  A  Pedo-baptist  is  one  who  believes  in  the 
baptism  of  infants.  Yet  in  the  minds  of  many  persons  the  name  of 
Pedo-baptist  is  inseparably  associated  with  the  idea  of  sprinkling;  and  the 
declarations  of  those  Pedo-baptists  who  are  decidedly  favorable  to  immer- 
sion, are  often  paraded  before  the  public  as  the  concessions  of  the  advo- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  103 

cates  of  pouring  and  sprinkling,  which  their  candor  or  their  regard  for 
their  reputation  forced  them  to  make  !  But  I  will  be  with  the  gentleman 
when  he  brings  up  this  formidable  host.  I  have  something  to  say  con- 
cerning them. 

He  tells  us,  that  the  lexicographers  are  all  Pedo-baptists.  I  have  not 
taken  the  trouble  to  inquire  to  what  denomination  they  belonged,  or 
whether  they  were  all  professors  of  religion.  But  if  the  fact  be  as  he 
states  it,  I  can  account  for  it  only  on  the  supposition,  that  there  has  always 
been  more  learning  amongst  the  Pedo-baptists,  than  amongst  their  oppo- 
nents. If  it  were  otherwise,  surely  we  should  have  had  soiive  one  or  two 
lexicons  by  immersionists.  It  strikes  me,  however,  as  very  remarkable, 
that  on  a  subject  such  as  this,  the  unlearned  should  always  have  been  in 
the  right,  and  the  learned  always  in  error !  But  it  matters  not  to  what 
denomination  of  christians  the  lexicographers  may  have  been  attached. 
They  had  a  reputation  to  sustain ;  and  they  risked  it  upon  the  correctness 
of  their  definitions.  Public  sentiment  has  sustained  them  ;  and  their  lexi- 
cons have  become  standard  works.  Their  reputation  is  established  ;  and 
no  criticisms  of  my  worthy  friend  can  bring  them  down  from  the  emi- 
nence on  which  an  enlightened  public  have  placed  them. 

But  I  have  not  relied  exclusively  upon  Pedo-baplist  authorities.  I  have 
adduced,  against  my  friend,  (Mr.  Campbell,)  the  authority  of  immer- 
sionists ;  and  I  have  shown  you  how  immersionists,  in  discussing  this 
subject,  came  into  collision  with  each  other. 

Mr.  Campbell  repeats  the  statement,  that  he  was  willing  to  have  risked 
the  decision  of  this  controversy  upon  the  English  version  of  the  Bible. 
Why  did  he  not  sooner  make  this  proposition  ?  He  first  attempts  to 
overwhelm  us  with  the  abundance  of  his  Greek,  and  then  gravely  says  to 
us,  please  now  to  confine  yourself  to  the  English  version  !  This  is, 
indeed,  a  singular  manoeuvre.  I  cannot  believe,  that  the  gentleman  ex- 
pected me,  after  his  appeal  to  Greek,  to  accede  to  his  proposition. 

He  thinks,  Mr.  Carson  did  not  intend  to  admit,  that  all  the  lexico- 
graphers and  commentators  were  against  him  in  his  views  of  the  word 
baptizo.     Carson's  language  is  as  follows : — "My  position  is,  that  it 

[baptizO~\     ALWAYS     SIGNIFIES     TO     DIP  ;     NEVER    EXPRESSING    ANY    THING 

BUT  MODE.  Now,  OS  /  luive  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators 
against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two 
with  respect  to  the  authority  of  the  lexicons,"  p.  79.  Yes — all  the  lex- 
icographers, ancient  and  modern,  were  against  him  !  I  leave  this  intelli- 
gent audience  to  determine,  whether  it  is  not  far  more  probable,  that  Mr. 
Carson,  a  man  zealously  laboring  to  establish  a  favorite  tenet,  is  in  error 
on  this  subject,  than  that  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  should 
have  failed  to  learn  the  meaning  of  this  word.  My  friend  (Mr.  C.) 
threatens  to  bring  forward  a  very  learned  gentleman,  who  sustains  Mr. 
Carson  in  his  position.  We  will  attend  to  him  when  he  is  brought  up. 
We  have  heard  the  voice  of  distant  thunder  before. 

He  asks,  why  did  not  our  Savior  use  the  word  louo,  which  every  body 
knew  meant  ?o  wash?  or  nipto,  which  means  to  wash  the  hands,  &c.  ? 
I  answer,  the  reasons  are  obvious.  Loieo  was  a  word  in  constant  use  in 
reference  to  ordinary  washings.  Baptizo  had  been  long  in  use  among 
the  Jews  to  express  their  religious  ivashings  of  all  kinds.  Our  Savior 
found  it  thus  employed,  and  therefore  selected  it  to  denote  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  He  did  not  use  nipto,  because  the  water  was  to  be  applied 
to  the  person.     Baptism  is  not  the  washing  of  the  hands  or  feet;  it  is  the 


104  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

consecration  of  the  person  to  the  service  of  God.  But  I  am  not  con- 
cerned to  answer  such  inquiries,  though  these  reasons  are  abundantly 
sufficient.  Let  Mr.  Campbell,  if  he  can,  disprove  the  facts  I  have  estab- 
lished concerning  the  word  baptize. 

Did  I  correctly  understand  the  gentleman  as  saying,  that  the  word 
lavo  never  expresses  the  washing  of  the  ivhole  body?  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell :  No  sir — I  said  nipto  signifies  a  partial  washing.]  Oh,  I  have 
not  the  least  use  for  nipto.     [a  laugh.] 

To  prove  that  baptizo  does  not  properly  mean  to  wash,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell asserts,  that  the  word  louo,  to  ivash,  is  never  defined  by  baptizo; 
and,  therefore,  they  are  not  synonymous.  The  reason  is  perfectly  obvi- 
ous. Baptizo  means  more  than  louo.  It  signifies  to  wash,  (louo  ;)  but 
it  has  also  other  meanings.  It  is,  of  course,  not  allowable,  in  defining  a 
word,  to  employ  another  word  of  more  extensive  meaning  than  the  one 
to  be  defined. 

But,  says  Mr.  C,  baptizo  cannot  properly  mean  to  wash;  because  it 
does  not  necessarily  imply  the  use  of  water — it  may  be  used  with  equal 
correctness  with  reference  to  any  other  fluid.  But  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  the  question  under  discussion  is  not  concerning  the  use  of  any  par- 
ticular fluid,  but  concerning  the  mode  of  applying  it.  When  the  Roman 
general  baptized  his  hand  in  his  blood,  and  wrote  on  a  trophy  ;  the  hand 
or  writing  instrument  was  not  immersed  in  blood,  but  only  moistened  or 
wetted  with  it.  And,  besides,  Virgil  uses  the  Latin  lavo,  which  certainly 
does  mean  to  ivash,  to  denote  smearing  with  blood. 

Mr.  Campbell  thinks  the  Savior  must  have  preferred  some  one  mode 
of  baptism.  So  I  think  ;  and  I  am  prepared  to  show  what  that  mode 
was.  I  am  not,  however,  disposed  to  enter  upon  the  proof  just  now.  I 
am,  at  present,  clearing  away  the  rubbish  ;  for  a  large  amount  of  Greek 
rubbish  has  been  thrown  around  this  subject.  When  I  shall  have  re- 
moved it,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  sprinkle  ray  friend  in  English  [laughter.] 
I  will  give  him  a  plain  English  argument,  untrammeled  with  Greek  words; 
and,  I  think,  I  can  make  it  so  plain,  that  all  will  understand  it. 

Yet  I  do  not  admit  the  correctness  of  the  logic  by  which  he  attempts 
to  prove,  that  our  Savior  must  have  preferred  some  particular  mode. 
For  I  have  already  proved,  that  in  the  Levitical  law,  (Num.  xix.  19,)  a 
washing  is  commanded,  and  no  mode  specified.  If  my  friend  had  lived 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  perhaps  he  would  have  proved  that  rahatz,  the  He- 
brew word  used  in  this  passage,  meant  to  dip,  though  it  is  uniformly  used 
in  the  general  sense  of  washing.  For  he  would  have  insisted,  that  the 
Lord  must  have  preferred  some  one  mode,  and  that  mode  must  have  been 
expressed  by  the  word  employed  ! 

I  have  now  answered  the  arguments  of  my  friend  as  far  as  he  has 
gone.  Perhaps  I  may  as  well  now  produce  some  further  evidence  of 
the  incorrectness  of  his  exposition  of  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  Be- 
foire  I  do  this,  however,  allow  me  to  refer  to  one  or  two  authors  to 
prove,  that  the  classic  Greek  is  an  unsafe  guide  in  expounding  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament. 

I  will  read  from  Ernesti,  as  published  with  notes  by  Professor  Stuart, 
p.  14:— 

"  The  question  as  to  the  idiom  of  the  New  Testament,  turns  on  the  use 
of  such  words  and  phrases  as  designate  those  objects  that  the  Greeks  are 
accustomed  to  designate  ;  and  the  question  here  must  be  whether  such  words 
in  the  New  Testament  are  used  in  the  same  sense  which  the  Greeks  at- 
tach to  them  ;  and  whether  phrases  not  only  have  the  same  syntax  as  that 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  105 

of  the  classic  Greek,  but  also  the  same  sense  as  in  the  Greek  authors  :  for 
this  is  essential  to  the  purity  of  language,"  &c. 

"The  question  being  thus  stated  and  defined,  we  deny  without  hesitation, 
that  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament  is  pure  Greek,  and  contend  that 
it  is  modelled  after  the  Hebi-ew,not  only  in  single  words,  phrases,  and  fig- 
ures of  speech  ;  but  in  the  general  texture  of  the  language.  This  can  be 
established  by  clear  examples,  more  numerous  than  those  who  agree  with 
us  in  opinion  have  supposed,"  &c. 

"It  is  no  small  argument  for  the  Hebraistic  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  many  parts  of  it  can  be  more  easily  translated  into  Hebrew, 
than  into  any  otiier  language;  as  Erasmus  Schmidius  confesses,  though  a 
strenuous  defender  of  the  classic  purity  of  the  New  Testament.  Nay, 
many  parts  of  the  New  Testament  can  be  explained  in  no  other  way  than 
by  means  of  the  Hebrew.  Moreover,  in  many  passages  there  would  arise 
an  absurd  and  ridiculous  meaning,  if  they  should  be  interpreted  according 
to  a  pure  Greek  idiom  ;  as  appears  from  the  examples  produced  by  Wer- 
enfels,"  &;c. — Ernesti,  pp.  56,  57. 

If  this  author  is  worthy  of  credit,  they  spoke  an  idiom  of  the  Greek 
language  different  from  that  spoken  by  the  pagan  Greeks.  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  whom  my  friend  considers  as  a  very  learned  critic,  also  con- 
firms the  testimony  of  Ernesti.     He  says  : 

"But,  with  the  greatest  justice  it  is  denominated  a  peculiar  idiom,  being 
not  only  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  phrases  put  in  Greek  words,  but  even  single 
Greek  words  used  in  senses  in  which  they  never  occur  in  the  writings  of 
profane  authors,  and  which  can  be  learned  only  from  the  extent  of  signi- 
fication given  to  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic  words  corresponding  to  the  Greek 
in  its  primitive  and  most  oi'dinary  sense." — Prelim. Dissert,  vol.  i.  p.  32. 

"It  is  true,  that  as  the  New  Testament  is  written  in  Greek,  it  must  be 
of  consequence  that  we  be  able  to  enter  critically  into  the  ordinary  import 
of  the  words  of  that  tongue,  by  being  familiarized  to  the  genius  and  char- 
acter of  the  people  who  spake  it.  But  from  what  has  been  observed  it  is 
evident,  that,  though  in  several  cases  this  knowledge  may  be  eminently  use- 
ful, it  will  not  suthce  ;  nay,  in  many  cases  it  will  be  of  little  or  no  sig- 
nificancy.  Those  words,  in  particular,  which  have  been  in  most  familiar 
use  with  the  old  interpreters,  and  have  been  current  in  the  explanations 
given  in  the  Hellenistical  synagogues  and  schools,  have,  with  their  natura- 
lization among  the  Israelites,  acquired  in  the  Jewish  uses,  if  I  may  be 
allowed  the  expression,  "  an  infusion  of  the  national  spirit."  "Classical 
use,  both  in  the  Greek  and  in  the  Latin,  is  not  only  in  this  study  sometimes 
unavailable,  but  may  even  mislead.  The  sacred  use  and  the  classical  are 
often  very  different."     Ibid.  pp.  57,  58. 

Prof.  Stuart,  also,  agrees  with  Ernesti  and  Campbell. 

If,  then,  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers  did  not  speak  and  write  classic 
Greek  ;  if  they  used  words  in  a  sense  not  found  in  any  classic  author;  how 
can  it  be  certain,  that  they  attached  to  the  word  bciptizo  the  same  mean- 
ing it  had  among  the  pagan  Greeks  ?  Are  we  to  be  told,  that  it  is  certain, 
that  words,  used  by  two  diflerent  nations,  speaking  different  idioms  of  the 
same  language,  of  different  manners,  habits,  customs,  and  religion,  have 
precisely  the  same  meaning!  The  Greeks,  it  is  admitted,  never  used  the 
word  baplizo  in  a  religious  sense:  the  Jews  never  used  it  in  any  other  than 
a  religious  sense.  The  only  way  satisfactorily  to  determine  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  is  to  examine  into  its  use  amongst  the  Jews,  as  applied  to 
their  religious  washings,  and  by  the  inspired  writers,  previous  to  the  time 
and  at  the  time  our  Savior  appropriated  it  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

I  am  prepared  to  come  to  "  the  Book,''^  and  to  prove  clearly,  as  I 
think,  that  there  is  not  an  instance  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  in  which 
haptizo  can  be  proved  to  mean  to  immerse. — [Time  expired. 


106  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Thursday,  Nov.  16 — 111  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifth  address.] 

Mr.  President — As  we  are  in  quest  of  more  light  on  this  great  sub- 
ject, and  as  an  increase  of  light  is  desirable  not  only  for  ourselves  but 
also  for  others,  we  sincerely  wish  Mr.  Rice  all  possible  success  in  his 
endeavors  to  acquire  and  communicate  it ;  and  certainly  he  will  afford  us 
new  light,  when  he  proves  his  last  assumption,  that  baptizo  never  means 
to  immerse  in  all  the  Bible. 

In  this  attempt,  he  will  have  to  conflict  not  only  with  us  and  all  Bap- 
tists, but  with  the  most  enlightened  and  distinguished  men  of  his  own 
denomination,  and  of  all  the  Pedo-baptist  world.  True,  like  Mr.  Stuart, 
whom  I  have  allegorically  called  my  American  apostle,  and  to  whom  I 
take  pleasure  in  giving  rank  and  honor,  though  I  swear  to  the  words  of 
no  master,  and,  like  Calvin,  also,  while  admitting  both  the  true  meaning 
of  the  word,  and  the  antiquity,  and  generality,  if  not  universality  of  the 
practice,  they  considering  mode,  as  they  call  it,  a  thing  of  no  consequence, 
said  as  much  as  they  could  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  but  have  never  presumed 
to  say  that  baptizo  did  not  signify  immerse  in  all  the  Bible.  That  Mr. 
Stuart  sometimes  errs — that  he  has  been  guilty  of  oversights  and  omis- 
sions, and  that  especially  in  his  article  on  baptism,  I,  in  common  with 
others,  have  noted  and  recorded.  But  neither  he  nor  any  reputable  wri- 
ter has  ever  gone  this  far. 

Mr.  Rice  seems  not  to  appreciate  nor  comprehend  the  ground  on  which 
I  stand,  both  as  respects  the  lexicons  and  the  difference  between  bapto 
and  baptizo.  He  would  represent  me  as  retreating  from  the  positions 
which  I  assumed  on  yesterday.  Is  this  candid  ?  Does  any  gentleman  pres- 
ent understand  me  as  taking  back  a  single  word  or  position  assumed  or 
uttered  on  the  whole  premises  before  us  ?  I  sincerely  think,  not  one. 
Nor  does  Mr.  Rice  really  believe  it.  Does  not  the  gentleman  distinguish 
between  accepting  a  witness  as  evidence  and  authority  in  a  question  of 
fact,  without  endorsing  for  all  his  views  and  opinions.  Why  should  I, 
sir,  object  to  the  lexicons?  They  are  all  with  me  in  asserting  the  true' 
and  proper  meaning  of  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  Not  one  of  them 
asserts  that  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  is  either  a  proper  or  a  primitive  mean- 
ing of  these  words.  Perceiving,  however,  as  I  thought,  that  the  gentle- 
man was  seeking  to  impair  the  testimony  of  the  classics  by  aggrandizing 
that  of  the  lexicons,  I  desire  to  give  to  both,  as  two  separate  classes  of 
witnesses,  their  proper  weight  and  authority. 

I  adopted  the  lexicons  as  my  first  class  of  witnesses  because,  indeed, 
they  are  supposed  to  be  the  exponents  of  the  meaning  of  the  classics.  I 
did  not,  as  Mr.  Rice  says,  represent  them  "  as  the  highest  authority," 
No  sir.  In  my  first  speech  I  held  them  subject  to  the  classics  !  I  regard 
the  authors  of  classic  literature  as  second  in  order  of  interrogation,  but 
as  first  in  point  of  authority.  They  are  both  ivith  me.  In  other  words^ 
I  assert  what  they  both  depose.  I  say  the  dictionaries  are  sometimes 
wrong,  and  that  I  can  prove.  So  say  all  philologists  and  critics  of  emi- 
nence. The  lexicons  frequently  contradict  each  other  on  various  points. 
I  therefore,  in  common  with  all  philologists,  constitute  the  classics  the 
supreme  court  of  appeal. 

But  I  have  also  retracted  my  position  on  bapto  !  Does  the  gentleman 
intend  to  annoy  me,  and  retard  my  progress  ?  I  suspect  it.  What  have 
I  retracted  ?  Have  I  said  that  it  is  not  the  root  of  baptizo  ?  that  it  does 
not  signify  to  dip  ?  that  it  is  not  a  specific  word  ?  that  it  has  more  proper 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  107 

meanings  than  one  ?  or  that  wherever  we  find  hap,  there  we  shall  find 
dip?  No  sir.  If  I  had,  I  should  be  desirous  to  hear  by  what  force, 
argument,  or  evidence  I  did  so  !  Does  the  gentleman  assume  that  he  has 
compelled  me  ? 

I  am  glad  that  in  my  work  on  baptism,  now  partly  printed,  though  not 
yet  published,  I  have  fully  expressed  the  very  sentiments  delivered  here. 
I  will  frequendy  cite  from  it  in  the  discussion.  It  will  protect  me  from 
such  imputations,  as  well  as  save  time  and  protracted  discussion. 

To  express  myself  fully  and  once  for  all  on  these  words,  I  repeat,  that 
bapto,  metonymically,  means  to  dye — baptizo,  never.  This  is  the  differ- 
ence asserted  in  my  first  speech.  The  reason  for  this  difference,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  I  have  given.  It  is  expressed  in  the  form  of  the  two 
words — the  former  indicates  such  an  immersion  as,  from  its  continuance 
under  water  or  any  fluid,  may  give  color;  the  latter  indicates  rapidity  of 
action,  and,  therefore,  produces  not  the  elTect  of  dyeing.  This  is  my  own 
criticism,  be  it  ^rwe  or  y«/se.  I  will  hereafter  give  specifications.  But 
nothing  depends  upon  it  here.  The  classics  never  give  dye  or  color  to 
baptizo.  The  dictionaries  sometimes  do.  Again,  bapto  is  never  used 
in  any  case  connected  with  christian  baptism !  There  is  some  reason  for 
this.  There  is  then  a  difterence  of  some  sort  between  the  words— and 
this  difference  occasions  a  considerable  variety  of  figurative  use.  Hence 
all  figures  of  color  came  from  bapto  ;  generally  those  of  cleansing  from 
baptizo.  But,  sir,  I  do  differ  from  Mr.  Carson  in  some  of  his  remarks  on 
bapto.  With  him,  and  Dr.  Gale,  and  with  me  also,  it  is  a  specific  word — 
and  as  such,  with  me  and  Dr.  Gale,  it  can  have  but  one  proper  meaning. 
I  trust  my  friend,  Mr.  R.,  will  not  again  cause  me  to  consume  so  much 
of  my  time  in  replying  to  assertions  made  by  him  without  any  authority 
whatever.  I  will  not  soon  again  reply  to  any  such  unfair  imputations — a 
simple  denial  is  all  the  honor  I  shall  confer  on  them. 

As  to  Gale  and  Carson  crossing  each  other's  path,  I  think  the  sequel 
will  show  that  they  are  not  the  only  eminent  men  in  the  world  that  have 
crossed  each  other's  path,  and  sometimes  their  own.  This  is  a  common 
sin  amongst  the  most  eminent  Pedo-baptists.  It  comes  with  an  exceed- 
ingly ill  grace,  from  Mr.  Rice,  to  accuse  Baptists  of  this  sin,  in  arriving 
at  diverse  conclusions,  sometimes  from  the  same,  and  sometimes  from  dif- 
ferent premises.  There  are  not  two  respectable  writers  on  infant  bap- 
tism, or  affusion,  that  agree  either  in  the  topics  of  debate,  of  argument,  or 
in  the  mode  of  reasoning  from  them.  I  am  acquainted,  more  or  less,  per- 
haps, with  some  fifty  writers  on  infant  sprinkling,  and  at  present  I  do 
not  know  any  two  of  them  that  agree  more  fully  than  Drs.  Gale  and  Car- 
son. And  notwithstanding  the  hundreds  of  tracts,  and  the  scores  of  vol- 
umes, and  the  countless  hosts  of  pleaders  for  infant  rantism,  or  baptism, 
that  have  Avritten  on  the  subject,  every  new  year  gives  us  a  new  book  on 
the  subject.  Taylor's  new  work,  a  part  of  which  I  thoroughly  refuted 
in  my  McCalla  debate,  just  came  to  my  hand  a  few  days  ago,  fresh  from 
the  New  York  press — a  new  work  and  a  new  tract  unoccupied  by  any 
previous  writer.  It  is  indeed  a  whimsical  affair,  and  looks  as  if  the 
cause,  01  the  author,  was  in  a  state  of  dotage. 

But  Mr,  Rice,  with  dauntless  boldness,  reasserts  that  baptizo  is  not  a 
specific  word,  that  it  is  even  more  general  than  louo,  an  assertion  never 
before  made,  and  quotes  the  classics  to  prove  that  it  does  even  signify  to 
dip,  among  them ! !  He  adduces  examples,  the  strongest  of  which,  in 
appearance,    is   Plutarch's   Roman   general,  who,  when   dying   of  his 


108  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

wounds,  dipped  his  hand  or  finger  in  his  blood  and  wrote  on  a  trophy,  &c., 
and  something,  I  know  not  what,  from  Hippocrates.  If  then  I  dispose 
of  this,  the  strongest  case  in  appearance,  I  may  be  presumed  to  have  an- 
swered all  the  subalterns.  I  will  then  take  the  general's  casC' — and  in  it, 
despatch  them  all.  I  shall  dispose  of  them  by  one  canon  of  criticism, 
a  principle  universally  conceded  by  all  critics — viz :  certain  words  of  cur- 
rent and  accommodated  use,  are  often  employed  without  their  regimen — 
(i.  e.  the  word  they  govern;)  in  all  such  cases  the  whole  object  on  which 
they  terminate  is  understood;  when  any  special  object  is  denoted,  it  is 
expressed :  for  example — we  say  a  person  bathed,  without  adding  the 
word,  himself ;  but  if  it  is  not  taken  in  its  whole  objective  sense,  the 
limitation  is  defined:  for  example,  he  bathed  his  feet,  his  head,  &e. 
Every  one  comprehends  this.  So  in  the  case  cited.  The  general  dipped, 
not  himself,  but  his  hand  or  finger  in  blood,  and  wrote,  &c.  Can  the 
gentleman  have  forgotten  this ! 

He  is  refuting  himself  in  saying  that  baptizo  is  not  specific.  He  has 
said  that  dip  is  a  specific  word,  and  he  admits  that  baptizo  is  its  Greek 
representative.  Why  then  make  the  same  action  specific  in  one  language 
and  general  in  another  ! 

But  to  make  an  end  of  all  his  special  pleading — for  various  and  numer- 
ous meanings  and  acceptations  of  words — I  shall  at  once  summon  a  few 
umpires,  judges  of  the  highest  legal,  literary,  and  theological  eminence, 
and  leave  them  in  the  hands  of  my  opponent  and  this  community.  I 
have  only  to  shew  that  baptizo,  generally,  not  universally,  means  to  dip, 
according  to  them,  to  gain  my  cause  before  this  tribunal. 

"It  is  with  the  proper  and  unfigurative,  and  not  with  the  fanciful  and 
rhetorical  meaning  of  words,  we  have  to  do  in  all  positive  institutions.  Sir 
William  Blackstone  has  truly  said,  (and  who  is  higher  authority  than  he'!) 
— '  The  words  of  a  law  are  generally  to  be  understood  in  their  usual  and 
MOST  KNOWN  SIGNIFICATION  ;  Hot  SO  much  regarding  the  propriety  of  gram- 
mar, as  their  general  and  popular  use  ;  but  when  words  bear  either  none  or 
a  very  absurd  signification,  if  literally  understood,  we  must  a  little  devi- 
ate from  the  received  sense  of  them.'*  Bishop  Taylor  has  also  well  said, 
'  In  all  things  where  the  precept  is  given  in  the  proper  style  of  laws,  he 
that  takes  the  first  sense  is  the  likeliest  to  be  well  guided.  In  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  laws  of  Christ  the  strict  sense  is  to  be  followed.'  Dr. 
Jonathan  Edwards,  the  greatest  of  American  Presbyterian  thelogians,  has 
truly  said,  '  In  words  capable  of  two  senses,  the  natural  and  proper  is 
the  primary ;  and  therefore  ought,  in  the  first  place,  and  chiefly  to  be  re- 
garded.' 

A  greater  still,  Vitringa,  has  said,  '  This  is  accounted  by  all  a  constant 
and  undoubted  rule  of  approved  interpretation,  that  the  ordinary  and  most 
usual  signification  of  words  must  not  be  deserted  except  for  sufficient  rea- 
sons.' To  similar  effect  declare  Sherlock,  Waterland,  Owen,  and  Dr.  Gum- 
ming, as  quoted  in  Booth's  Defence  of  his  Pedo-baptism  Examined,  vol.  iii., 
London,  1792,  pp.  253—256. 

Before  dismissing  this  subject  we  must  yet  hear  Turretine,  the  systema- 
tic standard  theologian  of  the  orthodox  schools  of  Presbyterianism.  He  has 
stood  on  my  shelf  for  more  than  thirty  years.  His  words  fairly  translated 
are,  '  It  is  acknowledged  by  all  that  we  should  never  depart  from  the  pro- 
per and  native  signification  of  words,  except  for  the  weightiest  and  most 
urgent  reasons. 'f  We  shall  conclude  with  Dr.  Benson,  another  favorite : — 
*  What  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  imagine  that  the  doctrines  or  rules  of 
practice  which  relate  to  men's  everlasting  salvation,  should  be  delivered  in 

*  Com.  vol.  i.  sect.  2.  f  De  Satisfactione  Cbristi,  part  ],  sect  23. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  109 

such  ambiguous  terms  as  to  be  capable  of  many  meanings.'  Well  does 
the  English  Pirie  say,  '  Law  requires  words  and  phrases  of  the  most  ascer- 
tained and  unequivocal  sense.' 

If  seven  such  names  as  here  given  are  not  valid  authority  on  the  proper 
interpretation  of  laws  and  positive  institutions,  to  whom  shall  we  hearken  1 
Their  testimony  being  admitted,  and  the  plain  and  unanimous  testimony  of 
the  lexicographical  jury  above  given,  on  the  proper,  current,  and  popular 
use  and  meaning  of  baptizo,  can  any  one  show  reason  why  we  should  not,  a 
second  time,  regard  my  first  proposition  as  fully  proved  1  All  the  dictiona- 
ries give  dip  or  immersf  as  the  proper,  common,  and  current  use  of  baptizo, 
and  all  our  quotations  from  numerous  classic  authors,  as  well  as  the 
canonical  Greek  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  sustain  them  in  so  do- 
ing. And  that  the  proper,  common,  and  current  use  of  words  is  to  be 
always  preferred  and  adopted  in  the  interpretation  of  laws  and  ordinances, 
is  attested  by  a  host  of  witnesses  of  the  highest  authority,  and  sustained 
by  Home  and  Ernesti  in  their  canons  of  interpretation.  I  repeat — must 
we  not  then  conclude  that  immersion,  and  immersion  only,  is  christian 
baptism,  according  to  the  rnind  and  will  of  our  Lawgiver  and  Judge?" 

Before  stating  my  fourth  argument,  I  must  anticipate,  that  as  Mr.  R.  has 
not  yet  given  any  special  preference  to  any  '■'■mode  of  baptism,"  im- 
mersion with  him  being  valid  only  because  water  is  applied,  it  is  pre- 
sumed sprinkling  and  pouring  may  be  valid  for  the  same  reason.  Still 
as  wash  is  generic,  yet  included  in  dip,  {baptizo  being  with  him  generic, 
and  louo  specific ! !)  we  are  not  certain,  in  his  particular  case,  which  he 
may  choose.  We  think  it  likely  he  will  go  for  the  Illinois,  (Dr.  Beecher's) 
theory  of  purification.  He,  benevolent  man,  makes  us  all  right,  Bap- 
tists, Presbyterians,  &;c.  though  we  seem  ungrateful  to  him,  and  contend 
that  there  cannot  be  two  right  ways  of  obeying  a  positive  command.  I 
will  request,  then,  Mr.  Rice  to  shew  how  the  precept  of  Christ  is  to  be 
obeyed — if  he  meant  and  said  wash  the  nations  into  the  name — purify 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  &;c.  I  opine  such  a  precept  could  not 
be  obeyed  without  a  special  form  accompanying. 

Again,  as  there  are  but  three  kinds  of  uncleanness,  from  which  anyone 
can  be  purified — physical,  legal,  moral — b)-^  what  symbolic  or  figurative 
term,  shall  purification  from  these  be  properly  indicated  ?  Did  any  one 
ever  wash  away  physical  impurity  by  sprinkling  or  merely  wetting  the 
unclean  part?  Has  legal  or  ceremonial  uncleanness  ever  been  removed 
in  this  way?  Never,  I  say  again,  never.  Since  time  began  its  career, 
no  Divine  Lawgiver,  Jewish  or  Christian,  ever  commanded  any  priest, 
Levite,  or  minister  to  cleanse,  wash,  or  purify  any  one  from  any  sort  of 
impurity  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ivater  upon  him  I  From  which  fact 
I  yet  intend  to  deduce  an  argument,  in  this  discussion,  and  therefore  wish 
Mr.  R.  to  be  prepared  for  it  by  opposing  facts  and  documents.  It  may, 
indeed,  be  the  first  time  this  fact  has  been  publicly  announced  in  discus- 
sion;  therefore  I  desire  to  have  it  thoroughly  tested.  If  true,  I  need  not 
say  that  it  alone  nullifies  the  logic  of  all  the  sprinklers,  pourers,  and  wel- 
ters of  faces  in  Christendom. 

I  am  now  prepared  to  state  my  fourth  argument.  My  second  argument, 
deduced  from  all  authoritative  lexicons  down  to  the  present  century,  is,  that 
they  all,  without  one  single  exception,  give  dip,  immerse,  sink  or  plunge, 
synonymously  expressive  of  the  true,  proper,  and  primary  signification  of 
baptizo  ;  not  one  of  them  giving  sprinkle  or  pour  as  a  meaning  of  it  or 
any  of  its  family. 

My  third  argument  has  been  drawn  from  the  classic  use  of  the  word. 
They  sustain  the   lexicons  except  in  one    point.     They  never  give  to 

K 


110 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


baptizo  the  sense  of  dyeing,  &c.  They  never  use  it  either  to  represent 
the  actions  of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Every  attempt  to  make  out,  by 
construction,  a  single  instance  of  this  sort,  has  been  a  total  failure. 

IV.  Argument.  My  fourth  argument  is  deduced  from  the  ancient,  and 
especially  from  the  modern  versions  of  the  New  Testament.  Before 
stating  it,  I  must  premise  a  few  words — Mr.  Rice  alledges  a  difference 
between  sacred  and  classic  use,  to  which  I  have  paid  litde  attention. 
Under  this  argument  it  is  fully  met  and  refuted  by  the  highest  authority. 
In  some  instances  there  is  a  difference  in  idiom,  in  particular  phrases,  and 
words.  But  such  differences  never  occur  in  words  indicating  common 
physical  actions.  There  may  be  many  good  reasons  why  the  words 
flesh,  faith,  laiv,  &c.,  should  differ  in  Jewish  and  Gentile  style  ;  but 
none  why  to  walk,  to  eat,  to  drink,  to  dip,  to  jjour,  to  sprinkle,  &c., 
should  differ.  I  accord  with  all  that  you  have  heard  from  Ernesti  and 
Campbell — Campbell's  version,  and  all  the  versions  made  by  the  canons 
of  Home.  Ernesti  and  Campbell  thoroughly  refute  the  imputation,  that 
any  one  of  them  ever  regarded  baptizo  as  a  word  of  private  interpretation. 

These  translators  well  understood  all  these  matters  ;  therefore  their  prac- 
tice is  worth  many  a  splendid  controversial  theory.  I  have  studied  the 
difference  between  sacred  and  classic  usage,  under  these  great  masters, 
and  I  can  solemnly  say,  that  in  the  words  at  issue  here,  the  difference 
between  them  is  just  nothing  at  all;  save  that  baptisma,  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  always  represents  immersion  into  the  Lord. 

We  are  making  a  book  for  the  illumination  of  a  portion  of  the  com- 
munity ;  and,  consequendy,  what  I  say  here,  is  said  very  solemnly  and 
publicly,  and  under  the  conviction  of  all  my  responsibility.  I  affirm, 
that  so  far  as  the  ancient  versions  are  understood  by  me,  through  the 
medium  of  learned  controversy  on  the  question,  and  so  far  as  I  have  had 
time  and  leisure  to  examine  the  moderns,  especially  those  in  our  mother 
tongue,  they  all  agree  on  this  general  predicate.  None  of  them  has  ever 
translated  baptizo  by  the  word  sprinkle,  pour,  or  purify.  We  have  here 
a  critical  exhibit  of  some  fifty  of  them  on  this  very  word;  and,  if  we 
may  believe  the  greatest  masters  in  these  ancient  languages  and  criticisms, 
they  have  generally  selected  a  word  that  intimates  immersion  ;  or,  if  they 
have  not,  they  certainly  either  have  adopted  the  Greek  or  Latin  names, 
or  never  used  a  word  intimating  the  idea  of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Of 
these  the  oldest  is  the  Peshito  Syriac  version,  supposed  to  have  been 
completed  early  in  the  second  century,  if  not  at  the  close  of  the  first. 
Dr.  Henderson,  a  learned  Pedo-baptist,  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  when 
the  Lord  gave  the  commission  to  baptize,  being  himself  a  Syro-Chaldaeic, 
he  used  the  word  amad.     But  we  shall  first  give  an  exhibit  of  them  all. 


VERSION. 

DATE. 

WORD  EMPLOYED. 

MEANING. 

SYRIAC  : 

Peshito, 

2d  cent. 

amad. 

immerse. 

Philoxenian, 

6th  cent. 

amad. 

immerse. 

ARABIC  : 

Polyglott, 

7th  cent. 

amada  47  times. 

immerse. 

Propaganda, 

1H71 

amada 

immerse. 

Sabat, 

1816 

amada. 

immerse. 

PERSIC  ; 

8th  cent. 

shustan  6/-  shuyidan. 

wash. 

ETHIOPIC  : 

4th  cent. 

shuslan. 

immerse. 

Amharic, 

1822 

shustan. 

immerse. 

EGYPTIAN. 

Coptic, 

3d  cent. 

tamaka. 

3  immerse 
( plunge. 

DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


Ill 


VERSION. 

BATE. 

iVORD  EMPLOYED. 

HBANING. 

Sahidic, 
Basmuric, 

2d  cent.      j 
3d  cent.      J 

baptizo. 

immerse. 

ARMENIAN  : 

5th  cent. 

mogridil. 

immerse. 

SLAVONIC: 

9th  cent. 

krestiti. 

cross  * 

Russian, 

1519 

Polish, 

1585 

Bohemian, 
Lithuanian, 

1593 
1660 

same  root. 

(C 

Livonian  or  Lettish, 

1685 

Dorpat  Esthonian,  &;c. 

&c.     1727 

GOTHIC  : 

4th  cent. 

daupjan. 

dip. 

German, 

1522 

taufen, 

dip. 

Danish, 

1524 

dobe. 

dip. 

Sweedish, 

1534 

dopa. 

dip. 

Dutch,  «Scc.  &c. 

1560 

doopen. 

dip. 

Icelandic, 

1584 

skira. 

cleanse. 

ANGLO-SAXON  : 

8th  cent. 

dyppan  ,fu  Ihan, 

\  dip, 
(  cleanse. 

LATIN  : 

Of  the  early  Fathers, 

8th  cent. 

tingo. 

immerse 

Ante-Hieronymian, 

3d  cent. 

baptizo. 

Vulgate, 

4th  cent. 

baptizo. 

French, 

1535 

bapiiser. 

Spanish, 

1556 

baptizar. 

Italian,  &c.  ^c. 

1562 

bapttezzare. 

English:  Wicklif, 

1380 

wash,  christen,  baptize 

, 

Tindal, 

1526 

baptize. 

Welsh, 

1567 

bedyddio. 

bathe. 

Irish, 

1602 

baisdim. 

Gaelic, 

1650 

baisdeam. 

Here,  then,  we  have  sixteen  ancient  versions,  six  of  them  in  the  2d  and 
3d  centuries,  and  ten  of  them  completed  before  the  close  of  the  9th,  indica- 
tive of  immersion — one,  from  the  sign  made  in  baptism  by  the  Romanists, 
is  rendered  cross.  From  the  9th  century  we  have  twenty  more,  all  indica- 
tive of  the  same  fact.  In  all  these  we  have  thirty-six  foreign,  and  many 
of  them  ancient  versions,  in  proof  of  our  first  proposition. 

In  all  these  it  is  not  once  rendered  by  the  word  sprinkle  or  pour.  The 
investigation  of  Mr.  Gotch  goes  to  show,  moreover,  that  the  notion  of 
either  transferring  the  original  word  into  translations,  or  of  manufacturing 
new  words,  has  no  countenance  from  these  thirty-six  ancient  and  modern 
versions.     He  very  justly  observes  : 

"Our  investigation,  then,  shows. that  it  has  not  been  the  practice  of 
translators,  until  in  quite  recent  times,  to  adopt  the  plan  of 'transference' 
in  respect  to  the  word  baptizo.  The  word  has  been  translated,  in  most 
instances,  by  a  term  strictly  native;  or  where  the  term  has  been  derived 
from  the  Greek,  it  appears  to  have  become  naturalized  in  the  respective 
languages  before  the  translation  was  made.  There  is  no  instance,  until  of 
late  years,  in  which  it  can  be  shown  that  the  translators  made  the  word  ; 
and  it  well  deserves  the  consideration  of  all  who  are  engaged  in  translating, 
or  disseminating  translations  of  the  word  of  God,  how  far  such  a  plan  is 
justifiable. 

"  It  may,  indeed,  be  said,  that  though  the  word  baptizo  has  not  been  thus 
transferred,  other  words  have  ;  and  that  thereby  the  principle  of  transfer- 
ence is  countenanced  by  former  translators.  It  is  certain  that  such  words 
as  proper  names,  and  designations  of  things  which  are  not  known,  and 

*  The  Slavonians  have  adopted  the  word  Cross,  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, from  the  fact,  that  whenever  they  receive  baptism  they  always  cross  themselves,  dec 


112  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

therefore  have  no  word  by  which  they  can  be  expressed,  must  be  so  ren- 
dered :  but  what  proof  is  there  of  translators,  in  general,  carrying  transfer- 
ence further  than  this!  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Greek  language 
was  closely  united  to  the  Latin,  to  which  the  appeal  has  been  frequently 
made  ;  and  that  on  this  account  Greek  words  were  continually  naturalized 
in  it.  Such  words  we  may  expect  to  meet  with  ;  but  to  prove  that  transla- 
tors transferred  words  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term,  it  must  be  shown 
that  words,  the  meaning  of  which  might  have  been  expressed  in  the 
language,  were  given,  not  only  by  terms  derived  from  the  Greek,  but 
without  meaning — being  made  for  the  occasion,  and  purposely  left  without 
definition.  It  will  not  surely  be  said  that  the  word  baptizo  has  no  meaning 
— that  a  command  involving,  as  most  christians  believe,  a  thing  to  be  done 
by  or  for  every  disciple,  yet  conveys  no  definite  idea  of  what  is  to  be  done. 
We  are  not  now  inquiring  what  that  meaning  is;  every  one  who  attempts 
to  translate  the  word  of  God,  is  bound  to  judge  for  himself  on  that  point. 
Let  him  so  judge,  and  give  the  result  of  his  judgment." 
To  all  which  we  cheerfully  assent. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  some  branch  of  this  family  of  words  occurs  one 
hundred  and  twenty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  is  it  not  an  over- 
whelming argument  against  sprinkling  and  pouring,  that  in  no  one  in- 
stance any  of  these  thirty-six  versions  should  ever  have  translated  any 
one  of  them  by  the  words  sprinkle  or  pour,  if  that  was  at  all  the  sense  of 
the  original? — [Thne  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  16 — 12  o^clock. 
[mr.  rice's  fifth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — My  worthy  friend  seems  disposed  to  keep  us  in 
terror  of  that  host  of  Pedo-baptists,  whose  concessions  he  threatens  to 
bring  forward.  I  know  them,  and,  therefore,  am  not  at  all  alarmed. 
When  he  produces  them  they  will  be  attended  to.  In  the  meantime 
I  feel  quite  at  ease.  If  he  can  find  any  two  of  them  who  sustain  the  doc- 
trine for  which  he  is  contending,  I  will  acknowledge  that  I  had  not  heard 
of  them.  But  I  pledge  myself  to  give  him  the  concessions  of  immersion- 
ists  in  return — of  Greek  immersionists,  who  well  understood  the  language.^ 
The  gentleman  says,  he  has  not  taken  back  one  single  assertion  he  has 
made.  This  I  am  not  so  well  able  to  understand.  In  the  early  part  of 
this  discussion  he  told  us,  that  specific  words,  retaining  the  leading  sylla- 
ble, never  lose  their  original  meaning;  that  whenever  you  find  bap,  (as 
inbapto,)  you  find  the  action  of  dipping.  I  produced  several  examples 
from  the  classics,  in  which  bapto  is  used,  where,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  there  could  be  no  dipping.  What  was  his  reply?  These  examples 
he  said,  were  irrelevant,  because  bapto  is  not  the  word  in  debate.  This 
appeared  to  me  very  much  like  giving  up  the  argument  from  bapto.  Yet 
he  says  he  has  not  changed  his  ground. 

He,  at  first,  informed  us,  that  the  lexicons  were  the  highest  authority 
by  which  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  controversy  could  be  determined ; 
and  now  he  is  going  to  prove  that  they  are  all  wrong  !  Well,  if  he  should 
prove  that  all  the  lexicographers  have  erred,  he  will  do  a  great  work  !  I 
still  believe  they  have  defined  the  words  correotly ;  and  I  have  proved, 
not  only  by  the  modern  lexicons,  but  by  the  most  ancient,  of  whose  au- 
thority my  friend  spoke  so  highly,  ihzt  baptizo  signifies  to  wash,  cleanse, 
as  well  as  to  sink,  plunge,  &c. 

But  if  Mr.  C.  has  not  given  up  the  argument  from  the  word  bapto,  why 
has  he  not  attempted  to  reply  to  the  argument  against  his  position,  founded 
on  several  quotations  from  the  classics?  "  When  the  coloring  fluid  drops 
upon  the  garments,  [baptelai)  they  are  dyed."     Here  is  the  bap,  but 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  113 

where  is  the  dip?  Will  my  friend  say,  when  the  fluid  drops  upon  the 
garments,  they  are  immersed?  Where  was  the  immersion  when  the  In- 
dians dyed  their  beards  ? 

Mr.  Campbell  thinks  the  termination  zo,  in  the  word  baptizo,  expresses 
the  rapidity  of  the  action;  and  he  supposes  that  the  Savior  selected  this 
word,  in  preference  to  bapto,  for  that  particular  reason ;  that  bapto  may 
signify  sinking  to  the  bottom,  and  hence  baptizo,  expressing  the  idea  of 
raising  out  of  the  water,  was  preferred.  But  Carson  admits,  that  bap- 
tizo does  not  express  the  raising  of  the  thing  immersed  out  of  the  water. 
"The  word"  says  he,  "has  no  reference  to  what  follows  the  immersion; 
and  whether  the  thing  immersed  lies  at  the  bottom,  or  is  taken  up,  cannot  be 
learned  from  the  word,  but  from  the  connection  and  circumstances,"  p.  91. 
That  it  is  constantly  used  by  the  classics  in  the  sense  of  sinking  to  the 
bottom,  I  am  prepared  to  prove.     I  will  give  a  few  examples : 

Diodorus  Siculus,  speaking  of  the  sinking  of  animals  in  water,  says : 
"  When  the  water  overflows,  many  of  the  land  animals,  [baptizomena) 
sunk  in  the  river,  perish." 

Strabo,  speaking  of  the  lake  near  Agrigentum,  says  :  "  Things  which 
otherwise  will  not  swim,  do  not  sink  [baptizesthai)  in  the  water  of  the 
lake,  but  float  like  wood."  Again,  speaking  of  the  lake  Sirbon,  he  says  : 
*' If  a  man  goes  into  it,  he  cannot  sink  [baptizesthai,)  but  is  forcibly  kept 
above."  I  might  quote  many  other  examples,  but  really  I  deem  it  unneces- 
sary. Josephus,  who  sought  to  imitate  the  classic  Greek,  uses  the  word 
repeatedly  to  signify  the  sinking  of  ships,  the  drowning  of  persons,  &c. 

It  is,  then,  certain  that  baptizo  is  constantly  used  by  the  classics  in 
the  sense  of  sinking — that  this,  in  the  examples  supposed  to  favor  im- 
mersion, is  its  common  meaning.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  Sa- 
vior selected  this  word,  because  it  expressed  putting  in  and  taking  out  of 
the  water  quickly  ;  for  it  does  not  at  all  express  the  action  of  raising  out 
of  the  water.  Yet  this  is  as  essential  to  baptism  by  immersion  as  the 
putting  under — the  latter  being  supposed  to  represent  the  burial  of  Christ, 
and  the  former,  his  resurrection. 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  that  according  to  an  established  rule  of  lan- 
guage, the  definition,  if  substituted  for  the  word  defined,  will  make  good 
sense.  Let  us  apply  this  rule,  substituting  the  wor<l  sink,  the  common 
classical  meaning,  for  the  word  baptizo.  "  John  did  sink  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  preach  the  sinking  of  repentance."  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
sunk,  shall  be  saved."  Or,  as  our  friends  say,  baptizo  means  to  plunge, 
perhaps  Mr.  C,  would  prefer  that  word.  "  John  did  ;j/i/n^e  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  preach  ihe  plunging  o\  repentance."  "He  that  believeth 
and  is  plunged,  shall  be  saved."  You  see,  my  friends,  the  substitutiou 
of  these  words  for  baptizo  makes  the  Scriptures  speak  nonsense.  So, 
according  to  my  friend's  own  rule,  it  is  impossible  that  baptizo,  as  used 
to  denote  christian  baptism,  can  mean  to  sink  or  plunge.  Yet  these  are 
some  of  its  classical  meanings.  His  own  rule,  therefore,  destroys  his 
argument.  Baptizo,  as  used  in  the  Bible,  is  a  generic  term;  and  it  will 
not  answer  to  subtitute  a  specific  term  in  its  place. 

There  is  no  great  difference,  my  friend  would  have  us  believe,  betweea 
the  baptism  of  the  Roman  general's  hand  in  order  to  write  on  a  trophy, 
and  immersion.  Well,  if  I,  in  baptizing  an  individual,  come  as  near  im- 
mersing him  as  the  general  did  immersing  his  hand  in  his  blood;  will  Mr. 
Campbell  consider  him  baptized?  He  will  not;  and  yet  he  has  brought  for- 
ward this  very  example  to  prove,  that  baptizo  always  means  to  immerse! 
8  k2 


114  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

He  did  not,  liowever,  attempt  to  immerse  the  blister-plaster  in  breast- 
milk  and  Egyptian  ointment.  And  it  was  well  he  did  not;  for  all  the 
Doctors  would  have  risen  up  against  him.     [A  laugh.] 

The  gentleman  read  Blackstone  to  prove,  that  the  "  usual  and  most 
known  signification"  of  words  should  be  preferred.  To  this  rule  I  by  no 
means  object;  but  I  contend,  that  the  usual  and  most  known  meaning  of 
baptizo,  as  used  among  the  Jews  in  relation  to  their  religious  rites,  is, 
to  wash,  to  cleanse.  But  we  are  told,  that  all  the  lexicographers  prefer 
immerse,  as  the  primary  and  literal  meaning.  Now  let  me  turn  your 
attention  to  Robinson.  He  gives  its  general  meaning  to  immerse,  sink, 
spoken  of  ships,  galleys,  &c. ;  but  the  very  Jirst  meaning  he  gives  it  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  to  wash,  to  cleanse  bi/  washing.  Bretschneider 
gives  the  general  meaning — "  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo" — often  to  dip, 
often  to  wash;  and  ih(^  first  meaning  he  gives  it  as  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  "lavo,  ahluo  simplicitex'" — simply  to  tvash,  to  cleanse. 
Greenfield  defines  it  in  the  same  way.  Now  my  friend  says,  all  the  lex- 
icographers prefer  immerse  as  the  primary  meaning  of  this  word.  Will 
he  please  to  produce  one  who  gives  immerse  as  its  primary  meaning,  as 
it  was  used  by  the  Jews,  or  as  it  is  used  in  tlie  Bible?  I  am  for  taking 
the  primary  and  literal  meaning  of  the  word,  as  employed  by  the  people 
amongst  whom  and  for  whom  the  ordinance  was  instituted,  not  the  com- 
mon meaning  as  used  by  another  people,  speaking  a  different  idiom,  in 
relation  to  entirely  different  subjects.  And  in  this  I  am  sustained  by  all 
the  best  critics. 

There  is  no  rule  which  requires  us  to  take  the  original  meaning  of  a 
word  in  preference  to  every  other.  Etymology,  as  Ernesti  says,  is  an  un- 
certain guide.  Language  is  perpetually  changing,  and  words  are  con- 
stantly acquiring  new  meanings.  I  might  admit,  that  the  original  mean- 
ing oi  baptizo  was  to  immerse,  and  then  prove,  that  before  the  time  when 
it  was  applied  by  our  Savior  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  it  had  amongst 
the  Jews  acquired  a  different  meaning.  The  word  prevent,  as  I  have 
before  remarked,  originally  meant  to  come  before ;  but  now  it  means  to 
hinder.  It  is  the  meaning  in  common  use  at  the  time  when  the  ordinance 
was  appointed — as  Blackstone  says,  "  the  general  and  popular  use" — that 
is  to  be  taken  in  preference  to  any  other.  I  perfectly  agree,  therefore,  with 
Blackstone,  Vitringa  and  Turretin,  as  quoted  by  my  friend  (Mr.  C.) 

We  come  now  to  the  translators,  ancient  and  modern.  Tlie  genffe- 
man  has  greatly  magnified  their  authority.  1  hope  he  will  not  hereafter 
fall  out  with  iliem.  They,  he  tells  us,  knew  the  difference  between  the 
Jewish  and  classic  usage.  I  am  happy  to  see  the  translations  brought 
forward ;  for  I  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  they,  (at  least  the  great  majority 
of  them)  did  not  translate  the  word  baptizo,  to  immerse.  Possibly  some 
two  or  three  may  iiave  done  so  ;  but  certainly  the  most  ancient  and  valu- 
able, as  well  as  the  most  respectable  of  modern  date,  did  not.  I  have 
examined  a  goodly  number  of  these  translations;  and  I  am  prepared  to 
prove  what  I  affirm. 

I  will  begin  with  the  old  Peshilo  Syriac,  the  oldest  and  one  of  the  best 
translations  in  the  world.  The  gentleman  asserts,  and  has  repeatedly 
published,  that  no  translator,  ancient  or  modern,  ever  translated  baptizo, 
or  any  of  that  family  of  words,  by  the  word  sprinkle.  This  I  deny,  and. 
am  prepared  to  disprove. 

Bv  the  way,  the  gendeman  told  you,  that  I  would  very  probably  give 
you  Ur.    Beecher's   dissertation  on  purification.     Unfortunately  I  have 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  115 

never  read  it.  I  sent  for  the  work,  but  failed  to  procure  it;  so  I  must 
forego  the  pleasure  of  giving  you  Beecher's  dissertation. 

But  let  us  briefly  examine  into  the  truth  of  this  bold  assertion  of  my 
friend.  He  says,  no  translator,  ancient  or  modern,  ever  rendered  baptizo 
or  any  of  that  family,  by  the  woid  sprinkle.  Now,  the  old  Peshito  Syr- 
iac,  of  which  he  has  spoken  so  favorably,  has  translated  bapto  to  sprinkle. 
Here  is  the  book  itself:  it  looks  old  and  venerable.  I  will  give  the  trans- 
lation by  Schaaf  and  Leusden,  whose  edition  I  have,  as  the  audience 
could  not  understand  the  Syriac.  Rev.  xix.  13.  "Et  amiclus  veste  quae 
aspersa  (Greek,  bebamnienon)  sanguine."  ^nd  he  was  clothed  with  a 
garment  sprinkled  ivith  blood.  Tlie  Vulgate,  translated  by  Jerom,  who, 
I  presume,  immersed  tlirice  in  baptizing,  translates  the  passage  in  the 
same  manner:  "  Et  vestilus  erat  veste  aspersa  sanguine.  He  was  clothed 
with  a  vesture  sprinkled  with  blood."  The  passage,  doubtless,  has  refer- 
ence to  the  63d  chapter  of  Isaiah's  prophecy,  in  which  Christ  is  repre- 
sented going  forth  as  a  mighty  Conqueror  against  his  enemies.  "  For," 
says  he,  "  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and  trample  them  in  my  fury ; 
and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all 
my  raiment,"  v.  3.  Here  we  have  two  of  the  oldest  and  most  valua- 
ble translations  in  the  world  translating  the  word  bapto  just  as  my  friend 
(Mr.  C)  asserts  that  no  one  ever  did  translate  it. 

Origen,  too,  the  most  learned  of  the  Greek  fathers,  was  unwise  enough 
to  fall  into  the  same  error,  if  indeed  it  be  an  error.  He,  as  Dr.  Gale  in 
his  Reflections  on  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism  informs  us,  in  quoting 
the  passage  in  Rev.  xix.  13,  almost  verbatim,  puts  rantizo  for  bapto. 
How  ignorant  of  the  Greek  language  Origen  must  have  been,  if  the  views 
of  Mr.  Campbell  are  correct !  From  the  fact  that  these  old  and  valua- 
ble versions  translate  bapto  to  sprinkle,  in  this  passage,  and  from  the  fact 
that  Origen,  giving  the  substance  of  the  passage,  substitutes  rantizo  for  bap- 
to. Dr.  Gale  concludes,  that  there  must  have  been  a  different  reading,  and 
that  those  men  had  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament  having  rantizo  instead 
of  bapto.  Mr.  Carson,  however,  differs  from  him  decidedly  on  this  sub- 
ject. After  stating  Dr.  Gale's  reasons  for  supposing  there  was  a  different 
reading,  he  remarks — "  These  reasons,  however,  do  not  in  tlie  least  bring 
the  common  reading  into  suspicion  in  my  mind  ;  and  I  never  will  adopt  a 
reading  to  serve  a  purpose.  [This  is  a  noble  resolution.]  Misapprehen- 
sion of  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  is  much  more  likely,  has  substituted 
errantismenon  for  bebamnienon,'"'  p.  37.  So  it  would  seem,  according  to 
Mr.  Carson,  Origen,  the  learned  Greek  father,  did  not  understand  his  verna- 
cular tongue  !  And  those  learned  translators,  (who  did  the  very  thing  my 
friend  said,  no  one  ever  did,)  could  not  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word 
bapto,  though  the  Greek  was  then  a  living  language,  spoken  all  around 
them!  !  !  Unless  we  can  believe,  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the  meaning 
of  bapto,  we  are  obliged  to  believe,  that  in  their  day  it  was  used  in  the  sense 
of  sprinkling.  It  has  not  been  m)-  object  to  prove,  that  bapto  and  baptizo 
definitely  express  the  idea  of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  I  maintain,  that,  as 
used  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  religious  writings  of  the  Jews,  it  expresses 
the  thing  done — the  application  of  water  to  a  subject;  but  the  connection 
and  circumstances  must  determine  the  precise  mode  of  doing  it,  whether  by 
pouring,  sprinkling  or  dipping. 

I  am  prepared  to  meet  my  friend  on  the  translations,  and  to  prove,  that 
they  are  by  no  means  Hivorable  to  the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending. 

I  have  said  as  much  as  I  intended  in  reply  to  his  argument.    1  will  now 


116  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

turn  your  attention  to  the  meaning  of  bapto  and  baptizo,  as  they  are  used 
in  the  Bible,  and  in  the  religions  writings  of  the  Jews. 

Bapto,  as  used  in  the  Bible,  sometimes  expresses  a  partial  dipping 
or  wetting,  as  in  Leviticus  xiv.  6,  7,  where  the  priest  was  directed  to  kill 
a  bird,  and  then  take  a  living  bird,  and  cedar-wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hys- 
op,  and  dip  them  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  running 
water.  Bapto  is  here  used  ;  and  every  one  knows,  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  immerse  these  things  into  the  blood  of  one  bird.  It  evidently 
here  signifies  a  partial  dipping  or  wetting.  Indeed,  in  all  the  instances 
in  which  bapto  occurs  in  the  Bible,  there  are  not  more  than  four  or  five 
where  it  expresses  an  immersion  !  It  generally  expresses  a  partial  dip- 
ping, a  wetting  or  smearing. 

In  Exod.  xii.  22,  it  signifies  tvetting  or  smearing — "  And  ye  shall 
take  a  bunch  of  hysop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood  that  is  in  the  basin,  and 
strike  the  lintel  and  the  two  side  posts,  with  the  blood  that  is  in  the  ba- 
sin." This  may  answer  as  a  specimen.  I  will  produce  other  passages, 
if  necessary.  In  this  passage  the  Septuagint  has  the  expression  bapscte 
apo — ye  shall  dip  from,  or,  more  properly,  wet  by  means  of  the  blood. 
A  similar  expression  occurs  in  Lev.  xiv.  17:  "And  the  priest  shall  dip 
his  finger  in  some  of  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  it  seven  times  before  the 
Lord."  And  in  verse  16,  "  The  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the 
oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand,"  &c.  In  both  these  passages  the  expression 
is  baps ei  apo — he  shall  dip  from.  Does  my  friend  immerse  ^rom  the 
water?  The  meaning  of  the  word  here  evidently  is,  to  wet  or  smear  by 
means  of  the  fluid.  If  a  dipping  or  immersion  had  been  intended,  the 
writer  would  have  used  the  preposition  eis — into,  instead  of  apo,  from. 

Bapto  signifies  simply  to  wet  or  bedeiv,  as  is  evident  from  Dan.  iv. 
33  :  "  The  same  hour  was  the  thing  fulfilled  upon  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and 
he  was  driven  from  men  and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  was 
wet  (ebaphe)  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  Precisely  the  same  expression 
occurs  in  the  following  chapter,  verse  21.  Now  every  body  knows  how 
this  baptism  was  performed.  His  body  was  7vet  from  (ebaphe  apo)  the 
dew.  Or  will  my  friend  say,  his  body  was  immersed  from  dew?! 
Dr.  Gale  attempted  to  escape  the  difiiculty  by  saying,  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  as  wet  as  if  he  had  been  immersed.  Dr.  Cox,  another  learned 
immersionist,  took  the  same  ground.  But  Mr.  Carson  charges  them 
both  with  having  given  up  the  question.  And  he  insists,  that  it  does 
express  mode  in  this  passage,  and  ought  to  have  been  translated  im- 
mersed! He  makes  it  a  figurative  immersion !  Our  immersionist 
friends  have  a  great  deal  of  ingenuity.  If  they  cannot  get  Nebuchad- 
nezzar immersed,  they  will  have  him  as  wet  as  if  he  had  been  im- 
mersed. Or  if  they  cannot  have  him  immersed  literally,  they  will  im- 
merse him  _^o'e<ra^iye/?/ .'  They  are  resolved  on  having  him  immersed 
in  some  way.  My  friend,  (Mr.  C.)  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  McCalla, 
maintained  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  overivhelmed  in  dew  !  This,  one 
might  be  tempted  to  think,  is  something  new  under  the  sun.  A  man 
overwhelmed  in  dew  J  J  ! 

I  have  already  turned  your  attention  to  Rev.  xix.  13,  where  bapto  has 
been  translated  by  the  word  sprinkle.  But  I  omitted  to  state  one  impor- 
tant fact,  viz  :  that  not  only  the  Syriac  and  Latin  Vulgate,  but  the  Ethi- 
opic,  one  of  the  most  ancient  and  valuable  versions,  as  Gale  informs  us, 
translates  bapto,  in  this  passage,  to  sprinkle.  So  carefully  has  my  friend 
(Mr.  C.)  examined  the  old  translations  on  this  point! — {^Time  expired 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  117 

Thursday,  Nov.  16—121  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  sixth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Were  the  positiveness  of  the  gentleman's  assertions 
any  assurance,  either  of  their  strength  or  their  verity,  we  might  well  fear 
for  the  issue  of  our  cause.  But  we  have  learned  to  estimate  their  strength 
in  the  inverse  ratio  of  the  confidence  with  which  they  are  uttered.  Great- 
er and  more  numerous  aberrations  from  propriety,  and  more  palpable  per- 
version of  fact  and  argument  within  one  half  hour,  have  seldom  fallen 
under  my  observation  than  during  the  last.  \[,  however,  my  fellow-citi- 
zens, you  will  patiently  lend  me  your  ears,  I  will  endeavor  to  set  these 
matters  before  you  in  their  proper  light. 

I  do  not  ascribe  to  my  wortliy  friend,  sinister  motives,  willful  aberra- 
tions, or  any  fixedness  of  purpose  to  pervert  the  truth.  1  presume,  how- 
ever, I  may  say  of  him,  as  professor  Stuart  once  said  of  the  famous  Beza, 
"  that  he  was  so  mad  against  tine  Anabaptists,  that  it  drove  him  out  of  his 
reason."  Few  of  us,  hosvever,  on  this  side  of  the  ocean  can  see  the 
force  of  the  professor's  remark  if  we  have  had  nothing  before  us  but  Be- 
za's  criticisms  on  baptizo,  I  shall  place  this  man  Beza  in  contrast  with 
my  friend,  by  quoting  one  passage  from  his  comment  on  Mark  vii.  4  : 

"  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by  which  word,  it  is  certain 
immersion,  is  signified.  Baplizesthai,  in  this  place,  is  more  than  iiiptein; 
because  that  seems  to  respect  the  whole  body,/!/ii*  only  the  hands.  Nor  does 
baptizein  signify  to  wash,  except  by  consequence :  for  it  properly  signifies 
to  immerse  for  the  sake  of  dyeing.  To  be  baptized  in  water  signifies  no 
other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water,  which  is  the  external  ceremony  of  bap- 
tism. Baptizo  differs  from  the  verb  dunai,  which  signifies  to  plunge  in 
the  deep,  and  to  drown." 

So  thought,  and  so  wrote,  next  to  Calvin,  the  strongest  Presbyterian  of 
that  age,  the  translator  of  the  New  Testament  from  Greek  to  Latin  !  But 
he  was  ivrong,  because  I  agree  with  him  in  every  word  of  the  above,  and 
because  he  refutes  every  main  position  of  his  brother  Rice  on  this  occasion, 
and  especially  some  of  his  recent  remarks.  Whether  he  or  Mr.  Rice  is 
most  worthy  of  your  confidence  judge,  my  fellow-citizens,  for  yourselves. 

But  to  return  with  the  gentleman  to  bapto  again.  With  Beza,  I  say  it 
means  to  dye  or  to  wash  by  consequence,  not  vi  termini,  not  by  the  force 
of  the  word.  It  is  then  a  metonymy — the  name  of  the  effect  produced. 
This,  then,  explodes  the  whole  speech,  so  far  as  the  gendcman  will  have 
Hippocrates,  whom  lie  quotes  from  Carson,  representing  garments  as 
dyed  by  dropping  the  coloring  matter  upon  them.  Now  tlie  question, 
the  plain,  common  sense,  and  critical  question,  too,  is,  does  the  dying 
relate  to  the  dropping  of  the  color,  or  to  the  garment  when  colored.  The 
original  phrase  is — epeidan  epistaxee  cpi  ta  himatia  bapletm.  And 
when  the  coloring  matter  has  dropped  upon  the  garment  it  (the  garment) 
is  colored.  In  the  passive  voice,  the  effect  of  an  action,  and  not  the 
mode  of  an  action,  is  generally  expressed.  Nothing  is  more  evident, 
tlien,  than  that  the  coloring  has  respect,  not  to  the  process,  but  to  the  eflect 
of  it.  Nearchus'  narrative  of  the  Indians  dyeing  their  beards,  is  also  an 
exemplification  of  the  same  mode  of  speech.  Thus,  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
wet  with  dew ;  not  by  the  manner  of  its  falling,  but  in  the  effect.  Thus, 
as  Mr.  Carson  says,  a  man  gets  soaked  and  dipped,  in  common  parlance, 
under  a  heavy  shower. 

Nay,  the  poets  go  iarther.  Milton  sings  of  Raphael's  wings  as  ex- 
hibiting "colors  dipped  in  heaven."  Was  there  any  sprinkling,  pouring, 
Qt  dipping  in  that  figure  ?     I  have  already  sufliciently  exposed  the  frailty 


118  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  that  logic  which  would  impress  upon  you  the  mode,  or  the  process,  for 
the  effect  ol'  it — the  thing  done.  Daniel,  as  well  as  the  poets,  and  all  the 
Jewish  prophets,  delight  in  poetic  imagery.  To  be  immersed  in  dew, 
to  paint  the  flowers,  to  have  colors  dipped  in  heaven,  or  painted  birds  or 
clouds  baptized  in  gold,  are  all  of  the  same  poetic  license.  In  such  beau- 
tiful allusions,  never  the  process,  or  modus  operandi,  but  the  thing  itself 
is  described. 

The  gentleman  sought  to  be  witty,  and  to  provoke  your  smiles  in  his 
eloquent  dissertation  upon  shiking:  One  thing  you  all  must  have  ob- 
served, the  sense  is  good,  although  he  would  make  you  smile  at  his  pro- 
nunciation and  action.  They  were,  indeed,  ridiculous.  This,  however, 
is  both  a  grave  and  solemn  subject,  and  demands  of  me,  at  least,  both 
dignity  and  gravity.  While  in  the  amplitude  of  my  generosity,  I  am 
willing  to  say,  that  baptizo  may  be  translated  sink,  as  well  as  dip,  or 
plunge,  or  immerse :  still  sink  is  not  its  strictly  proper  meaning,  as  all 
the  learned,  with  Beza,  admit.  But  it  does  not  at  all  mean  to  sink  to  the 
bottom  ! 

It  may,  indeed,  so  happen,  that  in  immersing  persons,  they  sometimes 
go  to  the  bottom.  That,  hov,'ever,  is  an  accident,  for  which  the  word 
baptizo  is  never  chargeable — or  should  a  ship  at  sea  be  ingulfed,  and  go  to 
'  the  bottom,  baptizo  is  not  blamed  for  it.  Mr.  Rice  says  this  is  a  very 
sinking  subject ;  if  so,  the  fault  is  his,  not  that  of  the  question  in  debate. 
The  consequences  of  any  act  are  not  always  denominated  by  the  same 
word — nor  are  the  different  words  declarative  of  the  effects  of  any  spe- 
cific action,  equivalent  to  each  other.  Mr.  Rice  will  have  them  synony- 
mous. He  will  have  dipping,  pouring,  and  the  effect  produced,  equiva- 
lents. Should  a  person  be  wholly  covered  vvitli  any  substance  that  may 
be  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  him,  then  sprinkling  and  covering  are  the 
same  actions. 

Take  another  exposition  of  the  fallacy  of  his  mode  of  expounding 
terms  ;  in  the  word  killed — this  term  indicates  an  effect.  The  modes  of 
killing  a  person  are  innumerable — he  may  be  shot,  stabbed,  poisoned," 
hung,  drowned,  &c.,  &c.  Now,  is  the  word  kill  or  killed  synonymous 
with  all  these  !  !  Is  to  shoot,  or  to  kill,  or  to  stab,  synonymous  words  ! ! 
It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  a  word  must  be  responsible  for  all  the 
various  applications  of  it.  Then  dippinsf  must  be  responsible  for  the 
most  contradictory  results.  We  heat  water  and  cool  iron  by  dipping  a 
heated  bar  into  it.     Is  dipping  equivalent  to  both  cooling  and  heating  !  ! 

But  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  will  now  have  it  that  the  dictionaries  give 
wash  as  the  first  meaning  of  baptizo.  He  cannot  show  one!  I  say, 
again,  he  cannot  shoio  one  that  does  so.  He  may,  under  some  par- 
ticular application  of  the  word,  find  ivash  its  first  meaning,  but  that  is 
nothing — and  very  different  from  showing  that  what  is  the  first  of  a 
special  class,  is  first  as  <i. proper  meaning!!  I  call  for  any  general  or 
classic  dictionary  of  the  Greek  language,  presenting  wash  as  the  proper,, 
primitive,  or  first  meaning  of  baptizo. 

But  what  a  fearful  array  of  evidence  does  the  gentleman,  all  at  once, 
oppose  to  my  third  argument.  I  was  startled,  at  the  moment,  to  hear 
him  assail,  with  such  vehemence  and  with  such  an  air  of  demolition,  my 
oft  published  declaration,  that  no  translator  of  the  New  Testament,  had 
ever  translated  the  word,  in  debate,  by  either  pour  or  sprinkle.  I  began 
to  reflect,  with  no  little  wonder,  were  it  possible  that  such  an  occurrence, 
as  that  which,  with  so  much  air  of  triumph,  he  displayed  before  you» 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  119 

had,  ill  truth,  escaped  my  notice.  But  no  sooner  had  the  gentleman 
named  the  text,  than  I  felt  myself  in  full  possession  of  my  premises ;  and 
he  only  anticipated  me,  in  stating  an  apparent  exception  lo  my  sweeping 
affirmation.  I  am  now  glad  of  the  opportunity  afforded  me,  of  sustaining 
the  eminence,  upon  wliich  I  have  long  sought  to  stand  hefore  the  commu- 
nity, viz:  that,  when  I  affirm  any  great  fact  or  general  principle,  I  do  it 
advisedly  ;  not  rashly,  not  wantonly,  not  at  the  impulse  of  the  moment. 
I  have,  in  ray  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  and  elsewhere,  affirmed 
the  fact  constituting  my  third  argument,  so  far  as  English  versions  of 
the  New  Testament  are  concerned.  And,  till  the  last  half  hour,  I  never 
heard  it  called  in  question.  True,  my  printed  affirmations  respected 
modern  versions,  and  of  these,  primarily,  tiie  English  versions.  But  the 
proposition,  now  before  us,  embraces  the  ancient  as  well  as  the  modern, 
on  tlie  word  bapfizo. 

The  case  alledged  as  an  objection  (and  it  is  the  only  single  objection, 
which,  in  all  ages,  can  be  brought  against  my  third  argument,)  is  this. 
That  the  word  bebammsnon,  a  passive  participle  of  bapto,  not  of  baptizo, 
in  the  common  Testament  rendered  dipped,  as  it  ought  to  be,  but  in  the 
Syriac,  Ethiopic,  and  Vulgate  is  rendered  sprinkled.  We  have,  then, 
out  of  all  versions  ever  made,  but  three;  and  these  three  all  one  and  the 
same  word,  in  one  and  the  same  verse,  which,  in  the  first  place,  is  rather 
a  suspicious  circumstance,  and  goes  to  confirm,  in  my  mind,  the  views  of 
Dr.  Gale,  a  very  learned  Baptist  of  his  day,  in  England. 

Origen,  who  flourished  early  in  the  second  century,  quotes  this  passage 
and  its  context,  from  verse  II  to  16 — and  for  bebammenon  reads  erran- 
tismenon,  a  participle  passive  from  rantizo,  which  signifies  to  sprinkle. 
Now  the  probability  is,  that  Origen  quoted  from  another  reading,  or  a 
more  ancient  copy ;  and  if  the  Syriac  copy  alluded  to  was  before  Ori- 
gen's  time,  it  would  corroborate  that  conclusion.  The  fact,  also,  that 
Jerom,  the  real  author  of  the  Vulgate,  has  it,  he  having  been  the  trans- 
lator of  Origen's  Greek  works  into  Latin,  still  more  confirms  a  different 
reading.  Unless,  then,  it  can  be  proved  that  they  had  the  present  reading 
before  them,  it  is  wholly  idle  to  urge  this  solitary  verse  as  an  exception 
to  the  universal  practice  of  the  whole  christian  world,  in  all  time. 

The  words  of  Gale  are — "  Origen's  writings  are  older  than  any  copies 
of  the  New  Testament  we  can  boast  of,  and,  therefore,  what  he  tran- 
scribed from  ancient  copies  must  be  more  considerable  than  any  we  have. 
However,  I  should  not  think  the  single  authority  of  Origen  sufficient  to 
justify  my  altering  the  word  ;  but  I  have  likewise  observed  that  in  the  Syr- 
iac and  EUiiopic  versions,  which,  from  their  antiquity,  must  be  thought  as 
valuable  and  authentic  as  the  original  itself,  being  made  from  primitive 
copies,  in  or  very  near  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  rendering  the  passage 
by  words  which  signify  to  sprinkle,  must  greatly  confirm  Origen's  read- 
ing of  the  place,  and  very  strongly  argue  that  he  has  preserved  the  same 
word  which  was  in  the  autographa.'''' 

The  gentleman  quoted  one  or  two  passages  from  Leviticus,  yesterday, 
to  which  I  did  not  respond.  He  has  revived  my  recollection  of  them  by 
calling  them  up  to  day.  Really  this  is  a  species  of  little  criticism,  which 
I  did  not  expect.  The  passages  are  Levit.  iv.  17 — xiv.  16;  Ex.  xii.  22. 
•'And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  blood  of  the  bullock," 
apo  toil  aimatos.  True,  indeed.  Professor  Stuart  has  hence  suggested 
the  notion  of  smearing  with  blood — because  of  apo,  meaning  by  or  from. 
This  escape  from  dipping  is  not  sustainable  by  Messrs.  Stuart,  Rice,  or 


120  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

any  one  else.  We  have  three  occurrences  of  this  construction — apo  toii 
elaioK,  in  the  oil.  This  is  neither  the  time  nor  place  for  either  Greek  or 
Hebrew  criticism  on  particles.  But  men  as  learned  as  any  American 
scholars,  or  critics,  understand  the  Hebrew  particle  men,  translated  into 
Greek  by  opo,  and  into  English  by  from,  as  a  preposition  partitive, 
equivalent  to  so^ne  of.  Gesenius,  in  his  Hebrew  lexicon,  renders  it  some 
of  the  blood.  To  '^  dip  from,'' ^  however,  taking  it  literally,  is  in  good 
taste  and  good  sense.  I  write  a  letter  from  Lexington  to  Philadelphia. 
I  stricdy  write  it  in  the  city,  yet  we  say  I  write  from.  So  the  priest 
dipsy?'o??i  the  oil,  or  dipsyVom  the  blood.  Or  if  we  will  follow  the  He- 
brew idiom,  we  read — "  He  shall  dip  some  of  the  blood ;  some  of  the 
pil,"  &c.  There  is,  then,  no  necessity  for  any  "  smearing  with  blood," 
or  '■'^ smearing  with  oil"  in  the  case;  especially  in  a  country  in  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  talk  of  dipping  water  from  the  well,  and  of  writ- 
ing from  home. 

But  we  must  return  to  the  old  versions.  If  we  are  to  examine  and 
decide  upon  the  thirty-six  versions,  read  here  by  our  own  scholarship,  in 
all  those  languages,  we  shall  never  decide  the  matter.  No  one  in  this 
house,  or  country,  is  prepared  for  such  a  work.  We  decide  the  matter 
by  the  testimony  of  the  best  witnesses  we  can  summon,  and  not  by  our 
particular  scholarship  in  the  Syriac,  Ethiopic,  and  Coptic,  Sic.  &c.  We 
take  the  lexicons ;  and  to  advert  to  the  first  of  these,  the  Syriac  amad, 
which  is  found  in  both  the  Syriac  versions,  and  essentially  adopted  in 
three  other  versions,  we  shall  hear  Dr.  Henderson  and  the  lexicons,  as 
quoted  by  Mr.  Grotch,  A.  B.,  of  Trinity  college,  Dublin : — 

"  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  he  employed  the  identical  word 
found  in  the  Peshito  Syriac  version.  That  the  word  for  bapHzo  is  amad, 
which  this  aforesaid  Dr.  Henderson  maintains  etyniologically,  signifies 
''stand  np,^^  "  stand  erect. ^^  If  this  be  the  original  word  used  by  the  Sa- 
vior in  his  native  Syro-Chaldaic  language,  then  baptizo,  found  in  our  Greek 
copies,  must  be  a  translation  of  amad;  and,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Greek 
translators  of  Matthew,  equivalent  to  it.  But  who  of  the  Pedo-baptist 
school  will  presume  to  say  that  baptizo  means  to  stand  up  or  stand  straightl 
Tiie  fact,  then,  is,  Dr.  Henderson  is  wrong  either  in  his  construction  of 
amad,  or  our  Lord  could  not  have  used  amad,  inasmuch  as  all  copies  have 
baptizo  in  the  commission  according  to  Matthew  ;  and  no  man,  now-a-days, 
will  argue  that  baptizo  means  to  stand  up,  or  that  the  Syriac  amad  means 
to  sprinkle,  pour,  or  purify." 

One  might  argue  that  as  baptism  has  a  resurrection  in  it  as  well  as  a 
burial,  it  might  be  no  more  figurative  or  improper  to  call  it  a  rising  up  to  a 
new  life,  than  a  laying  down,  or  putting  off  of  an  old  one — an  emersion 
as  well  as  an  immersion.  If,  indeed,  as  some  Pedo-baptists  suppose,  it 
etymologic-ally  means  to  '•  stand  up,"  or  "  rise  up,"  rather  than  to  be  buried, 
it  makes  nothing  at  all  against  our  views,  while  it  certainly  does  against 
infant  sprinkling:  for  who  could  make  an  infant  stand  up,  or  stand  erect, 
to  receive  a  drop  of  water,  or  the  sign  of  a  cross'!" 

But  what  say  the  lexicons  ? 

"  Caste],  and  his  editor,  Michaelis,  Buxtorf,  and  Schaaf,  are  all  unani- 
mous. The  first  gives  the  following  meanings:  '  Ablutu  est,  baptizatus 
est.  Aphcl,  immersit,  baptizavit.'  Buxtorf  gives,  '  Baptizari,  intingi, 
ablui,  abluere  se.  Ethp.  Idem.  Aphel,  baptizare.'  Scliaaf:  '  Ablui  se, 
ablutus,  intinctus,  iinmersus  in  aquam,  baptizatus  est.  Ethpeet,  Idem  quod 
Peal.  Aphel,  immersit,  baptizavit.'  Gutbier,  in  the  small  lexicon  affixed 
to  his  addition  of  the  Syriac  Testament,  gives  the  meanings,  'Baptizavit, 
baptizatus,  est.  //.  sustentavit ;'  hut  without  any  reference  to  support  the 
last  meaning;  and  it  is  apparently  introduced  simply  for  the  purpose  of 


DEBATE  ON  CHKISTIAN  BAPTISM.  121 

deducing  from  the  verb  the  uoun  columna.  With  this  exception,  the 
authority  of  the  lexicons  referred  to,  is  altogether  against  any  such  mean- 
ing as  '  to  stand.'" 

These  three  great  authorities  give  to  amad  the  very  same  meanings 
which  our  twelve  Greek  lexicons  give  to  haptizo  and  its  family — to  im- 
merse, dip,  or  plunge,  and  figuratively  to  wash  or  cleanse. 

But  to  go  no  farther  than  our  own  English  translators.  We  argue, 
from  concessions  and  declarations  made  by  many  of  them,  that,  from  their 
knowledge  of  the  original  tongues  and  their  own  conclusions  of  right, 
they  could  not  so  translate  any  word  of  this  family. 

Let  us,  for  illustration  and  confirmation,  hear  a  few  of  them.  We  shall 
hear  first  the  oldest  of  our  English  translators — the  martyred  but  immor- 
tal William  Tyndale : 

"  The  plunging  into  water  signifieth  that  we  die  and  are  buried  into 
Christ,  as  concerning  the  old  life  of  sin,  which  is  Adam  ;  and  the  pulling 
out  again  signifieth  that  we  rise  again,  with  Christ,  to  a  new  life." 

I  need  not  quote  Beza  again.  He  speaks  almost  in  my  own  language 
on  the  whole  proposition  as  amplified  in  this  discussion.  He  says  the 
word  baptizo  does  not  mean  to  wash.  Doddridge  says,  on  Acts  viii.  38 — 
"Baptism  was  generally  administered  by  immersion,  though  I  see  no  proof 
that  it  was  essential  to  the  institution."  That  is,  as  I  would  say,  immer- 
sion is  not  essential  to  immersion,  or  we  may  immerse  a  person  without 
immersing  him.  Still  we  must  hear  him  out  on  this  passage.  "  It  would 
be  very  unnatural  to  suppose  that  they  went  down  to  the  water,  merely  that 
Philip  might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his  hand  to  pour  upon  the  eunuch. 
A  person  of  his  dignity  had,  no  doubt,  many  vessels  with  him  in  liis  bag- 
gage on  such  a  journey  through  a  desert  country  ;  a  precaution  absolutely 
necesssary  for  travelers  in  these  parts,  and  never  omitted  by  them."  Oa 
Romans  vi.  4,  Doddritlge  repeats  the  same  views,  saying  :  "  It  seems  the 
part  of  candor  to  confess  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  bapti- 
zing by  immersion,  as  most  usual  in  these  early  times." 

McKnight  also,  not  only  in  his  Episdes,  but  in  his  Harmony  of  the  4 
Gospels,  says,  Mark  vii.  4:  "  For  when  they  come  from  market,  except 
they  dip  themselves,  they  eat  not."  He  also  translates  the  diverse  wash- 
ings of  Hebrews  ix. — "  diverse  immersions.^''  He  did  not  then  believe 
that  leashing  was  the  proper  meaning  of  baptisma.  But  on  Rom.  vi.  4, 
and  Col.  ii.,  and  1  Peter  iii.,  he  speaks  still  more  forcibly. 

"  In  baptism,  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  christian  church,  the  bap- 
tized person  is  buried  under  the  water,  as  one  put  to  death  with  Christ  on 
account  of  sin,  in  order  that  he  may  be  strongly  impressed  with  a  sense  of 
the  malignity  of  sin,  and  excited  to  hate  it  as  the  greatest  of  evils,  ver.  3. 
Moreover,  in  the  same  rite,  the  baptized  person  being  raised  up  out  of  the 
water,  after  being  washed,  he  is  thereby  taught  that  lie  shall  be  raised  from 
the  dead  with  Christ,  by  the  power  of  the  Father,  to  live  with  him  forev- 
er in  heaven,  provided  he  is  prepared  for  that  life  by  true  holiness,  ver.  4, 
5. — Farther,  by  their  baptism,  believers  are  laid  under  the  strongest  obli- 
gations to  holiness,  because  it  represents  their  old  man,  their  old  corrupt 
nature,  as  crucified  with  Christ,  to  teach  them  that  their  body,  which  sin 
claimed  as  its  property,  being  put  to  death,  was  no  longer  to  serve  sin  as 
its  slave." 

*'  Christ's  baptism  was  not  the  baptism  of  repentance  ;  tor  he  never  com- 
mitted any  sin  :  but,  as  was  observed,  Prelim.  Ess.  1,  at  the  beginning,  he 
Bubmitted  to  be  baptized,  that  is,  to  be  buried  under  the  water,  by  John, 
and  to  be  raised  out  of  it  again,  as  an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and 
resurrection.     In  like  manner  the  baptism  of  believers  is  emblematical  o 

L 


122  BEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

their  own  death,  burial  and  resurrection.  See  Col.  ii.  12.  notel.  Perhaps 
also   it  is  a  commemoration  of  Christ's  baptism. 

"  He  tells  the  Romans,  that  since  they  were  planted  together  in  the 
likeness  of  his  death,  namely,  when  they  were  baptized,  ther/  shall  be  also 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection,  by  being  raised  to  a  new 
life  in  the  body  at  the  last  day." 

"The  burying  of  Christ  and  of  believers,  first  in  the  water  of  baptism, 
and  afterwards  in  the  earth,  is  fitly  enough  compared  to  the  planting  of 
seeds  in  the  earth,  because  the  efi:ect  in  both  cases  is  a  reviviscence  to  a 
state  of  greater  perfection." 

Dr.  George  Campbell  need  scarcely  be  named  in  this  place,  inasmuch  as 
his  views  of  baptizo  and  baptisma  are  so  clearly,  fully  and  repeatedly  de- 
clared.    A  single  passage  from  him  is  all  that  we  shall  quote  at  present : 

"'  Undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must  undergo,'  to  baptisma  ho 
ego  baptizomai  baptisthenai.  English  translation :  To  be  baptized  with 
the  baptism  that  I  am  to  be  baptized  with.  The  primitive  signification  of 
baptisma  is  immersion;  of  baptizein,  to  innnerse,  plunge,  or  overwhelm. 
The  noun  ought  never  to  be  rendered  baptism,  nor  the  verb  to  bnplize,  but 
when  employed  in  relation  to  a  religious  ceremony.  The  verb  baptizein 
sometimes,  and  baptein.  which  is  synonymous,  often  occurs  in  the  Septua- 
gint  and  Apocryphal  writings,  and  is  always  rendered  in  the  common  ver- 
sion by  one  or  other  of  these  words,  to  dip,  to  wash,  to  plunge.  When  the 
original  expression,  therefore,  is  rendered  in  familiar  language,  there  ap- 
pears nothing  harsh  or  extraordinary  in  the  metaphor.  Phrases  like  these, 
to  be  overwhelmed  with  grief,  to  be  immersed  in  affliction,  will  be  found 
common  in  most  languages.  " — CampbeWs  Dissert,  vol.  iv.  pp.  128,  24. — 
{T^me  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  16—1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — If  it  be  true,  as  my  friend  (Mr.  C.)  charges,  that  I 
have  made  bold  assertions,  I  am  certainly  in  good  company  ;  for  he  has 
abounded  in  that  species  of  argument.  Perhaps  it  may  be  fair  to  put  as- 
sertion against  assertion. 

The  genUeman  would  have  you  believe,  that  I  am  furiously  mad  against 
the  Baptists.  I  am  not,  however,  so  mad,  but  that  I  can  recognize  evangel- 
ical Baptists  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  church  of  God — as  christian  breth- 
ren ;  but  he,  in  his  zeal,  excommunicates  every  church  on  earth  but  his 
own  and  those  who  adopt  his  views  of  immersion  !  I  leave  the  audience  to 
judge  which  is  most  prejudiced — I,  who  acknowledge  immersionists  as 
disciples  of  Christ,  or  Mr.  Campbell,  who  excommunicates  all  who  differ 
from  him. 

The  word  baptizo  is  likely  to  become  very  troublesome  to  my  friend. 
He  told  us  on  yesterday,  that  bapfo  and  baptizo  retain  the  idea  of  dipping 
through  all  their  flexions — that  as  the  root,  the  trunk,  and  the  branches  of 
a  tree  are  all  the  same  kind  of  wood,  so  these  and  similar  words  retain  in  all 
their  branches  the  radical  idea  of  dipping.  I  produced  from  the  classics,  as 
well  as  from  the  Bible,  abundant  evidence  that  such  is  not  the  fact.  I 
proved,  that  bapto  is  used  to  express  dyeing  by  dropping  the  coloring  fluid 
on  the  tiling  dyed;  that  it  is  used  to  denote  the  coloring  of  the  beard,  the 
hair,  the  face,  the  staining  of  the  hands,  &lc.  He  is  novv  forced  to  admit, 
that  bapto  does  not  always  express  dipping.  He  tells  us,  that  it  expresses 
not  the  dropping  of  the  fluid  on  the  garment,  but  the  effect.  The  effect 
of  wliat?  of  dropping?  If  it  express  the  effect  of  dropping,  where  is  the 
immersion  ?  But  this,  he  says,  is  ^figurative  use  of  the  word.  Is  there 
any  thing  figurative  in  the  dropping  of  a  fluid  on  a  garment?  Is  the  fluid  a 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  123 

figure  ?  Is  the  garment  a  figure  ?  Is  the  dropping  a  figure  ?  What  is  there 
figurative  about  it  ?  Can  dropping  or  sprinkling  be  the  figure  of  immersion  ? 
Surely  this  is  a  modern  discovery  in  rhetoric. 

But  I  will  agnin  produce  the  authority  of  that  shreivd  critic,  Mr.  Carson, 
against  the  gentleman.  He  asserts,  that  bapto  signifies  to  dye  by  sprink- 
ling as  properly  as  by  dipping.  And  if  it  means  to  dye  by  sprinkling  as 
pro])erli/  as  by  dipping,  the  former  is  not  a  figurative  meaning.  But,  says 
Carson,  "  Nor  are  such  applications  of  the  word  to  be  accounted  for  by 
metaphor" — they  are  not  figurative.  "They  are,"  says  he,  "as  literal 
as  the  primary  meaning.  It  is  by  the  extension  of  the  literal  meaning,  and 
not  by  figure  of  any  kind,  that  words  come  to  depart  so  from  their  primary 
meaning."     So  my  friend  is  still  in  difficulty  about  bapto. 

I  prove,  that  the  word  bapto  signifies  to  wet,  from  the  passage  in 
Dan.  iv.  33,  in  which  it  is  said  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  "his  body  (ebaphe 
apo)  was  wet  with  or  from  the  dew  of  heaven."  But  the  genUeman  tells 
us,  that  by  a  beautiful  figure  of  speech  Daniel  represents  the  king  as  dipped 
in  dew  ;  and  he  quotes  the  language  of  Milton — "  A  cold  shuddering  dew 
dips  me  all  o'er."  It  is  not  denied  that  such  license  may  be  allowed  to 
poets,  who,  writing  under  the  influence  of  the  excitement  so  essential  to 
that  species  of  composition,  are  expected  to  abound  in  the  boldest  figures. 
But  does  it  follow,  that  such  figures  are  to  be  expected  in  simple  and 
sober  narrative?  Are  we  to  expound  the  language  of  plain  history  by  the 
imaginative  flights  of  poets  ?  Johnson,  however,  gives  as  a  second 
meaning  of  the  word  dip,  to  luet,  moisten,  and  quotes  the  passage  from 
Milton  as  an  example  of  this  secondary  sense. 

The  language,  says  my  friend,  \s  figurative.  Is  literal  water  descend- 
ing upon  a  man,  a  figure  ?  Where  is  the  figure  ?  Of  what  is  it  a  figure  ? 
If  it  be  figurative,  it  must  have  relation  to  something  literal.  If  the  wet- 
ting with  dew  is  the  figure,  what  is  the  letter?  Here  is  a  baptism,  the 
mode  of  which  every  one  understands.  It  is  certain,  that  in  this  instance 
bapto  expresses  something  even  less  than  copious  sprinkling. 

My  friend  (Mr.  C.)  told  us,  tliat  according  to  an  important  rule  of  lan- 
guage, the  definition  of  a  word  might  be  substituted  for  the  word  defined, 
and  would  make  good  sense.  I  applied  his  rule.  To  prove  by  his 
own  rule,  that  baptizo  does  not  definitely  express  mode,  as  applied  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  I  substituted  the  word  sink — its  most  common 
classical  meaning,  and  ihewovd  plunge,  in  its  stead.  He  gives  me  a  gen- 
tle reproof  for  treating  grave  subjects  with  too  much  levity.  I  was  but 
following  a  direction  given  by  himself,  as  he  will  see,  if  he  will  take  the 
trouble  to  read  an  article  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  in  which  he  gives 
an  argument  for  young  christians  against  the  advocates  of  sprinkling.  I 
did  not  design  making  any  one  laugh,  unless  he  felt  like  it.  Mr.  Carson 
himself  repeatedly  translates  baptizo  to  sink.  I  will  give  one  or  two  ex- 
amples. He  says — "  Diodorus  Siculus,  speaking  of  the  sinking  of  ani- 
mals in  water,  says,  that  when  the  water  overflows,  many  of  the  land 
animals  (baptizomena)  sunk  in  the  river,  perish."  Again — Strabo, 
speaking  of  the  like  near  Agrigentum,  says,  "  Things  which  otherwise  will 
not  swim,  do  not  sink  (baptizesthai,)  in  the  water  of  the  lake,"  &c.  In 
a  number  of  other  instances,  Mr.  Carson  translates  the  word  to  sink. 

But  the  sinking  of  the  sliip,  says  my  friend  (Mr.  Campbell),  is  merely 
accidental.  And  so,  if  we  are  to  believe  Mr.  Carson,  is  the  raising  the 
person  out  of  water.  For  he  says,  whether  the  thing  goes  to  the  bottom  or 
is  raised  out  of  the  water,  cannot  be  learned  from  the  word  baptizo.    But, 


124  DEBATE  ON   CHKISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

I  ask,  is  not  the  raising  of  the  person  out  of  water  an  essential  part  of  his 
baptism  ?  The  gentleman,  however,  dips  them  by  the  word,  and  raises 
them  out  of  tlae  water  by  accident! 

He  says,  no  classical  lexicon  gives  to  wash  as  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  word  baptizo.  He  at  first  asserted,  that  all  the  lexicons  prefer  im- 
mersion as  the  primary  meaning.  I  proved,  that  several  of  the  best  of 
them  give  to  wash  as  its  primary  meaning  in  the  Scriptures.  He  now 
3alls  for  a  classical  lexicon  that  thus  defines  it.  But  I  have  proved,  that 
tlie  Jews  (and  the  inspired  writers  were  Jews)  did  not  speak  or  write 
classic  Greek.  This  he  does  not  deny.  Why,  then,  call  for  a  classical 
lexicon  to  define  a  word  as  used  by  the  Jews  ?  If  the  classical  lexicons 
correcdy  define  Greek  words  as  used  by  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers, 
why  have  we  lexicons  of  the  New  Testament?  His  call  for  a  classic 
lexicon  is  a  mere  evasion. 

But  he  tells  us,  no  classic  lexicon  gives  to  ivash  as  the  primary  and 
original  meaning  of  the  word.  I  have  proved,  that  the  original  mean- 
ing is  not  to  be  taken  in  preference  to  other  meanings — that  the  word 
prevent,  for  example,  originally  meant  to  come  before,  but  now  it  means 
literally  to  hinder.  Usage,  as  all  critics  agree,  must  determine  the 
meaning  of  words. 

Let  me  briefly  notice  the  remarks  of  my  friend  concerning  hapto,  which, 
as  I  have  proved,  is  translated,  to  sprinkle,  by  three  of  the  oldest  and  most 
valuable  versions:  the  Peshito  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic  and  the  Vulgate. 
He  has  repeatedly  asserted  and  published,  that  no  translator,  ancient 
or  modern,  Jew,  Christian,  or  Turk,  ever  did  so  translate  any  of  this  fam- 
ily of  words.  I  have  proved,  not  only  that  the  three  versions  just  men- 
tioned have  so  translated  bapto,  but  that  Origen,  the  most  learned  of 
the  christian  fathers,  in  giving  the  substance  of  the  passage  in  Rev.  xix. 
13,  substituted  rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  for  bapto. 

How  does  the  genUeman  attempt  to  escape  this  difficulty  ?  Why,  he 
supposes  there  must  have  been  a  different  reading — some  copy  of  the^ 
book  of  Revelation  having  the  word  rantizo  instead  of  bapto  ;  and  he 
would  have  us  believe  that  Origen  gives  a  diff'erent  reading.  But  where 
is  the  evidence  that  there  was  any  such  reading?  He  mzy  guess  that 
there  was  ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  whatever.  And  if  he  may  be 
permitted  to  alter  the  Bible  by  mere  conjecture,  there  is  no  difficulty  from 
which  he  may  not  escape.  Origen  does  not  give  a  diff'erent  reading  of 
the  passage.  He  did  not  quote  it  verbatim,  as  Dr.  Gale  admits,  but  only 
gave  the  sense  or  meaning  of  it.  In  doing  so  he  substituted  rantizo  for 
bapto.  But  those  learned  men  did  not  translate  bapto  to  suit  my  friend, 
Mr.  C,  and  therefore  he  presumes,  without  the  least  evidence,  that  they 
had  before  them  a  different  reading. 

Mr.  Carson,  en  this  as  on  some  other  points,  is  against  my  friend 
That  shrewd  critic,  as  he  considers  him,  says,  as  I  have  already  proved  : 
"  These  reasons,  however,  do  not  in  the  least  bring  the  common  reading 
into  suspicion  in  ray  mind  ;  and  I  will  never  adopt  a  reading  to  serve  a  pur- 
pose. Misapprehension  of  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  is  much  more 
likely,  has  substituted  errantismenon  for  bebammenon.^^  What  are  these 
reasons,  of  which  Mr.  Carson  speaks  ?  Why,  the  Syriac  and  the  Ethio- 
pic versions  translate  the  word  (Rev.  xix.  13.)  to  sprinkle,  and  Origen,  in 
giving  the  substance  of  the  passage,  substitutes  rantizo,  to  sprinkle.  Are 
these  reasons  sufficient  to  alter  a  passage  in  the  word  of  God?  Why, 
Mr  Campbell  himself,  in  his  translation,  has  retained  the  very  reading  he 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  125 

would  now  reject.  Griesback  saw  no  evidence  in  favor  of  a  new  read- 
ing. Carson,  though  a  zealous  and  learned  immersionist,  saw  not  the 
least  reason  to  suspect  the  common  reading ;  and  he  says,  he  will  never 
adopt  a  reading  to  serve  a  purpose.  He  thinks,  however,  that  Origen, 
though  a  very  learned  Greek,  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the 
word  !!!  Well,  if  those  learned  translators  and  Origen  failed  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  bapto,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  we  shall  discover  it.  What, 
then,  are  we  to  think  of  the  bold  assertion  of  Mr.  C.,  that  no  translator 
had  ever  rendered  any  of  this  family  of  words  by  the  word  sprinkle! 

The  Peshito-Syriac  version  has  been  appealed  to  by  Mr.  Campbell,  as 
one  that  translates  baptizo  to  immerse.  It  does  not  so  translate  it,  as  I 
am  prepared  to  prove.  I  have  Schaaf's  Syriac  lexicon,  which  is  one  of 
the  best  in  the  world.  I  will  read  his  definition  of  the  word  by  which 
baptizo  is  uniformly  rendered.  The  word  is  amud,  and  is  thus  defined  : 
"Abluit  se,  ablutus,  intinctus,  immersus  in  aquam;  baptizatus  est." — He 
washed  himself,  ivas  washed,  stained,  immersed  in  water,  was  baptized. 
Schaaf  refers  to  every  place  in  the  New  Testament  where  this  word  is 
used,  and  he  finds  not  one  in  which  it  means  immerse  ;  and  in  the  Old 
Testament  he  finds  but  one  passage  in  which  he  supposes  it  to  have  this 
meaning,  viz :  (Numb.  xxxi.  23.)  "  Every  thing  that  may  abide  the 
fire,  ye  shall  make  it,  go  through  the  fire,  and  it  shall  be  clean,  &c. ;  and 
all  that  abideth  not  the  fire,  ye  shall  make  go  through  the  water."  In 
tliis  passage  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  word  means  immerse.  To  pass 
through  the  fire  does  not  mean  to  dip  into  fire.  Neither  the  Hebrew, 
nor  the  Greek  word  here  employed,  signifies  to  immerse.  Where,  then, 
is  the  evidence  that  the  S5'riac  word  by  which  the  Hebrew  word  is  trans- 
lated, has  that  meaning?  The  meaning  of  the  passage  evidently  is  this: 
That  which  cannot  be  purified  by  fire,  must  be  purified  by  water.  There 
is,  therefore,  not  a  solitary  example  in  the  Bible  of  the  use  of  the  word 
amad  in  the  sense  of  immerse. 

The  Syriac  language  has  a  word  [tzeva)  which  properly  signifies  to 
dip.  And  this  word  is  used  in  every  instance  where  dip  occurs  in  the 
New  Testament ;  but  it  is  never  employed  to  translate  baptizo. 

I  have  all  the  lexicographers  against  ni}'  friend  in  regard  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  amad.  Mr.  Gotch,  who  has  published  an  article  in  which 
he  attempts  to  prove  that  the  Syriac  version  favors  immersion,  states  that 
the  lexicographers,  "  Castel  and  his  editor,  Michaelis,  Buxtorf,  and  Schaaf, 
are  all  unanimous"  in  defining  it.  They,  of  course,  all  agree  to  the  defi- 
nitions I  have  read  from  Schaaf;  and  no  one  of  them,  it  seems,  could 
find  in  the  Bible  an  example,  except  the  one  already  noticed,  in  which 
amad  means  to  immerse. 

The  primary  or  original  meaning  of  this  word,  as  Mr.  Gotch  admits, 
is  to  stand.  He  says — "The  word  amad,  has  been  generally  and  per- 
haps correctly  referred  to  the  same  root  as  the  Hebrew  amad,  (found 
also  in  the  Arabic  and  Ethiopic,)  the  general  meaning  of  which  is  un- 
doubtedly to  stand.  " — ^8ppendix  to  the  Bible  Questions,  p.  156.  Some 
have  supposed  that  this  word  was  chosen  to  denote  christian  baptism, 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  common  for  persons,  in  receiving  baptism,  to 
stand  in  water  and  have  it  poured  on  them.  Others  suppose  it  to  have 
been  used  in  the  sense  of  confirmation,  as  baptism  was  supposed  to  be  a 
confirmatory  rite.  But  in  whatever  way  the  use  of  the  word  may  be  ac- 
counted for,  its  original  meaning  evidently  was  to  stand.  It  is  not  likely, 
therefore,  that  it  so  changed  its  meaning  as  to  signify  immerse.     But  let 

l2 


126  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

not  \hefact  be  forgotten,  that  in  the  Bible  there  is  not  an  instance  in 
which  the  connection  shows  that  it  has  that  meaning.  The  old  Peshito 
Syriac  must  be  given  up ;  it  does  not  favor  the  doctrine  of  my  friend, 
(Mr.  Campbell.) 

The  Latin  Vulgate  in  not  a  single  instance  translates  baptizo  to  im- 
merse. Tiie  learned  Jerom,  the  author  of  this  translation,  lived  in  the  fourth 
century  ;  and,  I  presume,  was  accustomed  in  baptizing  persons  to  immerse 
them  three  times.  Yet,  with  all  his  prejudice  in  favor  of  immersion,  he 
never  did  translate  baptizo  by  the  Latin  word  immergo — a  word  which, 
converted  into  English,  has  become  so  great  a  favorite  with  my  friend, 
Mr.  C.  In  every  instance,  except  one,  he  transferred  the  word,  (Lat- 
inizing it,)  as  our  translators  did.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  in 
that  one  instance,  the  only  one  in  which  he  ever  translated  the  word,  he 
rendered  it  by  lavo,  a  generic  word,  which  means  simply  to  wash'. 
"  Descendit,  et  lavit  in  Jordane,  septies  juxta  sermonem  viri  Dei  " — He 
descended  and  washed  seven  times  in  Jordan,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  man  of  God. — 2  Kings  v.  14. 

The  OLD  italic  version,  which  was  in  general  use  in  the  western 
church  before  Jerom  translated  the  Vulgate,  did  not  translate  baptizo  to 
immerse,  but  transferred  it,  as  Jerom  afterwards  did. 

Here,  then,  we  have  three  of  the  most  ancient  and  valuable  versions, 
neither  of  which  translates  baptizo  to  immerse.  I  am  prepared  to  ex- 
amine others,  whenever  ihe  gendeman  undertakes  to  prove  that  they  favor 
his  views.  He  has  said,  that  Luther  translated  baptizo,  by  a  German 
word,  signifying  to  immerse.  That  this  statement  is  incorrect,  is  evident 
from  Lullier's  translation  of  Matth.  iii.  11 — "L  indeed,  baptize  you  mit 
wasser — with  water,  [not  in  water.]  He  shall  baptize  you  with  (mit) 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  loith  (mit)  fire."  Can  any  one  believe  that  Lu- 
ther so  translated  this  passage,  as  to  make  John  the  Baptist  say — "  I  im- 
merse  you  with  water?"  Luther,  and  tiie  German  ministers  who 
used  his  translation,  practiced  baptizing  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Did 
they  render  themselves  perfecUy  ridiculous  by  standing  up  and  saying — - 
"I  immerse  thee,"  &c.,  and  then  sprinkling  water  on  the  person?  It  is 
absolutely  incredible.     No  sensible  man  would  act  such  a  farce. 

That  Luther  did  not  understand  baptizo  as  meaning  always  to  immerse, 
is  evident,  from  the  fact,  that  in  those  passages,  where  it  is  not  used  to 
denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  he  translates  it  by  a  generic  term,  sig- 
nifying simply  to  wash.  He  thus  renders  it  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  and  Luke 
xi.  38.  These  remarks  apply  with  full  force  to  the  Dutch,  Danish,  and 
Swedish  translations.  Not  one  of  these  versions  translates  the  word  im- 
merse ;  and  the  people  who  read  them,  it  is  well  known,  have  never 
practiced  immersion.  I  shall  be  with  my  friend,  when  he  undertakes  to 
support  immersion  by  these  translations. 

The  gentleman  has  spoken  of  Tyndale's  translation.  I  happen  to 
have  that  work.  Tyndale  transfers  the  word  where  it  is  used  with  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  When  it  is  not  so  used,  as  in  Mark  vii. 
4,  8,  -.Md  Luke  xi.  38,  he  translates  it  by  tiie  word  wash — "Except  they 
wash — the  trashing  of  cups,"  &c.  'I'yndale,  I  believe,  was  favorable  to 
immersion  ;  though,  my  iriend  says,  he  quotes  only  the  advocates  of 
sprinkling.  Why,  then,  did  not  he  translate  baptizo  to  immerse,  instead 
of  to  wash  ?  Why  did  he  not  say — •'  When  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, except  they  immerse  themselves,  they  eat  not?"  Why  did  he  not 
put  the  immersion  of  cups,  ^c,  instead  of  washing? 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  127 

The  gentleman  quoted  Beza.  Well,  does  Beza  translate  bapfizo  to 
immerse  ?  He  does  not.  He  transfers  it  when  it  is  used  in  relation  to 
the  ordinance  ;  and  in  other  cases  translates  it  to  wash. 

My  friend  is  not  quite  consistent  in  his  mode  of  reasoning.  At  one 
time  he  tells  us,  that  the  old  critics  were  not  so  well  versed  in  the  science 
of  criticism  as  those  of  modern  times — that  great  improvements  have 
been  made  of  late  days.  But  when  he  thinks  the  old  critics  favorable  to 
his  views,  he  magnifies  their  authority.  There  seems  to  be  a  kind  of 
twisting  and  turning  to  escape  difficulties. 

He  has  brought  forward  Doddridge's  remarks  on  the  baptism  of  the 
eunuch — going  into  the  water.  At  the  commencement  of  this  discussion 
he  agreed,  that  the  controversy  turned  mainly  on  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo.  He  is  now  running  from  it  to  the  prepositions  and  other  argu- 
ments. I  am  disposed  to  proceed  in  the  discussion  with  some  regard  to 
system.     I  hope  the  gentleman  will  return  to  the  word. 

Campbell  and  McKnight,  to  whom  he  has  referred,  were  both  favorable 
to  immersion.  For  sometime  after  the  Reformation,  immersion  was  gen- 
erally practiced  in  England.  Gradually  it  fell  into  disuse,  though  many 
were  anxious  to  have  it  restored.  They  were  Pedo-baptists — believed  in 
infant  baptism — but  they  were  immersionists.  These  concessions  are 
not,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  the  concessions  of  the  advocates  of 
sprinkling.  Yet,  neither  Campbell,  nor  McKnight,  nor  Doddridge,  believed 
the  doctrine  for  which  Mr.  C.  contends.  Tliey  all  admitted  the  validity 
of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling — thus  differing  essentially  from  him. 

If,  however,  this  question  is  to  be  determined  by  the  opinions  of 
learned  men  instead  of  argument,  I  will  count  learned  men  with  my 
friend.  I  will  produce  as  long  and  as  learned  a  list  who  deny  that  bap- 
tizo definitely  expresses  the  act  of  immersing,  as  he  can  find  to  maintain 
the  contrary.  Nay,  I  will  prove  that  those  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  who 
practiced  trine  immersion,  still  admitted  the  validity  of  baptism  by  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling.  And  if  their  concessions  do  not  prove  him  in  error, 
how  do  the  partial  concessions  of  a  few  Pedo-baptists  prove  that  I  am  in 
error? — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  17— U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  seventh  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  will  travel  over  the  ground  again  with  my  friend. 
The  gentleman  says  that  he  has  consulted  these  authors.  His  consulta- 
tions, then,  do  not  secure  him  against  error  ;  for  he  certainly  has  mistaken 
me,  touching  my  quotations  from  Tyndale,  Doddridge,  Beza,  Campbell, 
McKnight,  &c.  He  has  generally  evinced  a  disposition  to  anticipate  me, 
and  now,  instead  of  offering  pertinent  replies,  he  would  represent  me  as 
forsaking  the  ground  I  have  taken,  and  on  which  I  have  said  the  whole 
controversy  must  ultimately  rest,  viz  :  the  proper  meaning  of  the  precept 
baptize.  We  both  admit  that  all  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  a  single 
word.  If,  then,  1  offer  a  thousand  arguments,  facts,  and  observations, 
their  ultimate  and  grand  object  is,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  oi  baptizo,  as 
u.sed  by  the  Christian  Lawgiver. 

The  gentleman,  indeed,  has  repeatedly  told  us  that  professor  Stuart  has 
never  admitted  that  .lesus  Christ  commanded  his  aposUes  to  immerse. 
That,  however,  would  have  made  the  professor  a  Baptist,  and  then  his 
testimony  to  us  would  have  been  worth  nothing.  Does  any  one  think 
that  he  would  say  the  Lord  commanded  his   apostles  exclusively  to  im- 


128  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

merse,  and  himself  proceeded  with  his  sprinkling!  But  thousands,  as 
learned  as  he,  have  said,  that  it  does  signify  immerse.  1  as  firmly  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  Christ  commanded  his  apostles  to  immerse,  as  I  believe 
that  he  was  the  true  Messiah.  Now  that  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he 
commanded  them  to  immerse  only.  I  presume  not  to  say  how  Mr. 
Stuart  came  to  that  conclusion  ;  for  he  not  only,  as  Mr.  Rice  says,  ad- 
mits immersion  in  the  third  century,  but  in  the  apostolic  age.  He  says, 
indeed,  that  "■baptizo,  in  the  New  Testament.,  does,  in  all  probability , 
involve  the  idea  tliat  the  rite  was  usually  performed  by  immersio7i,  but 
not  always,"  The  only  difference  between  him  and  me  is  in  the  word 
always.     I  say  always,  he  says  ^Hisiially." 

But  the  gentleman,  in  his  own  imagination,  has  compelled  me  by  his 
force  of  logic,  to  admit  that  bapto  does  not  always  mean  to  dip.  How 
others  may  have  felt  I  know  not — but  I  have  neither  seen  nor  felt  any 
thing  stronger  than  his  force  of  action.  I  have  always  admitted  that  bap- 
to, not  only  in  the  active  voice,  indicates  to  dip,  but  also  in  the  passive, 
indicates  the  effect  of  any  action  which  literally  or  figuratively  immerses, 
or  covers,  or  conceals  the  thing.  In  the  case  before  us  it  intimates  the 
effect  produced  by  dropping,  but  most  certainly  does  not  mean  dropping, 
for  that  is  expressed  by  another  word !  And  as  for  Mr.  Carson's  rule  of 
*' the  exclusion  of  literal  meaning  by"  use,  I  do  not  admit  it  in  specific 
words,  but  in  general  words.  It  is  neither,  then,  an  argument  ad  rem, 
nor  ad  hominem. 

I  have  then  abandoned  no  position  touching  verbs,  nouns,  facts,  or 
canons  of  criticism  assumed  in  the  discussion.  Why  should  I?  What  has 
the  gentleman  done  to  compel  such  a  surrender?  I  ask  what  has  he  done  ? 
Asserted,  re-asserted,  and  re-affirmed.  I  am  proceeding  in  a  regular  in- 
ductive train  of  argumentation;  and  I  hope,  notwithstanding  my  frequent 
interruptions  by  his  assertions,  and  sometimes  impertinent  readings  and 
comments,  that  I  will,  by  a  regular  cumulative  process  of  inductive  argu- 
mentation and  proof,  carry  conviction  to  many  minds  of  the  certain  truth 
and  sublime  importance  of  ray  conclusions. 

The  quotations  just  made  from  these  translators,  to  which  others  of  a 
similar  character  may  be  added,  were  read  to  demonstrate  the  impossibil- 
ity, or  strong  improbability,  that  persons  avowing  such  opinions  could 
afterwards  translate  these  terms  by  pour  or  sprinkle.  They  are  then 
pertinent  to  the  argument  on  hand. 

While  on  the  subject  of  translations,  we  must,  for  a  moment,  honor 
father  Jerom  and  the  Vulgate  with  a  passing  notice.  Jerom,  the 
father  and  the  founder  of  the  Vulgate,  did  not,  as  Mr.  Rice  affirms, 
ever  translate  baptizo  by  the  word  immerse.  He  retained  the  word 
baptize  in  every  instance  where  the  rite  is  named  or  alluded  to.  He 
once,  and  only  once,  translated  it  by  lavo,  to  wash  ;  and  that  was  in  a 
case  which  he  presumed  of  difficult  import,  and  then  he  assumed  the 
commentator,  and  laid  aside  the  character  of  the  translator.  There  is  not 
then,  one  grain  of  argument,  or  any  relevancy  in  Mr.  R.'s  assertion  con- 
cerning the  Vulgate  and  St.  Jerom.  The  custom  then  was  to  call  every 
thing  by  its  proper  name. 

At  that  time,  or  till  then,  the  Greek  church  and  Greek  language  con- 
trolled Christendom.  The  Jews  first,  the  Greeks  next,  gave  laws,  and 
usages,  and  style,  to  the  christian  community.  Hence  all  the  ecclesiastic 
terms  are  Greek.  In  my  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  I  deduced  an  ar- 
gument against  the  Roman  Catholic  pretension  of  being  the  mother  and 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  129 

mistress  of  churches,  from  the  fact  that  the  Greeks  gave  the  whole  church 
nomenclature,  and  not  the  Latins.  A  pithy  argument  too.  This  start- 
ling fact  also  accompanied  it,  viz  :  That  in  all  the  councils  of  some  four 
or  five  centuries,  there  were  present  2200  Greek  bishops,  and  only  some 
28  or  30  Roman  bishops.  This  immense  preponderance  in  the  early 
church  and  councils,  baptized  into  Greek  all  official  names,  honors, 
offices,  ordinances,  &c.,  and  explains  the  mystery  why  Jerom  retained 
this  Greek  word,  in  common  with  a  host  of  kindred  names.  The  church 
vocabularly  is  almost  all  Greek  :  for  example — bishop,  deacon,  evange- 
list, presbytery,  synod,  baptism,  eucharist,  ecclesiastic,  &c.  &c.  Hence, 
as  Dr.  Campbell  well  observes,  Jerom  adopted  rather  than  translated  hap- 
tizo.  And  as  .Terom's  version  reigned  for  a  thousand  years,  the  word 
baptizo  pervaded  and  pervades  almost  all  Christendom  down  to  the  present 
day,  even  when,  as  Dr.  Campbell  has  shown,  they  could  have  found  the 
Latin  immersio,  which  as  exactly  corresponds  with  baptisma,  as  does 
circumcisio  correspond  with  the  Greek  peritomee. 

Mr.  Rice,  it  seems,  is  a  great  admirer  of  Dr.  Carson.  I  wish  he  would 
take  him  for  his  guide,  and  lean  upon  his  authority  throughout.  I  have 
often  wished  that  some  able  hand  had  written  a  dissertation  or  a  vol- 
ume on  quoting  authors;  showing,  amongst  other  matters,  what  difference 
ought  to  be  made  in  their  testimony  when  it  is  for  us,  and  wlien  it  is 
against  us.  Mr.  Rice  believes  Mr.  Carson  when  he  supposes  he  wounds 
the  Baptists  ;  but  always  disbelieves  him  when  he  wounds  the  Pedo-bap- 
tists.  Now,  when  I  consent  to  receive  any  man  as  a  witness  in  any  case 
of  importance,  I  take  his  whole  testimony  in  questions  of  fact,  so  far  as 
he  clearly  and  fully  expresses  himself. 

As  respects  the  quotation  from  Daniel,  Mr.  Carson,  indeed,  concurs 
with  me  in  regarding  it  as  rhetorically,  poetically,  or  if  you  please,  sym- 
bolically, picturesque  and  graphic.  "And  they  shall  immerse  thee  in 
the  dews  of  heaven  till  seven  times  pass  over  thee," 

Our  great  English  bard,  the  immortal  Milton,  seems  to  have  caught 
his  bold  and  beautiful  flight  from  this  passage,  in  which  he  sings, 

"A  cold  shuddering  dew,  dips  me  all  over." 
I  shall  not  speak  of  the  Asiatic  dews,  nor  of  those  most  profuse  around 
Babylon  and  through  all  the  valleys  of  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates. 
Any  one,  well  read  in  the  geography  of  that  country,  and  acquainted  with 
the  reports  of  Asiatic  tourists,  will  appreciate  the  correctness  as  well  as 
the  beauty  of  this  passage. 

In  interpreting  positive  precepts,  and  in  commenting  upon  poetic  or 
symbolic  eff'usions,  we  do  not  proceed  upon  the  same  principles,  so  far 
as  the  acceptation  of  words  is  concerned.  In  positive  statutes  and 
laws  we  look  for  perspicuity  and  precision  in  the  selection  and  use  of 
words.  In  poetry  and  symbolic  narratives  and  descriptions,  we  expect  a 
free,  rich  and  luxuriant  style.  Moses  the  lawgiver,  and  Isaiah  the  pro- 
phet, John  the  evangelist,  and  John  the  prophet,  in  his  apocalyptic  vis- 
ions and  descriptions,  are  not  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  strict  and 
grammatical  way.  In  describing  nature,  providence^  redemption,  and  ia 
proclaiming  a  law,  enacting  an  ordinance,  or  issuing  a  commission,  men 
think,  and  feel,  and  speak  in  different  words  and  images. 

But  I  object  not  in  this  case  to  the  word  wet.     He  was  covered  with 

dews,  and,  consequently,  as    an   eflect,  he   was  wet.     Even  we,  in   the 

far  west  of  time  and  of  the  globe,  say  he  was  drenched  or  soaked  with 

wine.    So  sang  the  Greek  and  Roman  poets,  and  so  speak  the  Americans. 

9 


130  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  R.  asks  for  some  manuscript  copy  having  errantismenon  in  it.  I 
might  ask  him  for  a  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate,  or  the  Ethiopic.  He 
ought  to  know  that  the  Alexandrian  manuscript,  the  oldest  known  on 
earth,  is  hundreds  of  years  after  Origen,  from  whom  we  quote  the  read- 
ing. If  this  is  not  an  ad  captandum  argument,  wherefore  appears  it 
here ! 

Mr.  Rice  has  not  read  all  that  Dr.  Gale  has  said.  That  distinguished 
man  does  not  found  his  conclusion  simply  on  the  passages  in  Origen. 
He  argues  from  the  Ethiopic  and  Syriac  versions,  as  you  have  heard  from 
me.  And  the  fact  that  these,  together  with  the  Vulgate,  should  have 
only  in  one  and  the  same  instance,  departed  from  universal  usage,  is  of 
itself  enough  to  induce  the  suspicion  of  some  different  reading,  without 
even  Origen's  reading.  Only  reflect  upon  it,  fellow-citizens ;  in  eigh- 
teen hundred  years,  in  a  hundred  versions,  in  a  hundred  languages  and 
dialects,  and  in  a  word  occurring  one  hundred  and  twenty  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  should  find  in  only  three  versions,  only  in  one  and  the 
same  verse,  and  in  the  same  word,  a  single  exception !  Has  the  like 
ever  before  occurred  !  !  I  challenge  all  the  volumes  of  criticism  to  fur- 
nish a  similar  instance. 

Mr.  Carson's  explanation  of  the  matter — or  his  opinion  concerning  the 
reading  of  Origen,  has  no  authority.  His  solution  of  the  difficulty  is, 
however,  no  relief  to  Mr.  Rice.  He  supposes,  that  these  old  translators 
mistook  the  meaning  of  the  vvord. 

Does  that  satisfy  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice !  Then,  according  to  Messrs. 
Rice,  Carson,  and  Gale,  there  is  no  exception  to  the  universality  of  the 
fact — that  no  translator  into  any  language,  in  any  age,  who  knew  the 
meaning  of  the  ivord,  did  ever  translate  a  single  member  of  the  family 
of  baptizo  by  the  words  pour  or  sprinkle,  which  is  the  point  in  my  third 
argument. 

Mr.  Carson  is  a  learned,  acute,  and  candid  critic,  and  an  honest  man — 
for  whom  I  entertain  a  high  respect  and  esteem.  He  wrote  a  work,  some 
years  since,  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  in  which  he  goes  so  far 
as  to  contend  for  the  inspiration  of  the  language,  as  well  as  of  the  ideas. 
He  does  not,  hov/ever,  contend  for  the  inspiration  of  the  translators,  copy- 
ists, and  printers  of  the  letter.  Still  I  am  not  sure  but  that  his  views  of 
inspiration,  somewhat  ultra,  as  I  presume,  may  have  influenced  him  to 
oppose  the  presumption  that  we  have  lost  a  single  autographic  reading. 
This,  however,  by  the  way. 

But  we  must  have  something  of  baptizo  or  bapto  in  every  speech. 
The  gentleman  has  reiterated  his  favorite  sink,  and  for  no  reason  that  I 
can  see  but  for  a  laugh ;  and  yet  where  is  the  laugh  unless  at  his  own 
expense  ?  The  sense  is  as  good  as  the  translation.  Wherever  sink  is  a 
fair  version,  it  is  good  sense  ;  so  is  plunge  always.  But  you  can  neither 
pour  a  man  nor-  sprinkle  him  into  drops  !  therefore,  they  cannot  be  a 
translation  at  all :  but  both  sink  and  plunge  may  be,  for  they  make  sense. 

But,  notwithstanding  we  are  told  that  sink  is,  in  classic  use,  as  four 
to  one  against  immerse,  I  feel  constrained  to  say,  that  sink  and  diji  are 
not  more  diverse  in  English  than  baptizo  and  deuo,  or  dimai,  are  in 
Greek ;  and  although,  sometimes,  to  dip  is  to  sink,  and  to  sink  to  the  bot- 
tom, yet  no  classic  scholar  will  affirm  that  baptizo  means  to  sink  more 
than  to  drown.  It  is  v/hoUy  accidental,  and  what  is  accidental  never  can 
be  the  meaning  of  a  word.  This  is  certainly  as  great  an  ad  captandum 
as  to  give  prevent  as  an  offset  to  baptizo  in  the  case  of  the  change  of 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  131 

meaning  of  words.  The  radical  vent  still  means  to  come.  It  has  nevel 
changed  any  more  than  bap.  Though  it  might  have  changed,  and  yet 
the  rule  be  true ;  for  the  rule  is  not  for  words  of  generic,  but  of  specific, 
meaning.  To  come  in  one's  way,  or  to  come  before  one,  is  to  hinder,  as 
well  as  to  anticipate.     But  in  no  sense  has  the  vent  changed. 

This  sinking  argument,  and  this  preventing  argument,  and  this  wash- 
ing argument,  are  of  the  same  category.  From  general  lexicons,  he  has 
got  down  to  some  Pedo-baptist  lexicons  upon  the  New  Testament,  and 
they  only  give  wash,  as  in  their  opinion,  the  first  of  New  Testament 
meanings.  Still  it  is  not  true  that  any  one  of  them  gives  wash  as  \\\e  first 
meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  said  without  authority.  Neither  Robinson 
nor  Bretschneider  have  made  ivash  a  primary  meaning  of  bapto  or  bap- 
tizo.  I  still  say,  that  all  the  lexicons,  general  and  special,  make  immerse 
the  primary  and  proper — wash  only  a  secondary  and  accidental  meaning. 
As  often  as  Mr.  R.  asserts,  we  shall  assert  on  these  premises. 

But  we  must  again  resume  the  ancient  translations.  Mr.  Rice  will 
allow  Us  only  some  of  these  translators — a  very  few.  He  would  even 
take  from  us  Luther,  whom  all  the  world  knows  to  have  argued  that  all 
should,  "  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  tavfe,  be  dipped  all  over 
in  water,  and  again  raised  up."  He  will  not  allow  us  Jerom,  because  he 
Latinized  baptizo.  Now,  as  our  most  learned  critics  allow  that  the 
adopting  of  any  word,  at  a  particular  time,  into  any  language,  indicates 
the  current  usage  of  that  time,  and  that  the  word  adopted  is  to  signify 
whatever  was  the  usage,  at  that  time,  in  the  language  wherein  adopted, 
we  must  regard  Jerom  as  rendering  it  immerse ;  for  all  the  world  knows, 
that  was  the  universal  custom  in  the  fourth  century.  But  I  shall  read  a 
passage  or  two  farther,  with  a  few  remarks  on  the  subject  of  these  trans- 
lations. 

We  have  already  heard  that  Castel,  Michaelis,  Buxtorf,  and  Schaaf,  are 
all  unanimous  in  defining  amad.  Schaaf,  of  whom  Mr.  R.  speaks  with 
so  much  approbation,  translates  it  by — immersus  in  aqiiam,  immersed 
into  ivatcr.  Buxtorf  gives  intingo,  to  be  dipped — and  baptozari,  to  be 
baptized.  Castel,  in  the  active  form,  gives  it  immergo,  baptizo ;  making 
it  not  only  mean  to  immerse,  but  making  immerse  and  baptizo  synony- 
mous. These  all  are  against  the  notion  of  standing  as  the  meaning  of 
this  important  word.  The  Syriac  translation  could  not  indicate  any  thing 
else  by  that  word;  if,  as  Dr.  Henderson,  a  learned  Pedo-baptist,  argues, 
it  was  the  word  used  in  the  commission  by  our  Lord,  who  spoke  that 
language — for,  as  that  word  was  translated  by  baptizo,  which  word  no 
man  construes  by  stand,  certain  it  is  that  it  has  the  meaning  assigned  to 
it  by  those  lexicons  and  critics  already  quoted. 

But  to  enter  into  a  dissertation  upon  all  these  words,  were  we  all  pro- 
foundly learned  in  these  languages,  would  be  wholly  inexpedient  and 
unprofitable ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  admitted  that  some  of  them  clearly  give 
immersion,  and  not  one  of  them  sprinkling  or  pouring.  I  shall  give 
the  sense,  or  the  conclusions  of  no  mean  man,  Mr.  Gotch,  who,  after  a 
laborious  research,  gives  the  following  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter : 

"  The  conclusions  to  which  the  investigation  leads  us,  are — 

1.  With  regard  to  the  ancient  versions,  in  all  of  thera,  with  three  excep- 
tions, (viz.  the  Latin  from  the  third  century,  and  the  Sahidic  and  Basmu- 
ric,)  the  wurd  baptizo  is  translated  by  words  purely  native  ;  and  the  three 
excepted  versions  adopted  the  Greek  word,  not  by  way  of  transference,  but 
in  consequence  of  the  term  having  become  current  in  the  languages. 

Of  native  words  employed,  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  Coptic,  Arme- 


132  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

nian,  Gothic,  and  earliest  Latin,  all  signify  to  immerse;  the  Anglo-Saxon, 
both  to  mme?-se  and  to  cleanse;  the  Persic,  to  u-asA ;  and  the  Slavonic  to 
cross.  The  meaning  of  the  word  adopted  from  the  Greek,  in  Sahidic,  Bas- 
muric,  and  Latin,  being  also  to  immerse. 

2.  With  regard  to  the  modern  versions  examined,  the  Eastern  generally 
adhere  to  the  ancient  Eastern  versions,  and  translate  by  words  signifying 
to  immerse.  Most  of  the  Gothic  dialects,  viz.  the  German,  Swedish,  Dutch, 
Danish,  &c.,  employ  altered  forms  of  the  Gothic  word  signifying  to  dip. 
The  Icelandic  uses  a  v/ord  meaning  cleanse.  The  Slavic  dialects  follow  the 
ancient  Slavonic ;  and  the  languages  formed  from  the  Latin,  including  the 
English,  adopt  the  word  baptizo ;  though,  with  respect  to  the  English,  the 
words  wash  and  christen  were  formerly  used,  as  well  as  baptize.''^ 

But  I  have  yet  a  moment  to  notice  the  alarming  fact  that  Mr.  Rice, 
backed  by  Mr.  Carson,  too,  teaches  us  that  the  word  immerse,  and  its 
Greek  representative,  will  put  us  under  the  water  or  sink  us  to  the  bottom, 
without  affording  us  any  prospect  of  ever  getting  out.  This  makes  it  a 
more  alarming  affair.  I  will  say,  with  Mr.  Carson,  that  absolutely.,  bap- 
tizo means  to  immerse,  without  the  idea  of  emersion ;  but  yet,  in  the  cur- 
rency of  all  usage,  classic,  Jewish,  and  Christian,  to  dip  and  to  immerse, 
differ  from  diinai  and  other  words  in  this,  that  it  has  connected  with  it, 
if  not  vi  termini,  by  intrinsic  force,  the  hope  of  getting  out.  To  dip, 
nine  times  in  ten,  implies  lifting  up  as  well  as  putting  down.  And  in 
sacred  use,  immersion  and  emersion  are  like  shadow  and  substance 
connected. 

Perhaps,  however,  this  will  help  my  friend  to  explain  why  the  Syriac 
version  chose  amad,  Avhich  some  translate  like  the  Hebrew  amad,  to 
stand,  "  to  stand  erect."  A  resurrection  out  of  the  water,  rather  than 
a  going  down  into  it,  might  have  been  more  persuasive  to  obedience. 
This  Avould  be  giving  a  name  to  the  rite  from  the  more  pleasing  portion 
of  the  symbol. — [Adjourned  till  9^  to-morroiv  morning. 

Friday,  Nov.  17 — H  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  seventh  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  shall,  to-day,  proceed  in  the  discussion  more  lei- 
surely than  I  had  intended  ;  inasmuch  as  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  desires  to 
occupy  another  day  on  this  subject. 

Let  the  audience  keep  in  mind  what  the  gentleman  has  undertaken  to 
prove,  viz  :  that  the  entire  submersion  of  the  body  in  water  is  essential 
to  christian  baptism. 

We  agree  that  the  Bible,  especially  on  all  important  points,  is  a  plain 
beok.  We  agree,  also,  that  baptism  is  an  important  ordinance ;  and  my 
friend  ascribes  to  it  more  efficacy  than  I  do.  He  must,  therefore,  admit 
that,  if  the  entire  submersion  of  the  body  in  water  is  essential  to  the  or- 
dinance, the  Scriptures  teach  this  truth  with  great  clearness.  And  if  they 
do,  is  it  not  marvellous  that,  during  a  discussion  of  two  days'  continuance, 
he  has  made  so  little  progress  in  proving  it?  If  this  doctrine  is  indeed 
true,  we  may  well  doubt  whether  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God. 
For  it  is  incredible  that  a  truth,  so  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the 
church,  should  be  left  in  such  obscurity,  that  multitudes,  of  the  wisest 
and  best  men,  have  never  been  able  to  discover  it.  And  my  friend  him- 
self finds  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  it  apparent  to  the  minds  of  this 
audience.  It  is  not  in  the  Bible ;  or,  occupying  so  important  a  place  in 
the  christian  system,  it  would  have  been  taught  with  greater  clearness. 

All    I  think,  must  adniit,  that  the  doctrine  of   exclusive    immersion 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I33 

ought  to  be  most  unequivocaHv  proved,  before  its  advocates  venture  to 
excommunicate  all  who  refuse  to  embrace  it.  And  these  exclusive  views, 
let  it  be  remarked,  are  not  peculiar  to  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  church ;  thej" 
are  common  to  immertiionists. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  iias  labored  to  sustain  his  views,  mainly  by  the 
force  of  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  To  determine  the  meaning  of 
these  words,  he  first  appealed  to  the  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern.  I  ap- 
pealed to  the  same  lexicons,  and  proved  that  they  define  these  words  not 
only  to  sink,  dip,  plunge,  but  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  &;c.  He  then  told  us, 
that  the  lexicons  were  wrong,  and  he  could  prove  it.  It  is  truly  singular 
that  they  should  all  have  erred  in  defining  these  particular  words  !  H« 
still  insisted,  however,  that  they  all  preferred  iminerae  as  the  primary  and 
literal  meaning  of  the  word.  I  proved  thatBretschneider,  Rubinson,  Green- 
field and  others,  give  to  ivash,  cleanse,  as  the  Jirst  meaning  oi  baptizo,  as 
it  is  used  in  the  Bible.  He  called  for  a  classical  lexicon  that  gave  to 
wash  as  its  primary  meaning.  This  I  exposed,  by  proving  that  the  Jews 
did  not  speak  nor  write  classical  Greek;  that  we  have  lexicons  of  the 
New  Testament,  designed  to  explain  the  Greek,  as  it  was  spoken  by  the 
Jewish  people.  The  gentleman  still  insists,  that  neither  Robinson  nor 
Bretschneider  gives  wash  as  a  primary  meaning  of  baptizo.  Bretschnei- 
der,  as  we  have  seen,  gives  its  general  meaning,  "  sepius  intingo,  se- 
pius  lavo" — often  to  dip,  often  to  wash.  And  the  very  first  meaning 
assigned  to  the  word  by  these  lexicons,  (as  it  is  found  in  the  Bible,)  is 
simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse.  If  then,  as  the  gentleman  will  not  venture 
to  deny,  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers  spoke  a  widely  different  idiom  ot 
the  Greek,  from  that  found  in  classic  authors  ;  and  if  the  Jews  always 
used  it  in  reference  to  their  religious  washings,  and  the  pagan  Greeks  in 
reference  to  matters  of  common  life  ;  we  must  take  the  definitions  of  the 
lexicons  of  the  Jewish  Greek,  in  preference  to  those  of  classic  Greek. 
Can  he  produce  a  lexicon  that  gives  to  immerse  as  the  literal  and  proper 
meaning  of  this  word,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures  or  among  the  Jews  I 

The  second  appeal  of  my  friend  was  to  classic  usage.  I  also  appealed 
to  classic  usage,  and  proved,  that  Greek  authors  give  the  words  in  ques- 
tion the  same  variety  of  meaning  attached  to  them  by  the  lexicons.  We 
find  them  using  bapto  io  express  the  coloring  of  garments  by  the  dropping 
of  the  coloring  fluid  ;  the  dyeing  of  the  hair  and  the  beard,  the  staining  of 
the  hands  or  the  face,  &c.  &c.  We  find  baptizo  used  to  signify  the  wet- 
ting of  the  hand  with  blood,  the  moistening  of  a  blister-plaster  with  breast- 
milk  and  Egyptian  ointment.  We  find  Dr.  GAe,  though  a  zealous  and 
learned  immersionist,  admitting  that  baptizo  does  not  necessarily  express 
the  action  of  putting  under  water.  And  yet  the  action  is  the  very  thing 
for  which  Mr.  Campbell  is  contending,  as  definitely  expressed  by  it!  So 
two  of  his  main  sources  of  evidence  have  failed  him. 

His  third  appeal  was  to  the  translations.  He  began  with  the  Peshito 
Syriac ;  but  I  proved,  that  the  lexicographers,  Schaaf,  Castel,  Michaelis 
and  Buxtorf,  give  to  the  Syriac  word  (amad)  employed  to  translate  bap- 
tizo, the  general  meaning — abluit  se — he  washed  himself,  and  that  they 
find  but  one  instance  in  the  whole  Bible,  where  thev  suppose  it  to  mean 
im,mcrse.  And  even  in  that  instance,  neither  the  Hebrew  word  nor  the 
Greek  word  used  by  tiie  Septuagint  has  that  meaning.  I  am,  therefore, 
prepared  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  example  in  the  Bible  of  the  use  of  the 
Syriac  word  for  baptism  in  the  sense  of  immersion.  Yet  I  might  admit, 
that  there  is  one  example  of  the  kind,  and  still  prove  all  for  which  I  contend. 

M 


134  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

But  I  will  now  prove  by  Mr.  Gotch,  the  gentleman's  own  witness,  that 
the  Syriac  word  does  not  definitely  signify  to  immerse.  Mr.  Gotch,  it 
should  be  remembered,  is  laboring  to  prove  the  Syriac  version  favorable 
to  immersion.  Mr.  Gotch  .says — "We  are,  moreover,  warranted  in  con- 
cluding, that  though  the  term  was  peculiarly  appropriated  to  the  rite  of 
christian  baptism,  as  is  manifest  from  its  being  used  as  the  translation  of 
photistJi£7ites,  it  was,  nevertheless,  regarded  by  the  Syriac  translator  as 
synonymous  with  baptizo  in  all  the  senses  in  which  that  word  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  not  as  simply  expressive  of  the  christian  rite  • 
see  e.  g.  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  where  the  word  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  Jewish  ablutions."  *  *  *  But  the  fact  seems  clear,  that  it 
had  acquired  in  the  time  of  the  Syriac  translator  the  meaning  which  the 
lexicons  give,  "aWmVse."     Append,  to  Bib.  Question,  pp.  164,  165. 

Now  observe,  Mr.  Campbell  is  laboring  to  prove,  that  baptizo  has  but 
one  meaning,  viz :  to  immerse.  To  prove  this,  he  appeals  to  the  Syriac 
version.  But  Gotch,  his  own  witness,  admits  that  baptizo  has  in  the 
New  Testament  several  meanings,  and  asserts,  that  the  Syriac  word  by 
which  it  is  translated,  was  synonymous  with  it  in  all  those  senses  !  Is 
this  the  evidence  that  baptizo  signifies  definitely  to  immerse  ?  This  is 
not  all.  Mr.  Gotch  says,  it  is  clear,  that  the  Syriac  word,  when  the 
translation  was  made,  had  acquired  the  meaning  which  the  lexicons  give 
it,  viz :  "  abluit  se" — he  loashed  hiinself.  My  friend,  Mr.  C,,  knows 
perfectly  well,  that  the  word  abluo  is  a  generic  term,  and  does  not  express 
mode.  If,  then,  the  Syriac  word  had  acquired  this  meaning  when  the 
translation  was  made,  it  is  certain  that  the  Syriac  translator  understood 
baptizo  in  the  general  sense  of  washing,  cleansing.  The  oldest  and 
best  translation,  then,  is  against  the  gentleman,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  his  own  prejudiced  witness. 

The  Vulgate,  too,  and  the  old  Italic  which  preceded  it,  it  is  acknowl- 
edged, transferred  the  word,  and  never  translated  it  immerse.  The  Latin 
language  has  several  words  which  signify  definitely  to  immerse,  as  raer- 
go,  immergo,  submergo,  mergito.  Is  it  not  most  unaccountable,  if  the 
literal  and  proper  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse,  that  Jerom  and  the 
author  or  authors  of  the  old  Italic  version,  never  once  translated  it  by  any 
one  of  these  words  ?  Is  it  not  passing  strange,  that  in  the  only  instance 
in  which  Jerom  translated  it,  he  rendered  it  by  the  generic  term  lavo,  to 
wash  ?  These  versions  were  made,  when  the  Greek  was  a  living  lan- 
guage; the  authors  of  them  had  the  best  possible  opportunity  to  ascertain 
the  prevailing  usage  in  regard  to  this  word ;  and  certainly  Jerom  was  not 
prejudiced  in  favor  of  sprinkling.  Why,  then,  did  he  not,  at  least  in 
some  few  instances,  translate  it  by  some  one  of  the  words  just  mentioned  ? 

But  Mr.  Campbell  tells  ns,  the  word  baptizo  was  then  so  well  under- 
stood, that  it  was  as  definite  as  any  Latin  word  that  could  be  found ;  and 
therefore  it  was  transferred.  This,  however,  is  a  great  mistake.  Cypri- 
an, one  of  the  most  celebrated  of  the  christian  fathers,  who  lived  in  the 
early  part  of  the  third  century,  certainly  did  not  know,  that  baptizo  meant 
simply  to  immerse.  The  question  was  propounded  to  him  by  a  certain 
country  minister,  whether  those  who  had  received  baptism  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  were  validly  baptized.  This  question  Cyprian  (and  there 
were  sixty-six  bishops  in  council  with  him,)  answered  in  the  affirmative 
His  language  is  as  follows  : 

"  You  inquire  also,  dear  son,  what  I  think  of  such  as  obtain  the  grace  in 
time  of  their  sickness  and  infirmity  ;  whether  they  are  to  be  accounted  law* 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.-  135 

ful  christians,  because  they  are  not  washed  all  over  with  the  water  of  sal- 
vation, but  have  only  some  of  it  poured  on  them.  In  which  matter,  I 
would  use  so  much  modesty  and  humility,  as  not  to  prescribe  so  positively 
but  that  every  one  should  have  the  freedom  of  his  own  thoughts,  and  do  as 
he  thinks  best.  I  do,  according  to  the  best  of  my  mean  capacity,  judge 
thus ;  that  the  divine  favors  are  not  maimed  or  weakened,  so  as  that  any 
thing  less  than  the  whole  of  them  is  conveyed,  where  the  benefit  of  them  is 
received  with  a  full  and  complete  faith,  both  of  the  giver  and  receiver." — 
WaWs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  v.  ii.,  pp.  357,  358. 

"  And  no  man  need,  therefore,  think  otherwise,  because  these  sick  people, 
when  they  receive  the  grace  of  our  Lord,  have  nothing  but  an  affusion  or 
sprinkling  ;  when  as  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  says.  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  waler  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean,"  &c.  He  quotes 
to  the  same  purpose.  Numbers  xix.  13,  and  viii.  7,  &c.  And  having  ap- 
plied them,  says,  a  little  after,  "  If  any  one  think  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as 
having  only  an  affusion  of  the  water  of  salvation,  do  not  let  him  mistake  so 
far,  as  that  the  parties,  if  they  recover  of  their  sickness,  sliould  be  bap- 
tized again." — Ibid.,  pp.  386,  387. 

Cyprian,  you  perceive,  did  not  know  that  haptizo  meant  only  to  im- 
merse. If  he  had  so  believed,  he  never  could  have  ansv/ered  the  ques- 
tion propounded  to  him  as  he  did.  He  declares  those  who  had  received 
baptism  by  sprinkling,  as  truly  and  validly  baptized  as  those  immersed  ; 
and  he  says,  "  If  any  one  think  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as  having  only  an 
affusion  of  the  water  of  salvation,  do  not  let  him  mistake  so  far  as  that 
the  parties,  if  they  recover  from  their  sickness,  should  be  baptized 
again.''^  Did  he  mean  to  say,  let  them  not  be  immersed  again?  This 
would  imply,  that  they  had  been  immersed  hj  poimng!  But  Cyprian 
believed,  that  haptizo  meant  to  sprinkle  as  well  as  to  immerse.  Hence, 
in  givmg  the  answer  to  the  question,  he  proves  its  correctness  by  refer- 
ence to  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25  :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,"  &c. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  fact,  that  at  the  time,  and  before  the  time  when  Je- 
rom  made  his  translation,  many  believed  that  John  baptized  by  pouring. 
Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  A.  D.  .390,  speaking  of  John's  baptism, 
says,  "  Perfundit  JJuvio  " — he  poured  water  on  them  in  the  river.  Pau- 
linas, bishop  of  Nola,  a  few  years  iater,  says — "  He  [John]  washes  away 
the  sins  of  believers,"  infusis  lymphis — by  the  pouring  of  water.  Ber- 
nard, speaking  of  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  by  Jolm,  says,  "  Infundit  aquam 
capiti  Creatoris  creatura  " — the  creature  poured  water  upon  the  head  of 
the  Creator.  Lactantius  says,  Christ  received  baptism  "  that  he  might 
save  the  gentiles  by  baptism ;  that  is,  (purijici  roris  perfusione,)  by  the 
distilling  of  the  purifying  dew."  See  Pond  on  Baptism,  pp.  33,  34. 
These  and  similar  evidences  force  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  word 
haptizo  was  not,  in  Jerom's  day,  understood  to  mean  simply  to  immerse. 
My  friend's  reason,  therefore,  why  he  did  not  translate  it  by  a  Latin  word 
having  that  meaning,  is  proved  incorrect.  He  will  he  ohliged  to  give  up 
the  old  Italic  and  the  Vulgate! 

The  Arabic  version,  which  is  of  greatest  authority,  translates  haptizo 
by  a  word  of  the  same  form  and  the  same  meaning  as  the  Syriac  word 
amad.     This  version,  of  course,  does  not  sustain  Mr.  Campbell. 

The  Persic  version,  as  Mr.  Gotch  admits,  translates  haptizo  hj  a  word 
signifying  to  wash ;  and  since  it  was  translated  from  the  Syriac,  it 
aflords  additional  evidence  that  the  Syriac  word  amad,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken,  means  to  tvash,  and  not  to  immerse. 

The  Ethiopic  version,  according  to  Mr.  Gotch,  uses  a  word  which  sig- 


136  •DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

nifies  ablution  as  well  as  immersion.     It  cannot,  of  course,  sustain  Mr 
Campbell. 

The  Sahidic  and  Basniuric  versions  transfer  the  word  as  our  transla- 
tors did.  The  Arminian  used  a  word  which,  according  to  Mr.  Gotch, 
"undoubtedly  signifies,  in  one  instance,  to  t/i/);  in  others,  at  least,  to 
bathe,  or  perform  ablution.''^  The  one  instance  to  which  he  refers,  is 
the  case  of  Naaman,  2  Kings,  v.  14,  where  the  word  baptizo,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  by  Jerom  translated  by  lava,  to  wash  in  general.  It  cannot, 
therefore,  be  proved,  in  that  instance,  to  mean  dip.  But  he  says,  the  Ar- 
minian word  means  to  bathe,  to  perform  ablution  ;  and  we  know  a  person 
may  bathe  or  perform  ablution  without  being  immersed.  The  German 
version,  as  we  have  proved,  does  not  sustain  Mr.  Campbell.  Luther 
uses  the  expression,  "  I  baptize  you  mit  wasser,  (with  water,)  which  is 
inconsistent  with  immersion  ;  and,  in  other  passages,  translates  the  word 
by  the  generic  term  to  wash.  The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  Dutch, 
Danish,  and  Swedish  translations.  And  it  is  an  important  fact,  that  the 
people  who  use  these  versions  have  always  practiced  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. The  Anglo-Saxon  translation  uses  a  word  which  means  to  cleanse. 
So  says  Mr.  Gotch,  my  friend's  learned  witness.  The  Geneva  Bible, 
(French)  the  common  French  version,  the  Italic,  Arias  Montanus,  Tyn- 
dale,  all  either  transfer  the  word  baptizo,  or  translate  it  by  a  generic  term, 
signifying  to  wash,  to  cleanse. 

Here,  then,  we  have  nineteen  of  the  most  important  translations 
of  the  Scriptures,  not  one  of  which  translates  baptizo  by  a  word  de- 
finitely signifying  to  immerse.  3Iy  friend  must  abandon  the  trans- 
lations .' 

We  have  made  considerable  progress.  We  have  taken  three  of  the 
gentleman's  strong  fortresses — the  lexicons,  the  classics,  and  the  transla- 
tions ! 

I  have  appealed  to  Bible  usage  in  regard  to  the  words  in  controversy; 
and  1  have  proved  that  bapto  is  used  in  a  number  of  instances  where  an 
immersion,  is  impossible.  Indeed,  as  I  have  before  stated,  there  are  not 
more  than  four  or  five  instances  in  the  Bible  in  which  it  means  to  im- 
merse. It  signifies  a  partial  dipping  or  wetting,  as  in  the  case  where  the 
living  bird,  the  cedar  wood,  the  scarlet  and  the  hysop,  were  to  be  dip- 
ped in,  or  wetted  in,  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird.  That  it,  in  several  in- 
stances, means  merely  wetting,  or,  as  professor  Stuart  says,  smearing, 
is  evident  from  the  use  of  the  preposition  apo  (from)  in  connection  with 
it.     The  priest  was  to  dip  or  wet  his  ?mgex  from  the  blood  or  oil. 

I  was  amused  at  the  criticism  of  the  gentleman  on  this  expression.  He 
tells  us,  the  expi'ession  to  dip  \vj.\er  from  a  vessel  is  very  common.  This 
would  answer  very  well,  if  Moses  had  said,  the  priest  shall  dip  oil  or 
blood  from  the  hand  ;  but  most  unfortunately  for  this  criticism,  he  says, 
the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  from  the  oil!  Is  it  common  to  speak  of 
dipping  a  vessel  from  water?  Who  ever  heard  of  such  an  expression? 
The  simple  direction  was,  that  the  priest  should  get  on  his  finger  so 
much  of  the  fluid  as  that  he  could  sprinkle  it.  The  preposition  apo, 
which  is  here  used,  never  signifies  in,  but  always  from. 

Once  more  I  revert  to  the  passage  in  Dan.  iv.  33,  where  it  is  said,  Ne- 
buchadnezzar's body  was  ^vet  from  [ebuphe  apo)  the  dew  of  heaven. 
This,  my  friend  will  insist,  is  a  very  poetic  effusion  of  the  prophet.  I 
knew  that  Isaiah  was  a  poet  of  the  first  order,  but  I  was  not  aware 
that  Daniel  had  any  pretensions  of  the  kind.     In  both  instances  where 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  137 

this  expression  occurs,  he  is  giving  a  very  plain  and  simple  narrative. 
"The  same  hour  was  the  thing  fultilled  upon  Nebuchadnezzar;  and  he 
was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  was  wet 
with  [cbaphe  apo)  the  dew  of  heaven,"  What  evidence  do  you  see  of 
poetic  efl'usion  here?  Milton,  it  is  true,  said — "  A  cold  shuddering  dew 
dips  me  all  o'er."  But,  I  again  ask,  are  we  to  go  to  the  flights  and  bold 
figures  of  poets,  in  order  to  understand  a  word  used  of  simple  narrative  ? 
Besides,  as  1  before  remarked,  Johnson  gives  to  ivet,  to  tnoisten,  as  a  second 
meaning  of  dip.     It  is  impossible  to  immerse  Nebuchadnezzar  in  dew! 

I  must  once  more  briefly  notice  the  effort  of  the  gentleman  to  sustain  his 
assertion,  that  no  translator,  ancient  or  modern,  ever  translated  baptizo,  or 
any  of  that  family  of  words,  to  sprinkle.  I  have  proved,  that  three  of 
the  oldest  and  most  valuable  versions,  the  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic,  and  the 
Vulgate,  did  so  translate  bcipto ;  and  that  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the 
christian  fathers,  did,  in  giving  the  sense  of  a  passage  of  Scripture,  sub- 
stitute rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  for  bapto.  But  the  gentleman  insists,  that 
there  must  have  been  a  difierent  reading.  Why  ?  Is  there  in  existence 
a  manuscript  copy  of  the  New  Testament  which  gives  a  diflerent  read- 
ing? This  is  not  pretended.  But  Origen's  writings,  we  are  told,  are 
older  than  any  manuscript  now  extant.  Does  Origen  give  a  different 
reading?  He  does  not.  Dr.  Gale  himself  admits,  that  he  does  not 
quote  the  passage  verbatim,  but  only  '■'■almost  verbatim."  Why,  then, 
must  there  have  been  a  diflerent  reading  ?  Only  because  the  claims  of  im- 
mersion are  ruined,  if  it  be  admitted  that  bapto,  sometimes,  means  to 
spi'inkle. 

I  have  quoted  Carson,  who  says,  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  a  dif- 
ferent reading.  But  the  gentleman  thinks,  I  ought  either  not  to  quote  Car- 
son, or  take  all  he  says.  I  do  take  his  testimon}^  as  to  the  matter  of  fact, 
especially  when  it  is  against  himself;  but  when  he  expresses  the  opinion, 
tliat  Origen,  and  those  learned  translators,  did  not  understand  the  meaning 
of  bapto,  I  must  beg  leave  to  dissent.  But  why  did  Mr.  Campbell  quote 
Doddridge  and  McKnight  ?  He  gave  us,  not  their  testimony  as  to  matters 
of  fact,  but  their  opinion.  Will  he,  then,  adopt  all  their  views  on  this 
subject?     If  he  will,  our  controversy  may  at  once  terminate. 

I  have  now  examined  the  usage  of  the  word  bapto,  as  found  in  the  Bible, 
sufflciently  to  prove,  that  it  will  not  sustain  the  claims  of  immersion.  I 
will  next  examine  the  usage  of  baptizo,  and  will  endeavor  to  prove,  that, 
in  no  one  instance  in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  religious  writings  of  the  Jews, 
the  Apocryphal  books,  can  it  be  proved  to  mean  to  iinmerse.  It  occurs, 
first,  in  2  Kings  v.  10 — 14.  Elisha,  the  prophet,  directed  Naaman,  the 
Syrian  leper,  to  go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven  times. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  17—10  o'clock,  Ji.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  eigeitu  apdrkss.] 
Mr.  President — It  is  transcendenlly  important,  sir,  that  every  man 
having  reason  and  conscience  of  his  own  to  appreciate  his  probable  destiny 
and  solemn  responsibilities  in  this  universe,  should  judge  for  himself,  oa 
every  question  involving  present  duty,  and  future  happiness.  Were  it  only 
necessary  to  wait  upon  the  decision  of  ofliers,  and  implicidy  receive  their 
assertions  as  infallible  oracles,  we  should  all  be  justified  in  giving  up  our 
understanding,  conscience  and  destiny  into  the  hands  of  my  friend,  Mr. 
Rice.  He  has  kindly  undertaken  for  us,  and  witii  great  authority,  much 
sincerity  and  unfeigned  benevolence,  informed  us  that  he  has  proved  every 

m2 


138  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

position  he  assumed,  and  that  in  every  point  we  have  utterly  failed.  This, 
indeed,  is  a  discovery  which  none  of  us  would  likely  have  made  in  an 
age,  if  left  to  ourselves  to  ponder  upon  the  premises  before  us.  Never- 
theless it  is  so ;  for  the  gentleman  has  said  so,  and  that  should  satisfy 
every  prudent  and  reflecting  man  ! 

There  are, however,  two  sides  to  every  question  ;  and,  unfortunately,  we 
have  different  ways  of  speaking  and  reasoning,  and  consequendy  we  some- 
times arrive  at  different  conclusions.  Allow  me  then  to  review  the  past, 
retrace  our  course,  and  also  give  my  opinion.  Still,  however,  it  is  but  an 
opinion  which  I  shall  give  ;  and,  therefore,  you  must  hear  both  sides  and 
judge  for  yourselves. 

I  cannot  but  approve  the  course  of  ray  friend  in  one  particular.  It  is  a 
rule  which  I  have  prescribed  to  myself,  and  recommended  to  others.  It  is, 
to  make  every  day  a  critic  upon  the  past.  I  shall  therefore  carry  out  this 
principle,  follow  the  good  example  before  me,  and  take  a  summary  retros- 
pect of  our  progress  hitherto. 

No  person  has  ever  been  much  more  prodigal  in  debate  than  I  have 
been  on  the  present  occasion,  in  the  way  of  submitting  and  managing  uni- 
versal propositions.  The  affirmative  of  any  proposition  is  always  a  labo- 
rious aflair  compared  with  the  negative;  but  the  affirmative  of  a  universal 
proposition  is  superlatively  onerous  and  dangerous.  The  reason  of  this 
liberality  on  my  part  I  will  candidly  give  you.  I  feel  myself  exceedingly 
rich  in  resources  of  evidence,  on  a  very  grave  and  important  question, 
vital  to  the  interests  of  the  church,  which  ought  to  have  been  decided 
long  since  ;  and  perfectly  fearless  as  to  the  issue,  determined  to  turn  a  very 
broad  side  to  the  enemy,  to  speak  in  the  style  of  naval  engagements,  that 
all  might  see  the  invulnerability  and  strength  of  the  ship  in  which  we  hav^e 
embarked  upon  the  high  seas  in  this  stormy  and  tempestuous  season. 

Now  that  this  is  a  work  of  supererogation  on  our  part,  will  appear  to 
all  who  know  that  in  almost  every  department  of  life's  employments,  we 
act  on  probable  evidence,  and,  at  best,  upon  general  rules.  Apart  from 
the  laws  of  nature,  we  have  but  tew  universal  laws  or  rules  of  action.- 
Still  we  have  one  great  advantage  in  affirming  a  universal  proposition,  that 
we  may  sometimes  fail  by  one  or  two  exceptions,  and  then  we  have  so 
general  a  law  that  all  may  be  justified  in  conforming  to  its  requisitions. 
My  first  universal  proposition  is  founded  upon  a  well  established  fact,  in 
language — viz :  that  all  verbs  indicating  action  are  either  generic  or  spe- 
cific. From  this  postulate  I  proceeded  to  form  my  first  universal  proposi- 
tion, viz : 

That  the  specific  idea  expressed  in  the  original  root,  of  any  specific 
word,  continues  through  all  the  branches  of  that  word  in  its  various  flex- 
ions and  derivation.  Where,  then,  we  have  the  radical  word  or  syllable, 
we  have  the  original  idea.  In  the  case  before  us,  as  respects  bapto,  no 
exception  has  been  found.  The  gentleman  offered  two,  viz :  prevent  and 
conversation,  taken  from  my  preface  to  a  new  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, indicative  of  the  change  to  which  some  words  are  incident  in  lapse  of 
time,  losing  much  of  their  etymological  meaning.  But  these  are  generic 
words,  and  come  not  under  the  rule — and  even  they  have  not  changed  in 
their  radical  significance.  He  has  instanced  bapto  itself;  but  it  meant 
dip  in  the  days  of  Homer,  and  still  means  dip.  It  is,  therefore,  no  excep- 
tion. In  the  investigation  of  this  general  prefatory  universal  proposi- 
tion, several  important  developments  have  occurred,  such  as: — all  words 
at  first  have  but  one  meaning.     2d.  That  specific  words  always  retain  it, 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  139 

while  other  terms  may  lose  it.  3cl.  That,  as  the  effects  of  any  specific 
action  may  be  both  nvmierous  and  various,  there  may  be  many  figurative 
or  rhetorical  uses  of  the  original  word  because  of  its  connection  with  these 
effects  which  it  may  have  produced.  Hence  the  results  of  the  simple 
specific  action,  dip,  are  numerous  and  various.  By  a  dip,  a  thing  may  be 
stained,  colored,  dyed,  cleansed,  washed,  warmed,  cooled,  polluted,  puri- 
fied, &c.  &c.  Now,  while  the  dip  is  immutably  the  same  action,  the 
effects  may  be  numerous  and  diverse,  and  consequently  expressed  by  very 
different  terms.  I  have  as  yet  called  in  vain  upon  my  friend  for  an  ex- 
emplification of  the  falsity  of  this  law.  I  observed  at  the  commencement, 
that  I  laid  no  great  stress  upon  it;  hence,  if  disproved,  I  could  lose  noth- 
ing, but  if  not,  my  cause  triumphed. 

My  second  universal  proposition  is,  that  all  the  lexicons  down  to  the 
present  century  have  given  one  and  the  same  proper  and  primitive  mean- 
ing to  baptizo,  the  word  in  dispute;  and  that  it  never  has  been  translated 
by  either  sprinkle  or  pour,  by  any  lexicographer  for  1800  years.  This 
is  the  all-important  word,  because  selected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  indicate 
the  ordinance  which  our  Savior  enacted.  If  ever  any  word  was  definite 
and  precise,  it  ought  to  be  this  one  on  which  so  much  emphasis  is  laid  in 
the  New  Testament.  And  I  have  shewn  that  our  Savior  ivould  and 
could,  and  did  select  just  such  a  term,  to  which  no  reply  has  been  made. 

But  the  gentleman  will  have  it  that  I  have  been  in  the  brush  for  two 
days.  No  doubt  of  it,  for  he  has  sought  to  hide  in  it.  But  we  shall 
get  out  of  the  brush,  by  and  by.  Well ;  but  I  have  proved  nothing  in 
two  days!  As  much  at  least,  I  presume,  as  he  proved  in  a  seven  years' 
war  with  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Bardstovvn.  I  never  heard  of  his  con- 
verting any  of  them.  I  am,  indeed,  in  a  way  which  he  seems  not  very 
well  to  comprehend,  establishing  facts  and  affording  inductions  which  must 
demonstrate  to  others,  if  not  to  him,  the  barrenness  of  his  soil  and  the 
luxuriant  fertility  of  ours. 

I  have  also  affirmed  another  still  more  overwhelming  and  grand  univer- 
sal proposition.  After  having  shewn  that  the  Greek  classics  amply  sus- 
tain the  dictionaries  in  their  definitions  of  baptizo,  by  as  liberal  an  induc- 
tion as  can  be  adduced  in  any  word  in  the  language,  I  advanced  to  one  of 
the  most  convincing  positions  that  could  be  taken  on  our  premises,  viz: — 
that  of  all  the  versions,  ancient  and  modern,  not  one  had  ever  translated 
baptizo  by  the  words  sprinkle  or  pour,  but  that  some  of  them  had  used 
words  equivalent  to  immerse.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  respects 
the  moderns,  especially  that  all  these  versions  appealed  to  were  made  by 
those  practicing  sprinkling — and  yet,  though  meeting  with  this  family  of 
words  one  hundred  and  twenty  times,  not  one  of  them  had  ever  translated 
it  by  either  of  the  words  sprinkle  or  pour ;  the  words,  too,  indicative  of 
their  own  practice.  This  is  also  a  universal  proposition,  and  of  course  a 
single  translation  produced,  so  rendering  the  word,  would  negative  it,  and 
reduce  it  to  a  general  proposition.  I  have  called  upon  the  gentleman  to 
produce  one  man,  living  or  dead,  who  has  ever  so  rendered  it,  as  to  ac- 
cord with  the  practice  of  his  church.  He  has  not  produced  the  sem- 
blance of  one.  But  he  alledges  that  in  the  case  of  bapto  he  has  found  one — 
and  only  one,  be  it  observed  ;  of  course,  then,  should  he  sustain  that  one  ! 
he  has  made  my  universal  law,  minus  one — a  general  law.  I  am  under 
no  necessity  to  sustain  any  one  of  these  three  universal  laws.  The  cause 
requires  it  not  at  my  hand.  No  one  ever  before  me,  known  to  me,  has 
taken  such  high  ground.     But  still  I  do  it,  believing  that  I  can  sustain  it. 


140  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

And  certainly  if  I  do,  the  cause  of  sprinkling  in  this  community  has  re- 
ceived an  incurable  wound. 

Let  us,  then,  calmly  and  dispassionately  weigh  the  objection.  I  desire 
to  give  this  solitary  example  a  fair  hearing,  and  to  treat  it  with  as  much 
courtesy  as  though  it  were  backed  by  a  thousand.  He  found  in  the  bap- 
tist Gale,  and  in  the  baptist  Carson's  works,  an  instance  in  the  19th 
chapter  of  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  perfect  participle  passive  of  hapto-^ 
bebammenon,  is  now  found,  and  where  we  find  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  of  Je- 
rom,  and  in  the  almost  contemporaneous  Ethiopic,  and  in  the  more  anc  je:iit 
Syriac  version,  a  rendering  equivalent  to  our  word,  sprinkling,  and  this 
being  the  true  reading,  and  a  true  version  of  it,  he  finds  a  single  exception 
to  our  universal  proposition.  We  shall  then  give  a  summary  of  our  rea- 
sons against  the  alledged  case. 

The  old  Syriac  is  supposed  to  have  been  completed  early  in  the  second 
century.  Origen  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  third.  In  one  of  his 
homilies  on  John,  he  quotes  from  the  11th  to  the  16th  verses  of  the  19th 
of  the  Apocalypse,  almost  as  we  read,  in  every  particular  substituting 
errantismenon  for  bebammenon,  as  we  have  before  explained — a  word 
which  is  justly  rendered  sprinkled.  The  presumption  is,  from  the  sin- 
gularity of  the  case,  no  other  being  found  in  universal  sacred  literature,  that 
this  quotation  in  Origen  is  from  another  reading,  another  and  older  ver- 
sion, different  from  the  common  one.  This  is  my  candid  conviction,  and 
I  will  set  forth  my  reasons  in  order  before  you. 

1.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  these  three  versions  could  have  all 
selected  one  and  the  same  word,  upon  which  to  differ,  from  the  universal 
custom  of  all  other  translators,  and  that,  too,  on  its  last  occurrence  in  the 
book,  having  nothing  special  calling  for  it. 

2.  We  know  that  there  were  numerous  differences  in  the  ancient  ver- 
sions in  point  of  diverse  readings,  and  that  these  differences  were  some- 
times corrected  by  quotations  found  in  the  primitive  fathers. 

3.  That  Jerom  should  have  followed  Origen,  is  again  most  probable 
from  the  fact  that  he  had  long  been  employed  in  translating  his  Greek 
works  into  Latin,  and  although  differing  from  him  on  some  points,  still 
his  great  admirer,  and  to  such  a  degree  that  the  ancients  said  that  Jerom 
had  studied  Origen  with  so  much  admiration,  that  he  had  copied  his 
errors  and  imperfections  as  well  as  his  beauties.  Now  what  could  be 
more  probable  than,  in  having  been  so  conversant  v/ith  his  Greek  wri- 
tings, and  having  such  a  veneration  for  his  great  parts  and  learning,  he 
would  have  followed  him  in  this  version,  especially  as  Origen  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  Syriac  and  all  the  then  existing  manuscript  copies. 

4.  But  I  have  another  and  a  highly  corroborating  argument,  deduced 
from  a  fact  which  occurred  in  the  Baptismal  Controversy.  Dr.  Wall,  the 
greatest  and  most  learned  of  the  Pedo-baptist  party,  in  the  defence  of  this 
rite,  wrote  this  great  work  you  see  in  my  hands  (four  large  octavos ;) 
one  of  them,  indeed,  the  work  of  this  said  Dr.  Gale,  to  whose  book  he 
has  devoted  one  of  these  volumes,  in  the  form  of  a  particular  answer. 
For  this  truly  learned  treatise  in  defence  of  the  Church  of  England  prac- 
tice, this  said  Dr.  Wall  received  the  unanimous  thanks  of  a  whole  con- 
sistory of  the  clergy.  Now  the  question  is,  how  did  he  dispose  of  Dr. 
Gale's  remarks  on  this  passage  ?  Perhaps  I  ought  to  ask,  first,  how  did 
these  parties  stand  to  each  other?  I  will  briefly  state  the  facts: — Dr. 
Gale  occupied  my  precise  ground  on  this  question.  He  argued  for  im- 
mersion only  as  the  christian  institution,  and  took  the  same  view  of  the 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I41 

disputed  passage,  though  he  did  not  argue  the  translations  uniformly  as  I 
now  do.  Still  he  was  a  thorough  inimersionist,  and  went  for  immersion 
only.  Now  on  this  word  only  he  was,  in  this  question,  opposed  by  Dr. 
Wall ;  for  he,  too,  believed  and  taught  that  apostles  taught  and  practiced 
immersion,  but  like  Stuart  of  Andover,  thought  they  did  not  do  so  always. 
The  question  then  was  about  the  word  always.  It  then  lay  upon  the 
Doctor  to  seize  this  same  occurrence  in  the  Apocalypse,  especially  as  Dr. 
Gale  had  brought  it  before  him.  How,  then,  did  he  dispose  of  it  ?  He 
conceded  it — so  far  as  passing  it  by  in  silence  was  concerned.  He  makes 
no  objection  to  it,  but  passes  it  in  silence.  Certainly  Mr.  Rice  knows 
this  fact,  and  if  so,  why  not  state  and  explain  it  upon  his  principles. 

5.  I  have,  however,  yet  remaining  another  argument,  and  with  that  1 
ehall,  for  the  present,  dismiss  the  subject.  I  have  not  time  to  read  the 
sixty-third  of  Isaiah.  I  must,  however,  quote  a  few  verses  to  shew 
that  both  Isaiah,  and  John  in  the  19th  of  the  Apocalypse,  had  the  same 
scene  before  them,  and  that  they  are  describing  the  same  person  return- 
ing from  the  same  battle,  covered  with  the  blood  of  his  slain  enemies. 
He  breaks  out  in  the  most  sublime  strains  on  seeing  the  king  return — 
"  Who  is  this  that  comelh  from  Edom  with  dyed  garments  from  Boz- 
rah,  this  who  is  glorious  in  his  apparel,  traveling  in  the  greatness  of 
her  strength  ?  I,"  responds  he,  "  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to 
save.  Wherefore  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments  like  him  that 
treadeth  in  the  wine  vat."  Again,  he  responds,  almost  in  the  words  of 
Rev.  xix.  13:  "I  have  trodden  the  wine  press  alone;  and  of  the  people 
there  was  none  with  me :  for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and  trample 
them  in  my  fury ;  and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  my  garments, 
and  I  will  slain  all  my  raiment."  Now,  that  the  idea  of  sprinkled  blood 
should  have,  with  the  other  parts  of  the  same  imagery,  passed  into 
the  Apocalyptic  scene,  is,  I  think,  most  natural,  and  justifies  still  more 
strongly  the  reading  quoted  from  Origen.  From  all  these  considerations, 
is  there  not  almost  a  moral  certainty  that  there  was  a  different  reading, 
and  that  that  reading  was  the  same  both  in  Isaiah  and  the  Apocalypse — 
or  as  quoted  by  Origen  ?  But  be  this  case  construed  as  it  may,  one  thing 
must  be  done  according  to  the  laws  of  evidence,  as  I  interpret  them,  be- 
fore an  exception  can  be  legally  sustained.  In  the  face  of  such  evidence 
as  I  have  given  in  favor  of  a  different  reading,  it  is  incumbent  on  him  who 
would  constitute  an  exception,  to  shew  that  hebammenon  and  not  errantis- 
menon  was  the  reading  before  the  unknown  author  of  the  Syriac,  and  be- 
fore Frumentius,  the  author  of  the  Ethiopic,  and  before  Jerom,  the  author 
of  the  Vulgate.  This  is  now  essential  to  constitute  an  exception  ;  it  must 
be  first  proved  that  bebammenon  was  in  the  text,  before  it  can  be  proved 
that  it  was  translated  by  sprinkled.  This  not  being  done,  and  being  im- 
possible, we  now  strongly  re-affirm  our  third  universal  proposition,  viz: 
that  no  translator  of  the  New  Testament,  in  any  language,  ancient  or 
modern,  has  ever  translated  baptism,  by  sjirinkling  or  pouring. 

This  being  so,  or  were  it  with  even  a  single  exception  so,  in  the  case 
of  hapto,  how  can  the  practice  stand,  having  these  universal  propositions 
against  it? 

The  two  propositions  combined  in  one,  take  away  all  lawful  authority 
for  the  practice  of  either  affusion  or  sprinkling.  When  it  is  fully  estab- 
lished, as  we  now  candidly  must  regard  it,  that  no  dictionary,  during 
eighteen  hundred  years,  no  translation,  of  either  Old  or  New  Testament, 
during  the  same  time,  has  ever  rendered  baptizo,  or  any  one  of  its  family, 


142  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

by  either  sprinkle  or  pour ;  how  can  unprejudiced  persons  consider  the 
practice  as  commanded  by  the  Lord  ?  If  Baptists  had  done  all  this  some 
excuse  might  be  for  it ;  but  as  it  is  wholly  the  work  of  Pedo-baptists,  so 
far  as  English  versions  are  concerned,  we  know  not  how  the  practice  can 
be  reconciled  to  their  conscience  and  views  of  human  responsibility. 

As  to  the  reputation  of  Mr.  Gotch,  from  whom  I  have  read  some  ex- 
tracts, Mr.  Rice  having  introduced  him  here,  it  was  expected  that  he 
would  have  given  us  the  proper  information ;  I  can  say  that  Mr.  Gotch 
is  a  graduate  of  Trinity  college,  and,  I  can  moreover  say,  that  degrees 
conferred  at  Trinity  college,  Dublin,  are  always  merited,  and  a  worthy 
passport  to  public  confidence. 

He  has  given  so  much  evidence,  and  bestowed  so  much  attention  to  the 
subject,  as  to  authorize  him  to  say,  that  all  those  translators,  that  have 
translated  by  native  words  in  their  own  language,  have  chosen  words 
signifying  to  immerse,  with  the  exception  of  some  three  or  five,  that 
have  chosen  such  words  as  moisten,  wash,  cleanse. 

I  have  yet  a  fourth  universal  proposition,  but  I  perceive  my  time  has 
expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  17— lOi  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  eighth  REPLY.3 

Mr.  President — I  think,  all  who  have  heard  us  on  this  occasion  will 
admit,  that  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  taken  very  high  ground — the  highest, 
he  thinks,  that  ever  has  been  taken.  And  this  fact  presents  an  important 
reason  for  suspecting  that  he  is  in  error.  Is  it  true,  that  he  has  risen,  in 
learning,  so  far  above  the  wise  men  of  earth,  that  he  may  assume  posi- 
tions from  which  they  all  shrink?  Has  he  made  discoveries  in  criticism 
to  which  none  who  have  preceded  him  could  attain?  Is  it  not  more  than 
probable  that  he  is  in  error  ? 

I  have  a  remark  or  two  to  make  concerning  his  oft-repeated  rule,  that 
specific  words,  having  a  leading  syllable,  always  retain  their  original 
idea.  He  calls  on  me  to  find  a  solitary  exception  to  this  rule.  I  have 
found  an  exception  in  the  word  bapto  itself,  if,  indeed,  it  ever  was  a  spe- 
cific word,  as  he  contends.  I  have  repeatedly  produced  examples  of  its 
use  from  the  classics,  as  well  as  from  the  Bible,  in  which  the  common 
sense  of  every  unprejudiced  individual,  will  enable  him  to  perceive,  that 
there  could  be  no  dipping.  Where  was  the  dippuig,  when  the  coloring 
fluid  dropped  on  the  garments  and  dyed  them?  or  when  the  coloring 
substance,  being  pressed,  stained  the  hand?  Is  this,  as  the  gentleman 
p;etends,  the  effect  of  dipping  ? 

I  gave  him,  as  an  exception  to  his  rule,  the  English  word  prevent. 
But  this,  he  tells  us,  is  a  generic  term,  and,  after  all,  has  not  changed  its 
radical  meaning.  The  word  is  derived  from  two  Latin  words — pre  and 
venio,  to  come  before.  That  it  now  generally  means  to  hinder,  cannot 
be  denied.  Was  this  always  its  meaning?  Every  boy,  who  has  read 
Cffisar,  knows,  that  originally  it  meant  simply  to  come  before.  It  is  used 
in  this  sense  in  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  "For  this  we  say  unto  you,  by  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  that  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the 
Lord,  shall  noi  prevent  [ascend  before]  them  which  are  asleep."  Does 
it  mean  to  hinder  here  ?  Originally  it  meant  to  come  before ;  then,  to 
anticipate;  then,  to  hinder;  and  the  third  meaning  has  now  become  the 
literal,  uniform  meaning.  The  original  syllable  (vent)  remains  ;  but  the 
original  idea  (to  corns)  is  lost.  This  word  was,  primarily,  as  specific  in 
its  meaning  as  ever  bapto  was. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  143 

But  I  will  again  deliver  the  gentleman  into  the  hands  of  his  shrewd 
critic,  Mr.  Carson.  He  says,  "  Nothing  in  the  history  of  words  is  more 
common  than  to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas,  not  origi- 
nally included  in  them,  are  often  affixed  to  some  words,  while  others  drop 
ideas  originally  asserted  in  their  application.  In  this  way  bapto,  from  sig- 
nifying mere  mode,  came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation  usually  per- 
formed in  that  mode.  From  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by 
dipping ;  because  this  was  the  way  in  which  things  usually  were  dyed. 
And  afterwards,  from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any 
manner.  A  like  process  might  be  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thous- 
and words;"  p.  60.  Again,  he  says — "A  word  may  come  to  enlarge 
its  meaning,  so  as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin.  This  fact  must  be  obvious 
to  every  smatterer  in  philology.  Had  it  been  attended  to,  Baptists  would 
have  found  no  necessity  to  prove  that  bapto,  when  it  signifies  to  dye, 
always  properly  signifies  to  dye  by  dipping,  and  their  opponents  would 
have  seen  no  advantage  from  proving  that  it  signifies  dyeing  in  any  man- 
ner ^  pp.  62,  63. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  tell  us,  the  meanings  of  the  word,  except  dip,  are 
figurative,  rhetorical,  &;c.  Mr.  Carson,  however,  says,  this  is  wholly 
incorrect.  "They  are,"  says  he,  "as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning;*' 
p.  64.  And  he  tells  us,  a  thousand  examples  could  be  produced  con- 
firming these  principles. 

The  gendeman  asserts,  that  all  the  lexicons,  before  the  present  century, 
have  given  immerse  as  the  proper  and  primitive  meaning  of  baptizo. 
If  he  has  made  great  improvements  in  the  science  of  criticism,  as  he  pro- 
fesses to  have  done,  I  hope  he  will  allow  modern  lexicographers  the  cred- 
it of  having  done  the  same.  I,  however,  have  found  no  ancient  lexico- 
grapher who  gives  immerse  as  the  literal  and  proper  meaning  of  this 
word,  as  used  amongst  the  Jews  in  relation  to  theii  religious  wash- 
ings.    Can  he  produce  one  ? 

He  attempts  to  excuse  his  failure  thus  far  to  prove  any  thing,  by  tell- 
ing you,  that  though  I  was  for  seven  years  engaged  in  controversy  with 
the  Papists,  he  has  heard  of  no  conversions  made.  I  think  it  probable, 
that  many  things  have  happened  in  this  world  of  which  he  has  not  heard. 
I  have,  more  than  once,  satisfied  the  minds  of  persons  on  that  subject  in 
a  very  short  time. 

The  gentleman  labors  hard  to  prove,  that  our  Bible  ought  to  be  chang- 
ed— that,  at  any  rate,  Origen  had  a  copy  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  which,  in 
Rev.  xix.  13,  the  word  rantizo  was  used  instead  of  bapto,  and  that  the 
same  is  true  of  the  translators  of.  the  Syriac  and  Ethiopic  versions.  If 
Origen  had  quoted  the  passage  verbatim,  with  the  exception  of  that 
word,  there  might  have  been  some  plausibdity  in  the  conjecture  of  Mr. 
Campbell  and  Dr.  Gale.  But  it  is  admitted,  that  he  did  not  quote 
verbatim — but  only  "  a/?7zos^  verbatim."  When  a  man  attempts  simply 
to  give  the  sense  of  a  passage,  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  employ, 
to  some  extent,  words  different  from  those  in  the  text.  But  it  is  not, 
perhaps,  surprising,  that  men  who  can  immerse  a  man  in  dew,  or  im- 
merse a  garment  by  dropping  a  liquid  on  it,  should,  to  save  their  cause, 
indulge  in  such  conjectures. 

But  we  are  told,  that  .Terom  was  a  great  admirer  of  Origen,  and  that 
in  translating  the  Vulgate,  he  probably  follovv^ed  the  reading  in  Origen's 
writings.  Is  it  credible  that  Jeroin  would  alter  the  Bible  for  no  better 
reason,  than  that  Origen,  in  giving  the  sense  of  a  passage,  not  quoting  it 


144  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

verbatim,  had  used  a  word  not  in  the  text?  Who  ever  heard  of  a  critic 
who  would  venture,  on  grounds  so  perfectly  flimsy,  to  change  the  text 
of  God's  word?  There  is  no  passage  in  the  Bible,  the  purity  of  which 
might  not  be  brought  into  doubt,  if  such  guesses  may  be  allowed.  But 
I  am  not  aware  that  Jerom  was  a  great  admirer  of  Origen.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  was  greatly  prejudiced  against  his  peculiar  doctrines.  There 
can,  therefore,  be  no  probability  that  he  altered  a  passage  of  the  Bible  on 
any  such  grounds. 

But  here  the  gentleman  presents,  what  appears  to  him,  conclusive  evi- 
dence, that  there  must  have  been  another  reading.  Dr.  Wall,  he  tells  you, 
wrote  a  large  volume  in  reply  to  Gale;  and  yet  he  did  not  attempt  to  an- 
swer Gale's  remarks  about  this  passage.  But  he  did  not  tell  you  that 
Wall  was  avowedly  writing  on  infant  baptism,  not  on  the  mode;  and  that 
he  declares  his  determination  not  to  attempt  an  answer,  at  any  length,  to 
Gale's  remarks  on  the  mode.  The  truth  is,  Wall  was  himself  a  decided 
immersionist,  and  only  contended  that  baptism,  by  pouring,  was  lawful 
in  cases  of  necessity.  The  impression  the  gentleman  made  on  the  au- 
dience, I  presume,  was,  that  the  large  volume,  he  held  up  before  you, 
was  written  on  the  mode  of  baptism ;  whereas,  perhaps,  not  more  than  a 
tenth  part  of  it  is  on  that  subject.  When  a  man  avows  his  determination 
not  to  answer  a  particular  class  of  arguments,  because  they  do  not  belong 
to  the  subject  he  is  discussing;  is  it  fair,  is  it  true  to  say  he  cannot  an- 
swer them? 

Alas !  for  the  criticism  that  would  take  a  word  out  of  the  Bible  and  put 
another  in  place  of  it,  where  there  is  not  a  solitary  manuscript  or  copy 
authorizing  it !  The  cause  must  be  sorely  pressed  that  requires  the  word 
of  God  to  be  changed  before  it  can  be  sustained ! 

My  friend  has  read,  in  support  of  his  statements  concerning  the  trans- 
lation, from  Mr.  Gotch,  whom  he  considers  quite  a  learned  man,  because 
he  graduated  at  the  Royal  College  of  Dublin ;  where,  he  tells  us,  diplo- 
mas are  given  to  none  who  are  not  learned.  I  know  not  how  they  man- 
age such  matters  there  ;  but,  in  this  country,  I  know  a  diploma  is  no  very 
certain  evidence  that  the  bearer  is  learned.  He  may  be  a  very  learned 
man,  but,  I  believe,  his  fame  has  not  yet  reached  this  country,  except 
among  the  advocates  of  immersion.  But  I  have  proved,  by  Gotch,  that 
the  Syriac  and  several  other  of  the  most  important  versions  are  against 
Mr.  Campbell — that  they  did  not  translate  baptizo  to  immerse. 

The  gentleman  would  have  you  believe  that  the  translations  are  with 
him.  How  are  they  with  him?  Do  they  translate  baptizo  by  words 
signifying  to  immerse  ?  They  do  not.  He  has  not  proved  that  any  one 
of  them  so  translates  it.  I  have  proved  that  some  nineteen  of  the  most 
valuable  do  not  translate  it  to  suit  him,  but  they  employ  generic  terms 
signifying  to  wash,  cleanse,  &c.  Immersion  can  gain  no  aid  from  the 
translations. 

I  will  now  return  to  the  Bible  usage  of  this  word ;  for,  after  all,  the 
usage  of  the  Jews  in  their  religious  writings,  as  all  the  best  critics  agree, 
must  determine  its  meaning,  as  applied  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  chris- 
tian baptism.  The  first  instance  in  which  baptizo  occurs,  is  in  2  Kings 
v.  14.  In  the  tenth  verse  we  are  told,  that  "  Elisha  sent  a  messenger  unto 
him,  (Naaman)  saying,  go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven  times,  and  thy  flesh 
shall  come  again  to  thee,"  &;c.  And  in  verse  fourteenth  we  learn,  that 
"  he  went  down  and  baptized  (baptizo)  h'\mse\i  seven  limes  in  Jordan, 
according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God."     Did  he  immerse  himself? 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I45 

He  was  told  simply  to  wash,  (louo  ;)  and  he  obeyed  the  direction.  Bap- 
tizo  appears  to  be  used  as  synonymous  with  louo,  which  all  admit  to  be 
a  generic  term,  signifying  simply  to  wash,  without  reference  to  mode. 
Jerom,  the  author  of  the  Vulgate,  translates  baptizo,  in  this  passage,  by 
the  Latin  word  lavo,  a  generic  term,  signifying  to  wash.  His  words 
are — "  Descendit,  et  lavit  in  Jordane  septies  juxta  sermonem  viri  Dei." 
"  He  went  down  and  washed  in  Jordan  seven  times,  according  to  the 
word  of  the  man  of  God."  This,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  is  the  only 
insttince  where  Jerom  translates  the  word  at  all.  There  certainly  is  no 
evidence  that  Naaman  immersed  himself. 

The  word  baptizo  occurs  again  in  the  book  of  Judith,  an  Apochryphal 
book,  ch.  xii.  7,  "  And  she  went  out  in  the  night,  into  the  valley  of  Be- 
ihulia,  and  baptized  herself  at  (epi)  a  fountain  of  water."  Here  is  a 
baptism  which  the  language  employed  and  the  attending  circumstances 
prove,  not  to  have  been  an  immersion.  She  baptized  or  washed  herself, 
not  into,  but  at  a  fountain.  It  was  a  fountain,  a  spring,  not  a  large 
stieara.  Did  she  immerse  herself  at  a  spring  ?  But  she  was  in  the 
military  camp  of  Holophernes,  where  regard  to  decency  forbid  her  im- 
mersing herself,  Mr.  Carson  admits,  that  she  did  not  immerse  herself  in 
the  spring ;  but  he  thinks,  perhaps,  there  was  a  stone  trough  there,  and 
that  she  got  into  it !  Our  friends,  when  pressed,  are  good  at  guessing. 
But,  as  I  have  said,  the  language  and  the  circumstances  alike  forbid  us  to 
believe,  that  she  immersed  herself.  Here,  then,  is  a  clear  example  of  the 
use  of  the  word  to  denote  washing  by  the  application  of  water  to  the 
body — by  pouring. 

Baptizo  occurs  in  Sirach  or  Ecclesiasticus,  ch.  xxxiv.  25,  as  follows : 
"  He  that  is  baptized  after  touching  a  dead  body,  (baptizomenos  apo 
nekroii,)  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  is  he  profited  by  his  washing? 
(loutro.'')  Here  is  a  baptism  which  is  expressly  called  a  washing. 
Baptizomenos  is  used  as  synonymous  with  loutron — a  washing.  By 
turning  to  Num.  xix.  16,  and  the  following  verses,  we  can  ascertain  how 
this  baptism  was  performed:  "  And  whosoever  toiicheth  one  that  is  slain 
with  a  sword  in  the  open  field,  or  a  dead  body,  or  a  bone  of  a  man,  or  a 
grave,  shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  And  for  an  unclean  person  they  shall 
take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  running 
water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel :  and  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hysop,  and  dip  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all 
the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were  there,  and  upon  him  that 
toucheth  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave ;  and  the  clean 
person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean,  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
seventh  day  :  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash 
his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even." 

Now,  it  is  certain  that  sprinkling  constituted  a  part  of  this  baptism  ; 
and  it  is  equally  certain,  that  no  immersion  was  required.  The  word 
translated  bathe,  in  this  passage,  is  rahafz — the  generic  Hebrew  word  for 
washing,  translated  in  the  Septuagint  by  louo — the  generic  Greek  term 
for  washing.  The  sprinkling,  moreover,  is  the  most  important  part  of 
this  baptism,  as  the  twentieth  verse  clearly  proves:  "But  the  man  that 
shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  among  the  congregation,  because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord  :  the  ivater  of  separation  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him;  he  is 
unclean."  Here,  then,  we  have  a  baptism  without  an  immersion,  the 
most  important  part  of  which  is  sprinkling. 
10  N 


146  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

These  two  passages  I  regard  as  of  great  importance  in  this  discussion ; 
because  they  show  the  sense  in  which  the  word  baptizo  was  understood 
by  the  Jews,  in  relation  to  their  religious  washings.  This  word,  let  it 
be  remembered,  had  long  been  in  use  among  the  Jews,  before  our  Savior 
appropriated  it  to  the  ordinance  of  christian  baptism.  He,  doubtless,  used 
it  nearly  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  found  it  employed  in  relation  to 
these  religious  washings.  When,  therefore,  I  prove  that  the  Jews  used 
it  to  express  the  application  of  water  to  the  person  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling, I  have  given  conclusive  evidence  that  our  Savior  used  it  in  that 
sense. 

I  come  now  to  the  New  Testament.  The  first  instance  in  which  we 
find  it  used  in  a  literal  sense,  and  not  in  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, is  in  Mark  vii.  4.  I  will  read  from  the  first  verse :  "  Then  came 
together  unto  him  the  Pharisees  and  certain  of  the  Scribes,  which  came 
from  Jerusalem.  And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread 
with  defiled  (that  is  to  say,  with  unwashen)  hands,  they  found  fault.  For 
the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not, 
holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, except  they  wash,  (baptizo)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  (baptisms) 
of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables." 

Now,  the  question  presents  itself.  Were  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews 
accustomed,  when  they  came  from  the  market  or  public  places,  always  to 
immerse  themselves  before  eating?  Observe,  the  only  charge  ever  made 
against  our  Savior  and  his  disciples  on  this  particular  subject,  was,  not 
that  they  did  not  immerse  themselves,  but  that  they  ate  with  defiled  or 
unwashen  hands.  Nor  did  they  charge  them  with  not  washing  their 
hands  by  dipping  them.  The  Jews  certainly  were  not  accustomed  to 
immerse  themselves  before  eating.  We  do  not  find  in  the  Bible,  nor 
elsewhere,  a  trace  of  any  such  general  practice.  Sorely,  if  such  a  cus- 
tom had  existed,  there  would  have  been  some  reference  to  it — some 
evidence  of  a  practice  so  remarkable.  Besides,  it  must  have  been  almost 
impossible  that  such  a  custom  could  exist.  Even  in  our  well-watered 
country,  we  should  find  it  extremely  difficult  and  inconvenient  to  immerse 
ourselves  every  time  we  return  from  a  public  place ;  and  in  the  dry 
country  inhabited  by  the  Jews,  it  must  have  been  far  more  difficult.  If 
any  one  can  believe  that  they  not  only  immersed  themselves  on  such 
occasions,  but  their  tables  or  couches  also,  let  him  believe  it.  I  cannot 
believe  things  so  utterly  improbable,  without  even  the  shadow  of  evidence. 

But  let  us  examine  the  translation  of  my  worthy  friend.  He  has  fol- 
lowed Dr.  George  Campbell,  who,  though  a  Presbyterian,  was  an  immer- 
sionist.  It  reads  thus,  "For  the  Pharisees,  and  indeed  all  the  Jews,  who 
observed  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not  except  they  have  washed 
their  hands  by  pouring  a  little  water  on  them,  and  if  they  be  come  from 
the  market,  by  dipping  thetn.^^  By  what  authority  the  phrase,  "by 
pouring  a  little  water  on  them,"  is  here  introduced,  I  know  not.  Can  it 
be,  that  the  little  adverb  pugme  contains  all  this?  If  so,  it  is  certainly 
the  most  remarkable  adverb  I  have  ever  seen!  I  assert  that  this  is  no  trans- 
lation at  all — it  is  not  akin  to  a  translation.  In  the  original  Greek  the  ex- 
pression, "  they  eat  not,"  occurs  twice.  One  of  these  expressions  the  gen- 
tleman has  thrown  out  in  order  to  get  in  the  phrase,  "  by  dipping  them !" 
for  if  he  had  not  rejected  part  of  the  Greek,  he  could  not  have  thus  trans- 
lated the  passage.      Having  got  part  of  the  Greek  out  of  his  way,  he 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I47 

makes  a  most  singular  reading  of  what  remains  !  The  Greek  phrase,  ean 
me  baptizontai,  (literally,  unless  they  baptize)  he  translates,  "  by  dipping 
them."  That  is,  he  takes  a  Greek  conjunction,  an  adverb,  and  a  verb 
in  the  third  person,  plural  number,  and  translates  them  by  a  preposition 
by,  a  participle  dipping,  and  adds  the  word  them,  which  is  not  in  the 
Greek  !!  Such  a  translation,  or  rather  such  a  perversion  of  Scripture  I 
do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen — and  all  to  sustain  the  claims  of  im- 


mersion 


Baptizo  occurs  again  in  Luke  xi,  38.  A  certain  Pharisee  asked  the 
Savior  to  dine  with  him  ;  and  he  went  and  sat  at  table.  "  And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  (baptized) 
before  dinner."  Did  the  Pharisee  wonder  that  the  Savior  had  not  gone  and 
immerserf  himself  before  dinner?  As  I  have  already  remarked,  we  find 
no  such  custom  prevailing,  and  the  only  charge  preferred  against  him  was 
that  he  did  not  ivash  his  hands.  But  let  me  read  Mr.  Campbell's  trans- 
lation of  this  passage ;  for  I  intend,  if  he  pleases,  to  have  him  help  me  in 
this  discussion.  His  translation  is  as  follows  :  "  But  the  Pharisee  was 
surprised  to  observe  that  he  used  no  washing  before  dinner."  Although 
the  gentleman  set  out  with  the  purpose  of  uniformly  translating  baptizo  to 
immerse,  he  could  not,  in  this  instance,  venture  to  do  so.  It  would  have 
looked  too  badly.  He  was  forced  to  give  it  its  true  meaning,  to  wash. 
The  Baptist  translation,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  renders  the  word  in  this 
passage  and  in  Mark  vii.  4,  to  bathe.  Although  the  authors  had  intended 
to  give  the  word  a  literal  translation,  they  could  not  venture  to  render  it 
immerse  in  these  passages.  In  both  these  instances  it  is  evident  that  it  is 
used  to  express  the  washing  of  the  hands,  which  among  the  Jews,  we 
know  was  commonly  done  by  pouring  water  on  them. 

This  word  occurs  once  more  in  a  literal  sense  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  where  the 
apostle  says  of  the  ceremonial  law,  "which  stood  in  meats  and  drinks,  and 
divers  washings  (baptisms)  and  carnal  ordinances."  Or  as  Mr.  Campbell's 
translation  runs  :  "  Only  with  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  immersions — 
ordinances  concerning  the  flesh,"  &c. 

I  have  no  objection  to  this  general  construction,  which  is  that  of  Knapp's 
Testament.  The  word  baptism  here  evidently  includes  all  the  religious 
washings  of  the  ceremonial  law.  And  it  is  a  fact,  that  all  those  washings, 
the  mode  of  which  was  prescribed,  were  hj  sprinkling.  It  is  also  a  fact, 
that  there  is  not  a  personal  immersion  required  in  the  law  of  Moses.  Ma- 
ny sprinklings  were  enjoined,  hut  not  an  important  immersion.  And  in  this 
same  chapter  some  of  those  sprinklings  are  mentioned.  The  divers  bap- 
tisms, then,  included  all  the  sprinklings,  pourings  and  washings  of  the 
law.  The  word,  therefore,  does  not  signify  immersion.  But  this  is  not 
the  only  evidence  I  have  to  offer  on  this  subject. — \_Time  expi'^ed. 

Friday,  Nov.  17 — 12  o^clock. 
[mr.  Campbell's  ninth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Mr.  Rice  is  so  far  in  advance  of  me,  that  I  cannot 
hope  soon  to  overtake  him.  Before  resuming  my  argument,  I  shall  briefly 
advert  to  so  many  of  his  remarks,  as  have  any  special  reference  to  the 
matters  introduced  by  myself.  The  other  and  foreign  matters,  when  they 
come  fairly  in  my  path,  may  probably  be  noticed. 

He  certainly  does  me  too  much  honor,  when  he  supposes,  or  pretends 
to  suppose,  that  I  am  sorely  pressed,  with  one  apparent  exception,  out  of 
at  least  ten  thousand  occurrences.     Even  suppose  he  had  made  out  one 


148  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN'  BAPTISM.  ♦ 

case,  if  I  were  to  multiply  all  the  versions  by  one  hundred  and  twenty , 
the  number  of  occurrences  of  this  word,  I  should  then  have  more  than 
ten  thousand  to  one.  How  fearful,  then,  is  a  single  exception  in  his  eyes'. 
But,  as  we  have  shown  that  he  has  not  yet  made  out  one  exception,  we 
shall  proceed  to  other  remarks  until  he  find  one. 

I  am  not  so  much  gratified  with  following  the  lead  of  others,  right  or 
wrong,  as  my  friend  would  make  me  say  Jerom  was  in  making  a  Bible. 
Had  I  been  led  by  Mr.  Rice  through  all  his  meanderings,  we  should  have 
been  wading  through  many  foreign  matters,  such  as  his  oft-related  read- 
ings on  various  versions,  with  which  this  age  is  every  where  replete — all 
of  which  are  as  irrelevant  here  as  St.  Cyprian's  disclosures  of  African 
learning  in  the  third  century. 

Probably  Jerom  had  before  him  the  Ethiopic  as  well  as  the  S3''riac  ver- 
sion then  extant,  and  as  many  judged  the  latter  equal  to  the  original, 
Jerom,  not  merely  from  his  esteem  and  admiration  of  Origen's  learning, 
may  have  followed  it.  All  the  use  I  made  of  Origen's  quotations  from 
the  Apocalypse,  was  to  shew  that  Jerom  from  that  source  alone  could  not 
but  have  known  the  different  reading,  and  that  Origen's  testimony  was  to 
him  a  confirmation  of  the  Syriac  reading — if,  indeed,  such  was  the  an- 
cient Syriac. 

The  gentleman,  in  good  keeping  with  other  assertions,  affirms  that  the 
translations  make  no  more  for  me,  than  for  him.  His  vision,  or  his  art 
of  making  assertions,  is  of  a  rare  character.  He  admits,  then,  they  make 
nothing  for  him  !     Well,  be  it  so  !     But  for  me  it  is  far  otherwise. 

To  make  out  his  assumption,  he  should  have  proved  that  the  transla- 
tions have,  but  in  one  instance,  translated  it  immerse.  Then  there  would 
have  been  some  slight  appearance  of  truth  in  the  assertion.  But  what 
are  the  facts  ?  Even  suppose  he  could  have  tortured  Mr.  Gotch,  whom 
he  first  introduced  into  this  discussion,  into  an  ambiguity,  and  rendered 
even  doubtful  the  old  Vulgate  and  Italic,  the  Arabic  and  the  Persic,  the 
Ethiopic,  &c.  &c.,  and  could  have  made  even  John  the  Baptist  pour  wa- 
ter upon  the  head  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  pictures  do,  what  would  all  this 
prove  !  Are  these  all  the  versions  ?  Not  the  half  of  them.  And  these, 
too,  Mr.  Gotch,  and  with  him  many  others  of  equal  learning,  have  proved 
to  be  on  our  side.  But  as  I  will  not  go  into  a  warfare  in  all  the  lan- 
guages of  the  world,  I  again  ask,  where  are  all  the  other  translators?  Has 
one  of  them  named  sprinkling  or  pouring?  No:  not  one  !  The  facts, 
the  solemn  and  irrefragable  facts  are: — many  of  them  have  always  used 
words  expressive  of  immersion,  all  of  them  have  sometimes  translated  it 
by  the  word  dip,  or  its  equivalent ;  and  some  of  the  moderns  are  not  only 
with  me  in  the  fact  of  having  translated  baptizo,  by  immerse,  but  like 
McKnight  and  Campbell,  in  approving  and  commending  it.  The  last 
named  two,  were  Presbyterians  of  the  highest  fame.  Dr.  McKnight  was 
prolocutor  or  chairman  of  the  whole  general  assembly  of  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland ;  and  Dr.  Campbell  was  some  time  president  of  the  Marischal 
College  of  Aberdeen,  and  Regius  professor  of  Scotch  Presbyterian  theol- 
ogy, and  the  most  profound  critic  and  translator  in  his  day.  Besides 
these,  all  the  twenty  English  versions,  public  and  private,  to  which  I 
have  referred,  a  majority  of  which  I  have  in  my  possession,  in  their  trans- 
lations, notes  and  comments,  are  decidedly  with  us  and  against  him. 
Some  of  these,  like  McKnight,  in  translating  the  "  diverse  washings"  of 
the  Hebrews,  by  "  diverse  immersion,"  and  the  passage  in  Mark, "  except 
they  wash  (into,  except  they  imwierse)  they  eat  not,"  have  taken  from  the 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  149 

Pedo-baptists  the  cases  of  "  washing^*  on  which  they  rely.  McKnight 
has  not  left,  then,  a  single  pin  on  which  to  hang  up  an  objection.  There 
is  a  great  difference  between  these  two  propositions ; — the  translations 
are  all  sometimes  with  ns ;  many  of  them  often  with  us,  some  of  them 
affirming  that  it  ought  always  to  have  been  immerse — and  the  proposi- 
tion;— not  one  of  them  is  ever  with  Mr.  Rice,  many  of  them  openly  against 
him,  and  some  of  them  reproaching  the  ancients  for  not  having  translated 
it  immerse.  Such  are  the  facts  of  the  two  cases — from  which  this  com- 
munity may  always  judge  how  much  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  my 
worthy  friend's  assertions. 

There  is  only  one  other  point  upon  this  subject  to  which  I  must  again 
recur.  The  gentleman  will,  by  the  force  of  reiteration  of  the  same  as- 
sumptions, keep  these  topics  on  hand  as  long  as  possible.  He  will  yet 
have  pouring,  sprinkling,  immersion,  modes  of  baptism.  If  each  of 
these  be  a  mode,  I  again  ask  what  is  the  substance  of  which  they  are 
modes?  They  are  not  the  thing  itself.  If,  for  example,  sprinkling  be 
the  action  Jesus  Christ  commanded,  how  can  immersion  be  a  mode  of 
sprinkling,  or  how  can  sprinkling  be  a  mode  of  immersion  ?  Will  the 
gentleman  deliver  himself  clearly  and  definitely  on  this  important  point  ? 
Surely  there  must  be  some  great  action  of  which  these  are  but  mere  modes. 
Mr.  Rice  will  not,  cannot,  dare  not,  say  that  these  three  terms  in  our  language 
.  are  not  specific.  He  has,  indeed,  if  I  mistake  not,  admitted  that  sprink- 
ling is  a  specific  word,  and  consequently  all  the  others.  It  does,  to  me 
at  least,  seem  very  strange  and  inexplicable,  that  some  persons  cannot 
learn  that  specific  words  can  have  but  one  meaning,  and  that  at  all  times. 
Take  again  the  words  ivalJc,  ride,  sail,  each  a  specific  mode  of  traveling. 
Travel  is  a  generic  word,  and  includes  them  all.  Not  one  of  them 
includes  travel,  while  travel  includes  them  all.  Men  can  travel  other  ways 
than  by  walking,  therefore  the  former  is  general  and  the  latter  special. 
Now  does  not  every  one  perceive  that  to  walk,  means  one  specific  action ; 
to  ride,  another ;  to  sail,  another  ?  If,  for  example,  to  ride  means  to 
walk,  suppose  you  were  told  that  A  B  walked  to  town,  could  you  know 
how  he  came,  whether  on  foot  or  on  horseback  ?  Two  meanings,  pardon 
the  incongruity,  two  meanings  to  a  specific  word  wholly  destroy  its 
sense,  effectually  make  it  meaningless.  Does  not  every  stripling  in  the 
"Congregation  perceive  that  this  is  so ;  and,  therefore,  assent  to  that  all- 
important  law  of  language,  that  specific  words  can  have  but  one  mean- 
ing. Let  any  one  who  wishes  to  convince  the  stupid  or  the  incredulous, 
select  a  few  specific  words — such  as  reading,  writing,  talking — and 
placing  one  in  another  room,  say  of  him  that  he  is  writing ;  and  on  the 
hypothesis  that  specific  words  have  two  or  three  meanings,  can  any  one 
who  is  told  that  he  is  writing,  know  what  he  is  doing  1  It  is  impossible, 
utterly  impossible.  Am  I  not  now  understood  and  believed  by  every  one 
in  the  assembly  ?  I  shall  hereafter  presume,  that  I  am  universally 
understood  on  this  highly  important,  though  I  am  sorry  to  say  much  neg- 
lected branch  of  criticism,  so  vital  to  the  question  now  in  debate. 

Now,  as  Mr.  Rice  admits  that  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  dipping,  are 
just  as  specifically  different  as  reading,  writing,  talking,  walking,  riding, 
sailing,  flying,  &.e.,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  reason  and  consistency,  must 
not  their  representatives  in  other  languages  be  specific  too  !!  Why  should 
dip  be  specific  in  English  and  not  in  Greek  ?  Or  will  he  assume  the  all- 
■confounding  position  that  a  word  in  one  language  can  represent  both  gen- 
«xic  and  specific  terms  in  another  ?     This  would  be  still   more  prepos- 


150  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

terous.  This  law  of  language,  as  I  shall  call  it,  will  certainly  settle  this 
controversy  one  day,  with  all  scholars  ;  with  persons  of  real  learning  and 
unprejudiced  minds.  I  am  glad  of  the  occasion  of  delivering  myself, 
even  partially  upon  it;  and  that  it  is  about  to  be  stereotyped.  I  am  will- 
ing to  risk  upon  it,  with  an  intelligent  community,  what  little  reputa- 
tion I  have  for  discrimination  in  the  use  and  application  of  language. 

I  have  before  said  that  from  specific  acts  many  effects  may  follow.  A 
person  may,  for  example,  be  dipped  in,  or  sprinkled  with,  a  hundred  sub- 
stances, each  of  which  will,  of  course,  produce  a  difl'erent  effect;  such  as 
fire,  water,  milk,  honey,  wine,  tar,  sand,  mire,  &c.  How  absurd  would 
it  be  to  make  all  these  effects  the  meaning  of  the  word  dip.  1  own  that  in 
consequence  of  the  original  fewness  of  words  in  all  languages,  by  the  figure 
metalepsis,  or  metonymy,  or  metaphor,  or  synecdoche,  &,c.  words  were 
used  rhetorically  and  figuratively  to  represent  different  things ;  and  there- 
fore, the  most  common  effects  of  actions  in  dictionaries  are  sometimes 
wisely,  and  sometimes  not  wisely,  but  very  unwisely  appended  to  words. 
Hence  the  law  and  the  usage  of  reprobating  the  figurative  meanings  of 
words,  because  unsafe  and  always  changing,  in  the  passing  of  laws  and 
ordinances.  Baptizo  therefore,  has  but  one  proper  meaning,  and  every 
effect  ascribed  to  it  in  books  is  to  be  received  as  every  one  pleases,  but 
dip  must  be  received  by  all. 

I  hope  I  may  be  excused  in  these  efforts  to  establish  a  great  principle, 
not  before,  as  far  as  I  know,  developed  or  applied  in  this  controversy,  I 
know  the  distinction  between  specific  and  generic  words  is  as  old  as  Aris- 
tode;  but  the  full  development  of  the  distinction,  and  its  importance  in 
language,  and  especially  in  this  controversy,  have  not,  so  far  as  known 
to  me,  at  all  received  a  proper  attention.  I  honestly  consider  it  of  more 
importance  than  all  the  display  of  words  and  specifications  of  examples 
adduced  on  this  occasion.  They  indeed,  generally,  go  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  law  ;  but  beyond  that  they  effect  but  little. 

It  would  be  well  to  canvass  this  law  of  language  to  the  bottom.  I  am 
prepared  for  it,  and  am  willing  to  stake  the  whole  question  of  the  action 
of  baptism  upon  its  truth  and  validity.  Will  my  respondent  please  dis- 
cuss this  point,  and,  in  his  own  style,  develop  to  us  the  specific  action, 
of  which  his  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  modes  ? 

In  my  rich  resources  of  evidence,  and  in  my  exuberant  liberality,  I  feel 
disposed,  just  at  this  point,  to  tender  to  my  friend,  Mr.  R.,  another  universal 
proposition.  I  have,  indeed,  taken  upon  myself  a  work  of  supereroga- 
tion, a  task  wholly  gratuitous  and  uncalled  for,  the  labor  of  sustaining 
four  universal  propositions.  Has  any  one  ever  before  presumed  so  much 
upon  the  strength  of  his  cause,  as  thus,  in  the  very  commencement,  to 
take  to  himself  such  a  labor,  and  give  to  his  antagonist  such  an  easy  task 
as  only  to  make  out  one  single  exception :  for  one  well  established  ex- 
ception will  reduce  a  universal  proposition  to  a  general  one.  If  any 
word  in  Greek,  Latin,  or  English,  will  allow  any  man  to  be  so  liberal  and 
generous — baptizo  is  diat  word.  The  master  knew  well  what  he  said, 
and  what  he  did,  when  he  issued  the  precept  "baptize  them."  I  say, 
I  am  prepared  to  risk  another  universal  proposition,  which  attacks  ano- 
ther department,  a  main  post  on  the  negative  side  of  the  question.  I  wiE 
then  expose  another  side  to  the  assaults  of  my  opponent. 

I  affirm,  then,  that  all  the  sprinklings  and  pourings  of  the  law,  from 
Moses  to  Christ,  required  something  more  than  water  to  effect  any  legal 
ceremonial,  or  typical  cleansing.     By  an  induction  of  all  the  cases  oa 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  151 

recoi-d,  it  will  appear  most  evident,  that,  to  give  any  efficacy  or  value  to 
sprinkling,  sometliing  more  than  -water  was  required.  Hence  the  addi- 
tion of  blood,  or  its  substitute,  the  ashes  of  a  blood-red  heifer,  was  essen- 
tial to  every  purgation  in  which  water  was  sprinkled.  To  give  to  this 
proposition  another  form,  and  that  Mr.  R.  may  easily  disprove  it,  I  assert, 
that  from  the  creation  till  now,  in  all  time,  the  great  Lawgiver  of  the  uni- 
verse never  commanded  any  thing  to  be  sprinkled  with  water  alone,  in 
order  to  its  legal,  ceremonial,  or  moral  purification,  or  cleansing;  a  fact 
which  can  be  disproved  by  a  single  instance,  and  which,  if  true,  most 
significantly  and  solemnly  inhibits  the  Papistical  custom  of  sprinkling 
water,  though,  I  believe,  except  in  baptism,  the  Romanists  generally  use 
holy  water.  A  single  example  from  Moses  or  the  prophets ;  from  the 
Messiah  or  his  apostles,  of  the  pouring  or  sprinkling  of  water,  per  se,  of 
v/ater  unmixed  with  some  purifying  ingredient,  will  be  accepted  on  my 
part  as  a  full  refutation  of  this,  my  fourth  universal  proposition.  Unless, 
however,  some  such  precept  be  produced,  or  some  example  be  offered, 
of  some  person  (I  care  not  who — man,  woman,  or  child,)  having  had 
water  poured,  or  sprinkled,  upon  him  by  divine  authority,  the  cause  of 
rantism,  or  of  affusion,  with  water  alone  and  unmixed,  is  sunk  forever. 
AVhen  I  say  Mr.  Rice  cannot  do  this,  I  would  not  be  understood  as  at  all 
disparaging  his  acquaintance  with  the  Bible.  I  have  just  as  much  confi- 
dence in  his  ability  to  do  this,  as  in  any  minister  of  that  portion  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  wiiich  he  represents  on  the  present  occasion.  I 
know,  indeed,  that  no  man  can  do  it.  Therefore  my  proposition  will 
stand  till  tlie  christian  dispensation  ends.  If  a  fair  impersonation  of  the 
Biblical  learning  of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  Kentucky,  a  highly 
respectable  community,  cannot  do  this,  I  am  sure  that  this  congregation 
will  acquiesce  with  me  in  opinion,  that  no  other  branch  of  the  church  of 
denominations  can  do  it.  This  proposition,  also,  as  far  as  known  to  me, 
has  never  been  affirmed  in  any  discussion  of  this  question ;  I  thei'efore 
solicit  for  it  a  thorough  examination,  and  refutation,  if  possible. 

Leaving,  then,  these,  my  four  universal  propositions,  in  the  hands  of 
my  friend,  to  be  disposed  of  as,  in  his  judgment,  best  he  can,  I  shall  pro- 
ceed in  my  regular  line  of  march  in  the  maintenance  of  the  proposition 
before  us;  reminding  him,  however,  that  not  in  my  opinion  only,  but  I 
presume  (so  much  upon  my  knowledge  of  the  human  mind,  and  of  this 
community  especially,  to  say)  in  public  opinion  also,  that  if  only  one 
of  the  four  stands  erect,  sprinkling  and  pouring,  as  baptism,  must  fall  to 
the  ground.     How  impossible  to  hold  it  up  if  they  all  stand  ? 

I  shall  finish  my  present  address  by  reading  a  few  extracts  from  my 
yet  unpublished  book  on  baptism ;  a  portion  only,  and  but  a  small  por- 
tion of  its  documents  can,  I  perceive,  find  admission  into  this  discussion. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  volume  more  of  facts  and  documents  than  any  thing  else. 
For,  when  these  are  laid  before  the  public,  not  much  argument  will  be 
needed.  The  two  or  three  extracts  yet  to  be  read,  are  from  the  transla- 
tors, in  farther  proof  of  my  fourth  argument  founded  on  them.  I  open 
this  venerable  volume,  280  years  lodged  within  this  cover,  reaching  back 
almost  to  the  age  of  Calvin  and  Beza.  It  is  the  celebrated  and  learned 
Latin  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  Junius  and  Tremmelius,  and  the 
New  Testament  by  Beza — from  whom,  in  addition  to  another  reading,  I 
shall  only  now  read  his  note  on  Rom.  vi.  4 — "We  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,"  &c.  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  ancient  man- 
ner of  baptizing.     This  is,  then,  a  clear  testimony  from  this  translator, 


152  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

that,  in  the  apostolic  age,  immersion  was  understood  to  be  the  meaning 
of  baptisma.     Ahnost  in  the  same  words  speaks  John  Wesley. 

I  shall  conclude  this  argument  by  two  short  extracts  from  our  Ameri- 
can apostle,  Stuart  of  Andover.  He  closed  my  first  argument,  and  he 
shall  close  my  fourth. 

"  That  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were  familiar  with  the 
Greek,  understood  the  usual  import  of  the  word  baplizo,  would  hardly  seem 
to  be  capable  of  a  denial.  That  tiiey  might  be  confirmed  in  their  view  of 
the  import  of  this  word,  by  common  usage  among  the  Greek  classic  au- 
thors, we  have  seen  in  the  first  part  of  this  dissertation. 

"  For  myself,  then,  I  cheerfully  admit  that  baptizo,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, when  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  does  in  all  probability  invole  the 
idea,  that  this  rite  was  usually  performed  by  immersion,  but  not  always." — 
Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  p.  S62. 

I  leave  my  friend,  Mr.  Stuart,  to  explain  his  "no?  always.,''''  as  best  he 
can ;  his  usually  is  enough  for  me.  And,  so  long  as  one  of  our  greatest 
American  Biblical  scholars  and  Pedo-baptisls  has  said,  that  the  apostles 
usually  immersed,  or  that  such  is  the  New  Testament  acceptation  of  the 
word,  I  care  not  should  Mr.  R.  a  thousand  times  say,  that  there  is  neither 
in  philology,  nor  in  history,  proof  that  baptizo  means  to  immerse.' 

V.  My  fifth  argument  and  fourth  class  of  witnesses,  in  support  of  my 
first  proposition,  shall  consist  of  the  testimony  of  Reformers,  Annotators, 
Paraphrasts,  and  Critics,  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baplism,  se- 
lected, not  from  amongst  the  Baptists,  but  from  amongst  the  Pedo-baptist 
writers,  who  have  regarded  sprinkling  a  more  convenient,  comfortable, 
and  polite  usage.  I  place  at  the  head  of  the  list,  the  reformer  and  trans- 
lator, Martin  Liither.  In  the  fifth  of  the  Smallcald  articles,  drawn  up  by 
Luther,  he  says — "  Baptism  is  nothing  else  than  the  word  of  God  with 
immersion  in  water." 

"  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may  be  translated  immersion,  as  when 
we  immerse  something  in  water,  that  it  may  be  wholly  covered.  And 
altliough  it  is  almost  wholly  abolished,  (for  they  do  not  dip  the  whole  chil- 
dren, but  only  pour  a  little  water  on  them)  they  ought  nevertheless  to  be^ 
wholly  immersed,  and  then  immediately  drawn  out ;  for  that  t/ie  etymology 
of  the  word  seems  to  demand,''^  •'  Washing  of  sins  is  attributed  to  baptism ; 
it  is  truly,  indeed,  attributed,  but  the  signification  is  softer  and  slower  than 
jt  can  express  baptism,  which  is  rather  a  sign  both  of  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. Being  moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  that  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, to  be  altogether  dipt  into  the  water,  as  the  word  doth  sound,  and  the 
mystery  doth  signify." — Op.  vol.  i.  336. 

Calvin  :  "  The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  that 
immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church." — lastit.  b.  iv.  s.  15. 

Grotius:  The  great  Grotius  says,  "  That  this  rite  was  wont  to  be  per- 
formed by  immersion,  and  not  by  perfusion,  appears  both  by  the  propriety 
of  the  word  and  the  places  chosen  for  its  administration,  John  iii.  23,  Acts 
viii.  38,  and  by  the  many  allusions  of  the  apostles,  which  cannot  be  referred 
to  sprinkling,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  Col.  ii.  12.  The  custom  of  perfiision  or  asper- 
sion seems  to  have  obtained  some  time  after,  in  favor  of  such  who,  lying 
dangerously  ill,  were  desirous  to  dedicate  themselves  to  Christ.  These 
were  called  Clinics  by  other  christians.  See  Cyprian's  epistle  to  Magnus 
to  this  purpose.  Nor  should  we  wonder  that  the  old  Latin  fathers  used 
iingere  for  baptizare,  seeing  the  Latin  word  tingo  does  properly  and  gener- 
ally signify  the  same  as  mersare,  to  immerse  or  plunge." — J\Iatl.  iii.  6.    Gale. 

Dionysius  Petavius  :  "  And  indeed,"  says  he,  "  immersion  is  properly 
gtyled  baptismos,  though  at  present  we  content  ourselves  with  pouring  water 
on  the  head,  which  in  Greek  is  cd.\\ed  perixusis,  that  is  perichysm,  if  I  may 
so  anglicise^  but  not  baptism." 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  153 

Casaubon  :  "  For  the  manner  of  baptizing,"  says  he,  "  was  to  plunge  or 
dip  them  into  the  water,  as  even  the  word  baptizein  itself  plainly  enough 
shows,  which,  as  it  does  not  signify  dunein,  to  sink  down  and  perish,  neither 
certainly  does  it  signify  epipolazein,  to  swira  or  float  a-top  ;  these  three 
words,  cpipelazein,  baptizein,  dunein,  being  very  different." 

Vitringa:  "  The  act  of  baptizing  is  the  immersion  of  believers  in  water. 
This  expresses  the  force  of  the  word." — Aphor,  Sane.  Theol,  Aphoris.  884. 

Salmasius  :  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  and  was  administered  in  former 
times  according  to  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word." — De  Ccesarie  Viro- 
rum,  p.  669. 

Hospinianus :  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized  ;  by  which  it  is  cer- 
tain immersion  is  signified." — Hist,  Sactram.  1.  ii.  c.  i.  30. 

Zanchius :  "  The  proper  signification  of  baptize  is  to  immerse,  plunge 
under,  to  overwhelm  in  water." 

Alstedius:  "  To  baptize  signifies  only  to  immerse  ;  not  to  wash,  except 
by  consequence." 

Witsius  :  "  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  native  signification  of  the  words 
baptein  and  baptizein,  is  to  plunge,  to  dip." — In.  His.  Ecc.  p.  138. 

Gurtlerus :  "  To  baptize,  among  the  Greeks,  is  undoubtedly  to  immerse, 
to  dip  ;  and  baptism  is  immersion,  dipping.  Baptismos  en  Pneumati  hagio, 
baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  immersion  into  the  pure  waters  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  for  he  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  is  poured  out,  is,  as  it  were,  im- 
mersed into  him.  Baptismos  en  puri,  '  baptism  in  fire,'  is  a  figurative 
expression,  and  signifies  casting  into  a  flame,  which,  like  water,  flows  far 
and  wide  ;  such  as  the  flame  that  consumed  Jerusalem.  The  thing  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  is  baptism,  immersion  into  water." — Institut.  Theo.  cap» 
xxxiii.  5  108,  109,  110,  115. 

Buddaeus :  "  The  words  baptizein  and  baptismos,  are  not  to  be  interpreted 
of  aspersions,  but  always  of  immersion." — Theolog.  Dogmat,  1.  v.  c.  i.  \  5. 

Ewing,  of  Glasgow :  "  Baptizo,  in  its  primary  and  radical  sense,  I  cover 
with  water.  It  is  used  to  denote,  1st.  I  plunge,  or  sink  completely  under 
water." 

Leigh  :  "  The  native  and  proper  signification  of  it  [baptize']  is,  to  dip  into 
water,  or  to  plunge  under  water." 

Bossuet :  "  To  baptize  signifies  to  plunge,  as  is  granted  by  all  the  world." 

Vossius,  as  quoted  by  Gale  :  "  The  great  Vossius  speaks  exactly  to  the 
same  purpose,  and  indeed  almost  in  the  same  words ;  for  without  ever 
taking  the  least  notice  oi  lavo,  or  the  like,  he  expressly  says,  that  bapto  and 
baptizo  are  rendered  by  mergo,  or  mergito,  and  tingo,  yet  they  properly  sig- 
nify mergo;  and  tingo  only  by  a  metalepsis,  i.  e.  as  tingo  implies  mergo; 
«.nd  therefore  he  adds,  tinging  follows  immersion,  and  is  done  by  it." 

Venema  :  "  The  word  baptizein,  to  baptize,  is  nowhere  used  in  the  Scrip- 
ture for  sprinkling." — V.  p.  5. 

Bloomfieid  :  "  There  is  here  [Rom.  vi.  4,]  plainly  a  reference  to  the  an- 
cient mode  of  baptism  by  immersion ;  and  I  agree  with  Koppe  and  Rosen- 
muUer,  that  there  is  reason  to  regret  it  should  have  been  abandoned  in 
most  christian  churches,  especially  as  it  has  so  evident  a  reference  to  the 
mystic  sense  of  baptism." 

Scholz,  on  Matt.  iii.  6 :  "  Baptism  consists  in  the  immersion  of  the 
whole  body  in  water." 

Augusti:  "The  word,  baptism,  according  to  the  etymology  and  usage, 
signifies  to  immerse,  submerge,  &;c.,  and  the  choice  of  the  word  betrays  an 
age  in  which  the  later  custom  of  sprinkling  had  not  been  introduced." 

Buttmann,  in  his  Larger  Grammar,  simply  puts  down,  "  bapto,  to  im- 
merse." 

Edinburgh  Reviewers  of  Carson's  work :  "  They  tell  me,  (says  Mr.  Car- 
son,) that  it  was  unnecessary  to  bring  forward  any  of  the  examples  to  prove 
that  the  word  signifies  to  dip — that  I  might  have  commenced  with  this  as  a 

FIXED  POINT  UNIVERSALLY  ADMITTED." [THmC    expired. 


154  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Friday,  Nov.  17 — Wh  o^ clock. 
[mr.  rice's  ninth  REPEY.3 

It  is  true,  Mr.  President,  I  have  got  ahead  of  the  gentleman  ;.  and  I  ani 
apprehensive  he  will  not  overtake  nie.  I  presume  my  cause  is  somewhat 
easier  to  manage  than  his.  He,  doubtless,  could  travel  as  fast,  perhaps 
faster  than  I,  if  he  had  no  heavier  burden  to  bear.  When  a  giant  travels 
so  slowly  that  even  a  small  man  can  get  ahead  of  him,  there  is  pretty 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  has  a  heavy  burden. 

He  tells  you  that  I  have  found  but  one  passage  in  which  bapto  is  trans- 
lated to  sprinkle,  and  that  he  has  thousands  of  others  to  sustain  his  position. 
This  is  a  mistake.  I  have  produced  a  number,  and  can  produce  many 
more  from  the  classics,  where  there  could  be  no  dipping ;  where  the 
fluid  must  have  been  applied  to  the  subject,  not  the  subject  dipped  into 
the  fluid,  I  have  produced  several  examples  from  the  Bible  of  the  same 
kind  ;  and  I  have  stated  the  fact,  which  he  has  not  ventured  to  deny, 
that  though  bapto  occurs  some  twenty  times  or  more,  in  the  Old  and  New- 
Testaments,  there  are  not  more  than  four  or  five  instances  in  which  it 
expresses  an  immersion.  I  quoted  the  passage  relative  to  Nebuchadnez- 
zar's baptism  in  dew,  to  show  that  in  this  instance,  bapto  means  even  less 
than  sprinkling.  Jerom,  the  author  of  the  Vulgate,  though  favorable  to 
immersion,  did  not  translate  the  word  immerse,  in  this  instance.  The 
Geneva  Bible  translates  it  bedewed — "  his  body  was  bedewed  with  dew." 
I  have  produced  three  of  the  most  valuable  ancient  versions  in  which 
bapto  is  translated  by  the  word  sprinkle. 

The  gentleman  guesses  that  .lerom  had  the  Svriac  version  before  him, 
when  he  translated  it  to  sprinkle.  But  did  not  Jerom  know  the  meaning 
of  bapto  ?  The  Greek  was  then  a  living  language,  which  he  constantly 
read  and  heard  spoken  ;  and  if  he  could  not  ascertain  its  meaning,  we  shall 
scarcely  succeed  in  learning  it.  But  the  Syriac  is  itself  a  translation 
from  the  Greek.     There  is  no  escape  for  my  friend. 

The  English  translations,  the  gentleman  says,  are  with  him,  and  he  re- 
fers particularly  to  Campbell's  and  McKnight's.  But  neither  of  these  men 
ventured  uniformly  or  commonly  to  translate  baptizo  to  immerse.  And 
if  they  had,  who,  I  ask,  has  ever  adopted  their  translations  instead  of  the 
common  version  ?  Both  of  these  men,  though  Presbyterians,  were  favor- 
able to  immersion.  We  do  not  excommunicate  men  for  such  an  opinion. 
Hence  we  have  had,  from  time  to  time,  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  men 
•who  were  in  some  sense  immersionists.  Still  none  of  them  could  ever 
see  the  truth  of  Mr.  C's.  doctrine,  that  our  Savior  commanded  specifically 
immersion  as  the  only  valid  baptism.  But  let  the  gentleman,  if  he  can, 
produce  one  respectable  English  translation,  that  renders  baptizo  to  im- 
merse. I  believe  he  cannot  find  one,  g9od  or  bad,  except  his  own  and 
that  recently  published  by  the  Baptists,  that  will  sustain  him.  The 
whole  of  the  English  translators,  so  far  as  I  know,  translate  the  word  by 
a  generic  term. 

My  friend  again  criticises  the  expression  7node  of  baptism.  He  asks, 
if  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion  are  modes,  what  is  the  substance? 
And  I  ask  him,  if  sprinkling,  pouring  and  dipping  are  modes  oi'  washing, 
what  is  the  substance?  As  I  have  repeatedly  said,  washing,  cleansing 
may  be  performed  in  difi'erent  modes.  So  water,  as  an  emblem  of  cleans- 
ing, may  be  applied  in  difi'erent  ways.  You  tell  your  son  to  wash  his 
hands.  May  he  not  obey  you,  either  by  dipping  them  into  water,  or  by 
pouring  water  on  them  ?     The  substance  of  baptism  is  the  application 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  155 

of  water  to  a  suitable  subject  by  an  authorized  minister,  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity      I  hope  this  will  be  satisfactory. 

If  baptizo  is  a  specific  word,  the  gentleman  argues,  it  never  can  be- 
come generic.  This  cannot  be  proved.  But  I  deny  that  baptizo  is  a 
specific  word.  I  have  proved  by  the  best  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern, 
that  it  has  several  distinct  meanings.  Consequently,  according  to  a  uni- 
versal rule  of  language,  the  connection  must  determine  in  any  particular 
case,  which  meaning  is  to  be  attached  to  it. 

Mr.  C.  has  told  us,  that  all  the  lexicons  prefer  immerse  as  the  proper 
and  literal  meaning  of  baptizo.  I  have  called  on  him  to  produce  one  lex- 
icon of  the  New  Testament,  that  gives  immerse  as  its  first  meaning.  He 
has  not  produced  one. 

He  tells  you  he  has  in  his  conscious  strength  presented  his  broadside 
to  the  enemy,  so  as  to  give  the  fairest  opportunity  to  fire  into  him.  True, 
his  broadside  is  toward  the  enemy.  A  vessel  at  sea  sometimes  gets  into 
such  a  predicament,  that  it  cannot  avoid  presenting  its  broadside.  The 
sails  and  rigging  are  cut  away,  it  becomes  unmanageable,  and  is  obliged 
to  receive  the  enemy's  shot.  In  such  cases  it  is  better,  perhaps,  to  make 
a  virtue  of  necessity,  and  to  appear  to  have  taken  such  a  position  as  matter 
of  choice. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  made  a  broad  assertion,  which  he  seems  to 
consider  of  great  importance,  viz:  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  alone 
was  never  commanded,  as  a  mode  of  purification.  I  will  suggest  to  him 
a  single  passage,  which  will  destroy  the  whole  force  of  his  universal  as- 
sertion, if  indeed  it  has  any  force.  Ezekiel  says,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness  and 
from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  Will  the  gentleman,  in  view  of 
this  passage,  deny  that  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  is  a  suitable  emblem 
of  purification  ?  This  passage  will  answer  for  the  present.  I  think  it  will 
appear,  as  we  progress,  that  he,  with  his  broadside  exposed,  frequently 
makes  very  positive  assertions,  which  cannot  be  of  service  to  his  cause, 
whilst  he  fails  to  prove  positions  absolutely  essential  to  save  it  from  ruin. 

He  told  us,  he  would  ere  long  get  out  of  the  brush  ;  and  I  had  hoped  to 
see  him  in  the  Bible,  for  he  boasts  of  going  by  the  Book.  But  I  begin  to 
fear,  that  he  will  not  reach  it.  The  best  works  he  can  get  to  sustain  his 
cause,  it  would  seem,  are  sixteen  hundred  years  too  late  for  inspiration. 
He  appeals  to  Beza,  Calvin,  and  divers  other  learned  men.  Beza  was  a 
learned  man ;  and  so  were  Luther  and  Calvin.  But  men  in  the  midst  of 
such  a  revolution  as  that  in  which  they  were  destined  to  act  so  prominent 
a  part,  were  not  likely  to  turn  their  attention  very  particularly  to  such  a 
subject  as  we  are  now  discussing.  They  had  themselves  but  just  emerged 
from  the  midnight  darkness  of  Popery  ;  they  found  it  necessary  to  lay  anew 
the  very  foundation  of  christian  doctrine ;  in  doing  which  their  lives  were 
often  in  danger.  Is  it  likely,  that  men  under  such  circumstances  would 
thoroughly  investigate  the  mode  of  baptism — a  subject  which  then  excited 
little  or  no  interest  ?  Calvin  considered  it  a  matter  of  entire  indifference. 
And  is  it  common  for  men  to  investigate,  at  any  great  length,  subjects  in 
which  they  feel  no  interest  ?  Calvin  wrote  a  system  of  theology,  which, 
I  believe,  contains  aboutybi<r  lines  on  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  in  these 
lines  he  declared  his  opinion,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  He  had 
enough  to  do  without  discussing  modes  and  forms. 

Beza  differs  from  both  Mr.  C.  and  myself.  He  makes  baptizo  mean 
immerse,  and  also  to  wash  ;  and  to  dip  for  the  purpose  of  dyeing.     In 


156  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

this  last  particular,  my  friend  says,  he  was  wrong ;  and  yet  he  would  have 
me  think,  he  is,  as  to  immersion,  in  the  right! 

Lutlier,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  seems  to  have  been  favorable  to  im- 
mersion ;  and  yet  he  did  not  translate  baptizo  to  immerse.  I  have  his 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which,  as  I  have  repeatedly  stated, 
he  makes  John  the  Baptist  say — "  I  baptize  you  tvith  water,  (mit  wasser) 
He  shall  baptize  you  with  (init)  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  in  which  he 
translates  the  word  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  by  a  generic  term, 
meaning  to  wash.  Now,  since  he  was  favorable  to  immersion,  why  did 
he  not  do  as  my  friend  Mr.  C.  has  done — translate  baptizo  to  immerse? 
Why  did  he  not  make  John  say,  "  I  baptize  you  in  water  "?  Evidendy 
he  was  not  convinced  that  such  was  definitely  its  meaning. 

But  ihe  gendeman  quotes  John  Wesley  as  sustaining  immersion.  Let 
us  hear  Wesley  speak  for  himself.     He  says — 

"  The  mailer  of  this  sacrament  is  water,  which,  as  it  has  a  natural  power 
of  cleansing,  is  the  more  fit  for  this  symbolical  use.  Baptism  is  performed 
by  waskiug,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the  person  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  hereby  devoted  to  the  ever  blessed  Trinity, 
1  say,  by  washing,  sprinkling,  or  dipping ;  because  it  is  not  determined  in 
Scripture  in  which  of  these  ways  it  shall  be  done,  neither  by  any  express 
precept,  nor  by  any  such  example  as  clearly  proves  it  ;  nor  by  the  force  or 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism." — Wesley,  p.  144. 

Wesley  says  the  word  cannot  prove  immersion,  nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  the  Bible  that  does  prove  it. 

It  is  true,  Stuart  has  admitted  too  much  ;  and  it  is  equally  true,  that  he 
has  not  admitted  half  enough  for  my  friend.  He  expresses  his  firm  con- 
viction that  immersion  was  not  always  practiced  by  the  apostles.  The 
gentleman  tells  you  that  Stuart  has  admitted  that  the  ancient  church  prac- 
ticed immersion.  He  does  say  that  the  ancient  church  immersed  three 
times,  divesting  the  persons  of  all  their  garments.  I  will  read  on  p.  97 
of  Stuart  on  Baptism. 

"  I  go  farther  with  this  argument.  If  you  take  your  stand  on  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  churches,  in  the  days  of  the  early  christian  fathers,  and 
charge  me  with  departure  from  this  ;  in  my  turn,  I  have  the  like  charge  to 
make  against  you.  It  is  notorious  and  admits  of  no  contradiction,  that 
baptism  in  those  days  of  immersion,  was  administered  to  men,  women,  and 
children,  in  puris  naluralibus,  naked  as  Adam  and  Eve,  before  their  fall. 
The  most  tender,  delicate  and  modest  females,  young  and  old,  could  obtam 
no  exception,  where  immersion  must  be  practiced.  The  practice  was 
pleaded  for  and  insisted  upon,  because  it  was  thought  to  be  apostolic.  At 
all  events  it  began  very  early  in  the  christian  church." 

If  this  is  the  mode  of  baptizing  for  which  the  gentleman  is  contending, 
I  will  not  oppose  him!  But  if  he  will  not  follow  the  example  of  the  an- 
cient church,  why  does  he  plead  its  authority. 

Witsius  was  a  learned  man.  He,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  C,  says,  the  na- 
tive signification  of  baptizo  is,  to  immerse.  This,  as  I  have  repeatedly 
said,  I  could  admit  without  injury  to  my  cause.  Very  few  words  retain 
their  native  or  original  signification.  Therefore  critics  tell  us,  that  ety- 
mology, which  teaches  the  native  meaning  of  words,  is  a  very  uncertain 
guide  in  interpretation.  The  question  before  us  is,  not  what  the  word 
baptizo  meant,  when  first  used  by  pagan  Greeks,  but  what  was  its  mean- 
ing amongst  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 

But  if  the  controversy  is  to  be  determined  by  the  opinions  of  learned 
men,  I  will  sustain  my  position  by  as  great  an  array  of  learning  and 
talent,  as  the  gentleman  can  produce  in  his  favor. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  157 

Dr.  Owen  is  admitted  to  have  been  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  learned 
men.     He  says : 

"Baptizo  signifies  to  wash;  as  instances  out  of  all  authors  may  be  given, 
Suidas,  Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux,  Phavorinus,  and  Eustachius.  It  is  first 
used  in  the  Scripture,  Mark  i.  8,  John  i.  33,  and  to  the  same  purpose  in 
Acts  i.  5.  In  every  place  it  either  signifies  to  pour,  or  the  expression  is 
equivocal.  "I  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost ;"  which  is  the  accomplishment  of  that  promise,  « that  the  Holy 
Ghost  shall  be  poured  on  them.'"  Again — "  No  one  place  can  be  given  in 
the  Scriptures,  wherein  baptizo  doth  necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or 
plunge.''''  Again — '•  In  this  sense,  as  it  expresseth  baptism,  it  denotes  to 
wash  only,  and  not  to  -dip  at  all :  for  so  it  is  expounded,  Tit.  iii.  5,"  &c. 
Again — "Wherefore  in  this  sense,  as  the  word  is  applied  unto  the  ordi- 
nance, the  sense  of  dipping  is  utterly  excluded." — Oweti's  Works,  vol.  xxi. 
p.  557. 

Dr.  George  Hill,  principal  of  St.  Mary's  College,  St.  Andrews,  was  an 
eminently  learned  man.  He  says — "  Both  sprinkling  and  immersion  are 
implied  in  the  word  baptizo;  both  were  used  in  the  religious  ceremonies  of 
the  Jews,  and  both  may  be  considered  as  significant  of  the  purpose  of  bap- 
tism,""&c. — HiWs  Divinity,  p.  659. 

Dr.  John  Dick,  Professor  of  Theology  to  the  United  Session  Church, 
was  a  learned  man;  and  his  system  of  Theology  is  a  standard  worlf.  He 
says,  concerning  bapto :  "  Examples,  however,  have  been  produced,  from 
which  it  appears,  that  tlie  idea  sometimes  conveyed  even  by  this  verb, 
which  it  is  commonly  admitted  signifies  to  dip,  is  that  of  sprinkling-,  rather 
than  of  dipping."  Concerning  baptizo  he  says — "  We  here  see  that  nothing 
certain  as  to  mode  can  be  learned  from  the  original  term  baptizo,  because 
it  has  different  meanings,  signifying  sometimes  to  immerse,  and  sometimes 
to  wash,"  &LC. — Divinity,  pp.  470,  471. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  is  admitted  to  have  been  an  eminent  linguist.  In  his 
Commentary  on  Matt.  iii.  6,  he  says — "  In  what  form  baptism  was  origin- 
ally administered,  has  been  deemed  a  subject  worthy  of  serious  dispute, 
"W^re  the  ^Qo^\e  dipped  or  sprinkled!  for  it  is  ccrkiin  bapto  and  baptizo 
mean  both.'''' 

Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  the  commentator,  is  admitted  to  have  been  a  learned 
man.  He  quotes  Leighton  as  saying — "  It  [baptize']  is  taken  more  largely 
for  any  kind  of  washing,  rinsing,  or  cleansing,  even  when  there  is  no  dip- 
ping at  all " — then  remarks — "  Tiie  word  was  adopted  from  the  Greek 
authors,  and  a  sense  put  upon  it  by  the  inspired  writers,  according  to  the 
style  of  Scripture,  to  signify  the  use  of  water  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  in  many  things  of  a  spiritual  nature,  which  stood  related  to  it.  Some 
indeed  contend  zealously,  that  baptism  always  signifies  immersion ;  but  the 
use  of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  cannot  accord 
with  this  exclusive  interpretation."  This  he  gives  as  a  conclusion  result- 
ing from  "  many  years'  consideration  and  study." 

Dr.  Dwight  is  admitted  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  learned  men  in  the 
United  States.  He  says — "  I  have  examined  almost  one  hundred  instances, 
in  which  the  word  baptizo  and  its  derivatives  are  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  four  in  the  Septuagint :  and  these,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  being 
all  the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this  examination,  it  is  to  my  appre- 
hension evident,  that  the  following  things  are  true — That  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  these  terms  is  cleansing;  the  effect,  not  the  mode  of  washing — That 
the  mode  is  usually  referred  to  incidentally,  wherever  these  words  are  men- 
tioned, and  that  this  is  always  the  case,  wherever  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
is  mentioned,  and  a  reference  made,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  mode  of 
administration — That  these  words,  although  often  capable  of  denoting  any 
mode  of  washing,  whether  by  aflhsion,  sprinkling,  or  immersion,  (since 
cleansing  was  familiarly  accomplished  by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways)  yet, 
in  many  instances,  cannot,  without  obvious  impropriety,  be  made  to  sig- 

O 


158  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

nify  immersion;  and  in  others  cannot  signify  it  at  all." — Theology,  v.  5, 
p.  331. 

I  might  add  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Wall,  who,  though  decidedly  favorable 
to  immersion,  maintains  that  "  the  word  baptizo,  in  Scripture,  signifies 
to  wash  in  general,  without  determining  the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of 
washing." 

But  I  must  return  to  the  Bible  argument.  I  was  proving,  when  I 
closed  my  last  address,  that  the  word  baptisms  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  compre- 
hends all  the  washings  of  the  Levitical  law,  which,  in  all  cases  where 
the  mode  was  prescribed,  were  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling.  The 
Levitical  law,  the  apostle  says,  consisted  in  "  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
baptisms  or  washings  ;"  and  he  immediately  mentions  some  of  those 
ablutions — verses  13,  19:  "For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and 
the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying 
of  the  flesh,"  &c.  Again:  "For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept 
to  all  the  people,  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  calves  and 
of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hysop,  and  sprinkled  both 
the  book  and  all  the  people,"  &c. 

I  have  now  examined  every  passage  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Apochry- 
phal  writings  of  the  Jews,  where  the  word  baptizo  is  used  in  a  literal 
sense,  without  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  christian  baptism  ;  and  my 
clear  conviction  is,  that  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which  it  can  be  proved 
to  mean  immerse;  that  in  every  instance  except,  perhaps,  one  which 
may  be  doubtful,  it  can  be,  and  has  been,  proved  to  express  the  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  person  or  thing,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The 
usage  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Bible,  in  regard  to  this  word,  is,  therefore, 
evidently  against  Mr.  Campbell;  and  if  so,  his  cause  is  lost.  For,  as  I 
have  proved,  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers  did  not  speak  clas-^t  •  Greek; 
and  consequently,  the  Bible  and  Jewish  usage,  as  the  best  critics  agree, 
must  determine  its  meaning  as  appropriated  to  the  ordinance  of  christian 
baptism. 

I  wish  now  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  audience  to  the  usage  of  this 
word  amongst  the  Greek  and  Roman  christians.  This  is  a  very  impor- 
tant branch  of  evidence  ;  for  certainly  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  Latins, 
who  lived  when  the  Greek  was  a  spoken  language,  understood  the 
meaning  of  the  word  in  debate. 

I  have  already  given  my  friend  considerable  trouble  by  quoting  Origen, 
the  most  learned  of  the  christian  fathers  ;  and,  I  presume,  difficulties  are 
likely  to  increase  upon  him.  Origen,  as  we  have  seen,  substituted  rantizo, 
to  sprinkle,  for  bapto  ;  and  this  same  father  used  baptizo  in  the  sense  of 
pouring.  His  authority,  it  will  be  admitted,  is  worth  more  than  that  of 
Beza,  and  Calvin,  and  Luther,  and  half  a  dozen  lexicons  besides.  His 
language  is  as  follows: 

"  How  came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would  baptize, 
who  did  not,  in  Ahab's  time,  baptize  tiie  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to 
be  washed  before  it  was  burnt,  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  ]  But  he  or- 
dered the  priests  to  do  that ;  not  once  only,  but  says,  Do  it  the  second  time  : 
and  they  did  it  the  second  time  :  and,  Do  it  the  third  time  ;  and  they  did  it 
the  third  time.  He,  therefore,  that  did  not  himself  baptize  then,  but  as- 
signed that  work  to  others,  how  was  he  likely  to  baptize,  when  he,  according 
to  Malachi's  prophecy,  should  come." — WalVs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  vol.  ii. 
p.  332. 

Now  by  turning  to  1  Kings  xviii.  33,  any  one  can,  in  a  moment,  see 
how  this  baptism  was  performed :  "  And  he  put  the  wood  in  order,  and 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  159 

cut  the  bullock  in  pieces,  and  laid  him  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four 
barrels  with  water,  and  poor  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice,  and  on  the  wood," 
&c.  Origan  says,  the  altar  was  baptized,  {baptizo  is  the  word  he  uses  ;) 
and  the  Bible  tells  us  how  it  was  baptized,  viz.  by  pouring  several  bar- 
rels of  water  upon  it.  If  the  altar  was  baptized  when  water  was  poured 
on  it,  is  not  a  person  baptized  when  water  is  poured  on  him  ?  If  baptizo 
expresses  the  pouring  of  water  upon  the  altar,  surely  it  may  express  the 
pouring  of  water  on  a  person.  Did  Origen  understand  his  native  tongue  ? 
If  he  did,  this  word  means  to  wasli  or  wet  by  pouring,  as  well  as  by 
dipping.  This  single  authority  is  worth  more  to  show  us  in  what  sense 
it  was  used  amongst  Jews  (for  Origen  was  writing  to  the  Jews)  and 
christians,  than  all  the  classical  lexicons.  But  the  lexicons,  as  we  have 
seen,  are  not  against  us. 

Other  learned  Greeks  used  this  word  in  a  similar  sense.  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  speaking  of  a  backslider  whom  John  the  AposUe  was  the 
means  of  reclaiming,  says  "  he  was  baptized  a  second  time  with  tears." 
Athanasius  reckons  up  eight  several  baptisms:  1.  that  of  the  flood;  2. 
that  of  Moses  in  the  sea;  3.  the  legal  baptism  of  the  Jews  after  unclean- 
ness  ;  4.  that  of  John  the  Baptist;  5.  that  of  Jesus;  6.  that  of  tears; 
7.  of  martyrdom;  and  8.  of  eternal  fire.  Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  "  I 
know  of  a  fourth  baptism,  that  by  martyrdom  and  blood  ;  and  I  know  of 
a  fifth,  that  of  tears."  "  Bassil  tells  us  of  a  martyr  that  was  baptized 
into  Christ  with  his  own  blood." — Pond  on  Bap.,  p.  34. 

Did  these  learned  fathers  understand  the  Greek  language — their  vernacu- 
lar tongue  ?  If  they  did,  the  pouring  of  water  on  the  altar,  the  flowing 
of  tears  of  a  penitent  over  his  face,  and  the  flowing  of  the  martyr's 
blood  over  his  body,  are  all  properly  expressed  by  the  words  baptizo  and 
baptisma.  Was  the  altar  immersed  1  Was  the  penitent  backslider  im- 
mersed in  tears  ?     Were  the  martyrs  immersed  in  their  own  blood  ? 

The  Latin  fathers  used  this  word  just  as  did  the  Greeks.  Lactantius 
says,  that  Christ  received  baptism  "  that  he  might  save  the  gentiles  by 
baptism,  that  is,  (purifici  roris  perfusione,)  by  the  distilling  of  the  puri- 
fying dew."  Cyprian  and  the  sixty-six  bishops,  as  we  have  seen, 
declared  persons  truly  baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  quoted  Ezekiel  xxxvi. 
25,  to  prove  it. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  17—12  o'clock,  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  tenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Mr.  Rice  complains  of  me  on  various  occasions  and 
in  various  manners,  and  more  especially  because  I  have  not  yet  got  into 
the  Bible.  'Tis  hard  to  please  him.  The  sequel  may,  perhaps,  show 
which  of  us  does  most  homage  to  that  volume.  Facts  can  be  better 
trusted  than  predictions.  He  gets  into  the  Bible  and  out  of  it  too  often 
for  my  taste.  When  I  get  into  the  Bible  I  do  not  like  soon  to  get  out  of 
it.  I  am  preparing  the  way  to  understand  what  is  in  it.  Indeed,  I  am 
always  in  the  Bible  while  discussing  the  meaning  of  its  language,  to 
ascertain  its  institutions. 

He  speaks  of  sundry  translations,  of  which  I  know  nothing.  Among 
them  is  a  Baptist  Bible,  translated  for  that  society.  I  know  of  no  such 
Bible.  There  is,  indeed,  a  new  or  improved  version,  having  some  very 
plain  and  obvious  improvements  in  style,  which  some  Baptists  read ;  and 
there  is  another  new  version  which  some  of  us  read.  We  avail  ourselves 
of  all  means  of  better  understanding  the  good  book.  But  no  one  amongst 
us,  or  of  the  Baptists,  so  far  as  I  know,  substitutes  this  for  the  commonly 


160  DEBATE  ON  CHEISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

received  king  James'  version.  No  community  submits  to  them  as  um- 
pires in  any  case  of  controversy.  In  such  cases  we  all  appeal  to  the 
common  version ;  not  because  it  is  better,  but  because  it  has  authority 
with  all  the  people.  We  waive  all  denominational  advantages  for  the 
sake  of  having  a  common  text.  I  maintain  no  point  of  doctrine,  I  hold 
no  article  of  faith,  which  I  cannot  fairly  prove  from  the  common  version, 
with  all  its  faults  and  imperfections  on  its  head,  and  these  are  neither  few 
nor  small.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  Baptist  Bible,  for  which  I  paid  five  dol- 
lars in  Philadelphia.  I  find  it  contains  various  improvements  worthy  of 
the  age,  and  every  Baptist  ought  to  have  it  in  his  house.  In  no  respect, 
however,  does  the  version  interfere  with  the  authority  of  the  king's  Bible. 

I  am  glad,  even  at  this  late  period,  to  hear  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  distinctly 
declare  himself  on  the  subject  of  washing.  We  understand  him  now  to 
say,  that  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersing  are  so  many  modes  of 
washing.  If,  then,  our  Redeemer  has  appointed  one  of  these  modes  in 
preference  to  all  others,  we  should  observe  that  mode.  It  is  essentially 
important  that  we  should  conform  to  it  exclusively. 

This  assumption,  if  I  mistake  not,  comes  from  Dr.  Owen,  who  wrote 
some  two  and  twenty  volumes  of  theology,  and  who  has  furnished  full 
six  or  eight  pages  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  He  seems,  indeed,  to  have 
been  in  a  very  bad  humor  Avhen  writing  this  large  treatise  on  baptism. 
•'I  must  say,"  says  he,  "and  I  will  make  it  good,  that  no  honest  man, 
who  understands  Greek,  can  deny  that  the  word  baptizo  signifies  to 
wash  as  well  as  to  dip.  This  is,  after  all,  conceding  that  the  version  dip 
is  by  far  the  most  clear  and  universal  representative  of  the  word." 

I  have  another  remark  on  these  modes  of  washing.  You  must  have 
observed  the  great  caution  of  my  friend,  who  has,  sage-like,  informed  us 
that  one  may  wash  his  hands  by  dipping  them  in  water.  He  has  even 
gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  one  may  wash  his  hands  by  pouring  water 
upon  them.  But  Avhy  so  cautious  to  proceed  ?  why  always  stop  there  ? 
why  not  add,  and  one  can  wash  his  hands  by  sprinhUng  water  upon 
them?  Yet  this  last  is  his  spiritual,  his  favorite  washing.  Any  one  may 
conceive  of  washing  one's  hands  by  dipping  them  in  water,  or  by  pouring 
water  upon  them ;  but  who  has  ever  seen  any  one  wash  his  hands  by 
sprinkling  Avater  upon  them.  As  sprinkling  or  moistening  has  long  been 
the  almost  exclusive  practice  of  his  church,  it  is  expected  that  he  would 
throw  all  his  logic  and  rhetoric  about  "  that  mode  of  tvashingr' 

Now,  as  observed  yesterday,  there  are  three  kinds  of  pollution — physi- 
cal, legal,  and  moral.  Of  course,  there  are  but  three  kinds  of  cleansing. 
And,  as  cleansing  is  always  an  important  operation,  in  a  moral  or  reli- 
gious sense  it  is  superlatively  so.  Hence,  the  various  divine  ordinances 
connected  with  that  service.  But,  as  before  observed,  he  never,  in  the 
age  of  types  and  symbols,  he  never  authorized  any  sort  of  cleansing, 
natural,  moral,  or  ceremonial,  to  be  performed  or  consummated  by  sprink- 
ling common  water.  Neither  the  leper  nor  any  other  unclean  person 
was  ever  so  cleansed.  Water  and  blood  united,  or  water  and  the  ashes 
of  a  blood-red  heifer  combined,  were  the  only  waters  of  cleansing  ever 
authorized  by  God,  or  ordained  by  Moses.  Nor  even  in  the  age  of  cere- 
monies did  tlie  sprinkling  of  clean  or  cleansing  water  upon  any  one  effect 
his  ceremonial  purification.  Neither  the  sprinkling  of  water  and  blood, 
nor  the  sprinkling  of  blood  and  ashes,  nor  the  subsequent  anointing  with 
oil,  did  ever  cleanse  any  leper  or  unclean  person.  He  must  finally  be 
washed,  he  must  bathe  himself  in  water. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  Igj 

As  to  sprinkling,  then,  being  a  ^^  mode  of  washing,''''  is  it  not  an  ideal- 
ism ?  Who  ever  saw  a  man,  a  garment,  a  house,  washed  by  sprinkling  ? 
John  Calvin  reduced  the  Roman  pouring  down  to  the  mildest  affusion! 
to  welling  a  fore-finger  and  laying  it  gently  on  an  infant's  brow — or  by 
scattering  a  gentle  spray  all  over  its  face.  If  then  the  mere  touch  of  a 
man's  finger  will  perform  ablution,  is  not  the  operation  of  cleansing  re- 
duced down  to  a  tiling  of  nothing?  I  propound  it  to  the  good  sense  of 
the  community,  if,  as  we  are  now  informed,  baptism  is  a  "  washing  with 
water,"  whether  there  ought  not  to  be  such  a  change  in  the  mode  as 
would  shew  some  resemblance  to  a  washing. 

As  to  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  so  often  alluded  to,  found  in  Ezekiel, 
as  expressed  in  the  following  words,  a  remark  or  two  will  be  expedient 
and  necessary.  The  words  are :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness.  and  from  all 
your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  The  question  is,  what  means  here  the 
phrase  clean  water.  Is  it  common  water,  free  from  all  physical  impuri- 
ties !  As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  from  the  frequent  citations  of 
Pedo-baptists,  I  hope  I  may  be  permitted  to  enter  somewhat  fully  into  its 
exposition ;  for  which  purpose  I  must  dip  a  little  into  the  law  of  Moses. 
No  person  ever  has  understood,  indeed  no  person  can  fully  understand 
the  christian  institution,  without  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  five  books 
of  Moses,  as  well  as  of  the  five  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  writings  of  Moses  constitute  the  great  font  of  evangelical  types  and 
symbols.  In  the  Jewish  ritual  there  was  so  much  use  of  blood,  fresh 
from  the  veins  of  the  victim,  in  all  the  offerings  and  sacrifices  of  that  in- 
stitution, that  there  was  danger  of  a  very  serious  error,  viz  :  that  the 
cleansing  and  atoning  virtue  of  blood  was  only  present  while  it  was  warm 
and  fresh  from  the  sacrifice.  Blood  was  constantly  sprinkled  both  upon 
persons  and  things,  mingled  sometimes  with  water,  but  in  the  former 
case,  indeed  in  any  case,  it  could  only  be  sprinkled  while  warm.  It  was 
necessary,  too,  that  it  should  be  sprinkled,  because  many  were  to  partake 
of  its  benefit.  Now  to  prevent  the  aforesaid  error,  as  well  as  for  other 
reasons,  it  became  necessary  to  place  in  this  font  of  types,  one  that  would 
prevent,  or  correct  an  error  of  such  dangerous  tendency.  For  this  pur- 
pose it  was  ordained  that  a  blood-red  heifer,  without  a  parti-colored  hair 
from  the  horn  to  the  hoof,  should  be  obtained,  and  that  she,  together  with 
her  blood,  and  all  her  appurtenances,  should  be  burned  to  ashes  in  a  clean 
place  without  the  camp.  It  was  commanded  that  her  ashes  should  be 
carefully  gathered,  and  deposited  in  an  urn,  or  some  vessel,  for  future  use. 

According  to  the  traditions  of  the  Rabbins,  it  sometimes  happened  that 
hundreds  of  years  revolved  without  affording  a  heifer  exactly  fulfilling  the 
description  in  the  law.  Now,  according  to  a  Divine  provision,  it  was  or- 
dained, that  the  smallest  quantity  of  these  ashes,  infused  into  a  quantity 
of  water  from  a  running  stream,  imparted  to  it  the  virtue  of  cleansing 
from  all  legal  and  ceremonial  impurity ;  thus  imparting  to  it  the  efilcacy 
of  blood.  This  beautiful  type  clearly  taught  that  the  virtue  of  sacrificial 
blood,  whether  for  atonement  or  for  purification,  was  not  confined  to  the 
time  of  its  being  shed,  or  to  its  freshness;  but  long  after  ihe  death  of  the 
victim,  nay,  indefinitely,  retained  all  the  power  it  originally  possessed, 
for  the  accomplishment  of  these  most  sacred  and  important  purposes. 

The  water  was  sometimes  called  kalharon  hudoor,  clean  water,  and 
sometimes  hudoor  rantismou,  the  water  of  separation  ;  the  effect  being 
put  melonymically  for  the  cause.  This  water  of  purification  was  to  be  used 
11  o2 


162  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

for  one  class  of  pollutions — a  species  of  offences  or  pollutions  artificially- 
created,  as  it  were,  to  complete  the  type.  Any  one  who  should  at  all 
touch  the  bone  of  a  dead  man,  a  dead  body,  a  grave,  or  a  couch  upon 
which  a  corpse  had  been  laid,  was  to  be  constituted  unclean  for  seven 
days  ;  and  if,  in  that  case,  he  presumed  to  come  into  the  tabernacle 
of  the  Lord,  he  was  to  be  cut  off  from  the  congregation  of  Israel.  Thus 
a  neglect  of  this  institution  became  as  fatal  as  moral  transgressions  of  the 
deepest  malignity.  It  was  important  to  make  this  ceremonial  unclean- 
ness  as  similar  as  possible  to  moral  turpitude,  that  it  might,  in  all  the  parts 
of  the  type,  correspond  to  actual  transgression,  by  affording  to  the  clean 
water  the  efficacy  of  blood  in  taking  it  away.  How,  then,  was  the  pol- 
luted person  to  be  cleansed?  A  priest  appears.  He  takes  the  clean 
water,  and  sprinkles  it  upon  him,  on  the  third  day,  and  again  on  the 
seventh,  dipping  (but  not  sinking)  a  bunch  of  hysop  into  the  preparation. 
In  some  cases  the  water  of  purification  was  used  by  the  unclean  person 
himself.  But  in  all  cases,  finally,  he  must  bathe  his  whole  person  in 
water,  for  even  sprinkling  clean  water,  without  a  subsequent  immersion, 
could  not  take  away  this  legal  impurity. 

Louo,  the  word  used  in  this  case,  is  the  word  used  amongst  the  Greeks 
to  indicate  bathing.  Such,  also,  is  its  use  amongst  the  Jews.  Pharaoh's 
daughter  is  said  to  have  bathed  herself  in  the  Nile.  This  bathing  is  rep- 
resented by  the  word  here  used;  and,  therefore,  indicates  that  the  person 
put  himself  under  the  water  in  order  to  the  consummation  of  the  process 
of  cleansing.  Thus,  after  having  this  water  of  purification  sprinkled 
upon  them,  like  Judith  of  the  Apocrypha,  who  washed  herself  in  the 
camp  at  a  fountain  of  water,  he  bathes  himself,  and  washes  off  the  clean 
water,  mingled  with  ashes,  and  is  now  fit  to  enter  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord.  Such,  then,  is  the  clean  water,  and  such  the  ceremony  of  purifi- 
cation. The  passage,  in  Ezekiel,  is  always  misapplied,  except  when 
quoted  in  the  true  technical  sense  of  the  law,  which  has  given  to  it  its 
proper  signification.  The  history  of  the  case  in  Ezekiel  is  this — the 
Jews  had  profaned  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  polluted  themselves  among 
the  heathen.  The  Lord  said,  not  for  their  sake,  but  for  his  own  honor, 
he  would  bring  them  out  and  restore  them  to  their  own  land,  and  as  they 
had,  by  contact  with  the  heathen,  polluted  themselves,  he,  speaking  in 
their  own  national  and  appropriate  sense  of  the  phrase,  said,  he  would 
cleanse  them  by  sprinkling  clean  water  upon  them,  a  symbol  of  the  sanc- 
tificatioii  externally,  and  that  he  would  also  put  his  spirit  within  them; 
a  passage  which  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  sprinkling  of  common  water 
for  baptism,  than  any  other  ceremony  in  the  law.  Does  any  one  suppose 
that  the  clean  water  here  spoken  of,  or  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is 
water  free  from  mud  ? 

As  all  arts,  sciences,  and  callings  have,  what  may  be  called,  their 
technical  terms,  so  has  religion  its  technical  terms.  Clean  water  literally 
means,  in  religious  technicality,  a  red  heifer's  ashes  mixed  with  running 
water,  as  the  antitype  of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  its  sanctifying  power. 
Water,  indeed,  is  sometimes  the  symbol  of  God's  spirit.  To  the  Samari- 
tan woman  Jesus  said — "  I  will  give  a  fountain  of  water,  springing  up 
within  him  to  eternal  life,  to  the  man  who  drinketh  of  my  water."  This 
water  denoted  the  spirit,  as  elsewhere  explained,  but  it  is  never  called 
clean  water.  The  water  of  baptism  may,  in  one  case  in  Paul's  style,  be 
compared  with  this  clean  water,  but  in  that  case  it  is  not  sprinkled,  but 
contrasted   with  sprinkling.      The   words   are — "  Having  your   hearts 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  163 

sprinkled,"  (by  Christ's  blood,)  from  a  guilty  conscience,  and  your  bodies 
bathed,  washed  with  pure  or  clean  water. 

I  expected  to  hear  this  verse  often  quoted  by  my  fnend.  It  is  a  great 
favorite  amongst  all  sprinklers.  It  has  been  quoted  by  them  a  thousand 
times — it  chimes  with  another  of  great  celebrity  in  the  baptismal  contro- 
versy— "  I  will  pour  water  upon  the  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground."  But  all  these  poetic  and  prophetic  allusions  to  spiritual  things 
had  better  be  applied  with  more  caution  and  prudence,  than  to  seize  them 
because  of  the  words  sprinkle  and  pour,  which  happen  to  be  in  them. 
Some  preachers  use  these  verses  in  their  sermons  as  a  chorus  in  music. 

I  think  I  have  already  said — if  I  have  not,  I  will  now  say,  that  the 
sprinkling,  pouring,  and  bathing,  in  the  law  are,  indeed,  indicative  of  a 
beautiful  series,  or  order  of  things,  in  the  evangelical  economy.  In  effect- 
ing a  cure  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  leper  ;  oil  was  poured  upon  him, 
and  his  person  was  bathed  in  water.  Under  the  gospel  the  moral  leper 
has  the  blood  of  sprinkling  in  its  antitypical  character,  applied  through 
faith  to  his  conscience — he  has  his  soul  enlightened  and  sanctified  by  the 
spirit  poured  out,  for  christians  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and 
understand  all  things  in  the  gospel — and  they  have  also  had  their  bodies 
bathed  in  the  water  of  cleansing.  But  of  these  we  may  iiave  occasion 
more  fully  to  speak  hereafter.  I  have,  at  present,  a  few  words  to  say 
upon  the  opinions  of  Mr.  R.  in  reference  to  the  allusions  to  Doddridge  and 
Carson.  The  quoting  of  authors  is  rather  a  delicate  point.  I  have  ex- 
pressed my  desires  for  a  dissertation  on  that  subject.  To  quote  them,  as 
we  have  sometimes  heard  them  quoted,  is  rather  a  very  licentious  affair. 
We  can  prove  things  the  most  antipodal  by  the  same  author.  I  argue 
that  justice  and  consistency  alike  demand  of  us  that,  if  we  quote  a  man's 
opinions  as  authority,  we  ought  to  take  all  his  opinions  ;  if  we  only  quote 
him  as  a  witness  of  facts  transpiring  in  his  time,  or  coming  under  his 
cognizance,  we  ought  to  take  his  whole  testimony,  and  not  just  so  much 
of  his  opinions,  and  just  so  much  of  his  testimony  as  suits  our  prejudices 
or  our  interests.  I  plead  for  some  system  in  quoting  authors.  If  I  quote 
Blackstone  as  authority  in  law,  in  one  case,  I  quote  him  in  all  cases.  I 
will  admit  the  testimony  of  Doddridge,  but  not  his  opinions.  So  of  Lu- 
ther and  of  Calvin. 

I  do,  indeed,  especially  quote  the  concessions  of  Pedo-baptists  and 
other  opponents,  with  considerabje  deference  to  their  judgment  in  such 
matters,  as  are  against  their  practice  and  against  their  interests ;  for  men 
seldom  make  such  concessions  unless  the  force  of  evidence  is  very  strong 
and  overwhelming.  The  testimony  of  reformers,  annotators,  and  critics 
in  favor  of  immersion,  themselves  having  been  not  only  sprinklers,  but 
enemies  of  the  ^nahap fiats  and  Baptists,  is  exceedingly  strong  and  irre- 
sistible. Twenty  such  men  witnessing  for  us,  are  worth  two  hundred  of 
our  own  party.  They  have,  too,  more  weight  with  their  own  party  than 
our  testimony. 

The  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  generally  were  very  weak  men  compared 
with  the  modern.  Some  of  them  were  mere  visionaries,  mystics,  and  fond 
of  old  wives'  fables.  But  I  regard  them  as  faithful  witnesses  of  facts.  I 
receive  their  testimony  as  honest  men,  but  I  will  neither  receive  their  in- 
ferences from  their  own  facts  and  premises,  nor  their  opinions,  farther  than 
the  rationale  of  them  is  obvious  to  myself.  In  this  way  I  receive  evidence 
and  use  it. 

I  have  not  much  time  for  my  regular  argument.     The  succeeding  re- 


164  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

marks  will,  however,  explain  sundry  matters,  and  either  obviate  or  answet 
objections. 

In  relation  to  the  baptizing  of  the  wood  and  the  altar,  made  out  of  Ori- 
gen's  critique  by  construction,  i  have  a  remark  or  two  to  offer.  I  neither 
believe  in  constructive  treason,  nor  in  constructive  baptism.  Twelve  bar- 
rels of  water  poured  upon  the  altar,  and  filling  up  the  trench,  might,  in- 
deed, thoroughly  soak  and  even  overwhelm  the  sacrifice.  But  one  thing 
I  know,  that  neither  Origen  nor  any  Greek  ever  called  any  pouring  an 
immersion,  though  the  effect  of  pouring  out  the  water  might  be  an  im- 
mersion of  the  altar  and  the  offering  too.  We  are  all  in  the  habit  of  car- 
rying figures  too  far,  and  of  violating  propriety,  as  well  as  Origen. 

If  Mr.  Rice  proposes  to  go  ahead  and  introduce  new  matters,  rather 
than  to  discuss  the  arguments  I  have  submitted,  I  award  to  him  perfect 
liberty.  I  may  perhaps  get  ahead  of  him  before  we  are  through.  I  have 
already  said  there  is  no  need  of  argument  concerning  Jewish  idioms  on 
this  question  at  all.  I  admit  and  teach  the  necessity  of  regarding  it  on 
such  subjects  as  are  affected  by  it.  But  in  specific  words,  expressing 
physical  action,  there  is  neither  Jewish  nor  gentile  idiom.  To  eat,  drink, 
sleep,  talk,  walk,  dip,  pour,  sprinkle,  &;c.,  are  the  same  physical  acts  in 
all  lands,  languages,  and  idioms.  We  find  shades  of  difference  in  many 
points,  and  then  we  expound  by  the  current  usage.  Unless  we  interpret 
the  words  of  Paul  and  Peter  by  the  currency  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived  and  wrote,  by  what  system  are  we  to  ascertain  their  meaning  ?  Do 
not  John  the  Baptist  and  Josephus  use  these  words  as  Paul  and  Peter,  and 
the  other  apostles  did  ?  We  admire  the  wisdom  of  our  Heavenly  Father 
in  causing  the  Greek  language  to  cease  to  be  a  living  tongue  after  the 
canon  was  closed  and  translated  into  one  or  two  languages.  By  that 
means  the  sense  of  its  words  changes  no  more  ;  and  we  have  a  fixed 
language  of  immutable  meaning  and  of  all  authority,  preserving  and  per- 
petuating the  will  of  God  to  all  ages  and  for  all  nations. — [^Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  17—121  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[]mr.  rice's  tenth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — My  friend  (Mr.  Campbell)  says,  I  complain  of  his 
mode  of  discussing  this  subject.  Not  at  all  :  I  am  well  satisfied  with  it. 
I  cannot  find  it  in  my  heart  to  fall  out  with  him  for  failing  to  sustain  his 
doctrine.  But  he  says,  if  he  is  not  in  tjie  Bible,  he  is  in  the  portico.  It 
must  be  an  immense  portico — extending  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to 
the  time  of  Calvin,  Beza  and  Grotius  !  I  should  think  he  is  a  great 
way  from  the  Bible — at  least  sixteen  hundred  years.  I  have  chosen  not 
to  remain  in  the  portico.  I  have  now  examined  every  passage  in  the  Bi- 
ble, in  which  baptizo  is  used  in  a  literal  sense ;  and  I  have  found  no  ev- 
idence that  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  immerse.  On  the  contrary,  I  have 
found  evidence  conclusive,  that  in  the  Bible  and  Jewish  writings  it  is  used, 
with  almost,  if  not  entire  uniformity,  in  the  sense  of  applying  water  to 
the  person  or  thing  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  He  thinks  it  probable,  that 
when  I  shall  be  in  the  affirmative,  he  will  get  ahead  of  me.  If  he  should, 
I  will  give  him  credit  for  it. 

He  tells  us  that  he  is  not  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  Baptist  Bible; 
and  yet  he  is  aware,  that  there  is  a  translation  made  by  Baptists  !  It 
certainly  is  not  a  Pedo-baptist  Bible.  Then  what  is  it  ?  I  did  not  say 
it  was  made  by  the  Baptists  as  a  denomination,  but  by  individuals  who 
are  Baptists.     And  it  is  well  known,  that  our  Baptist  friends,  in  all  their 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  165 

translations  made  for  the  heathen,  do  uniformly  translate  baptizo  by- 
words meaning  to  immerse.  They  are  thus  chargeable  with  the  inconsis- 
tency of  insisting  or  giving  the  heathen  a  pure  translation,  whilst  they 
are  contented  to  leave  the  people  of  this  country  in  the  dark.  But  the 
gentleman  has  himself  made  a  new  translation.  Or,  speaking  more 
properly,  he  has  taken  some  three  old  ones,  and  by  selecting  from  one 
or  the  other  of  these  as  best  suited  him,  and  adding  various  emendations 
of  his  own,  he  has  succeeded  in  getting  up  a  translation  which,  I  think, 
must  in  justice  be  called  CampbeWs  ti^anslation.  One  very  prominent 
object  of  this  translation  evidenUy  was,  to  render  the  words  baptizo  and 
baptisma,  immerse  and  immersion.  To  accomplish  this,  the  gentleman, 
as  I  have  proved,  gave  a  translation  of  a  passage,  which  is  in  truth  no 
translation  at  all,  but  a  gross  perversion. 

The  treatise  of  Dr.  Owen  on  baptism,  he  says,  is  very  small,  and  was 
written  when  he  was  very  mad  against  the  Anabaptists.  Certainly  he 
never  manifested  greater  opposition  to  the  Anabaptists,  than  my  worthy 
friend  has  evinced  towards  Pedo-baptists.  If,  then,  his  criticisms  are  to  be 
undervalued  for  such  a  reason,  on  vhe  same  principle  great  allowance  must 
be  made  in  estimating  the  worth  of  Mr.  C's  criticisms,  for  his  exclusive 
views  and  feelings.  He  represents  Owen  as  admitting,  that  immf;;'se  was  the 
most  common  meaning  of  baptizo.  Let  us  hear  Owen  speak  for  himself. 
After  stating,  that  instances  out  of  all  authors  prove,  that  it  signifies  to  ?vash, 
he  remarks — "  It  is  first  used  in  Scriptui'e,  Mark  i.  8,  and  John  i.  33,  and 
to  the  same  purpose,  Acts  i.  5.  In  every  place  it  either  signifies  to  pour,  or 
the  expression  is  equivocal.  '  I  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;'  which  is  the  accomplishment  of  that  pro- 
mise, that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  poured  on  them.  For  the  other  places, 
Mark  vii.  3, 4,  nipto  and  baptizo  is  precisely  the  same ;  both,  to  wash,  Luke 
xi.  38,  the  same  with  Mark  vii.  3.  JVo  one  instance  can  be  given  in  the 
Scriptures  vjJierein  JikVTizQ  doth  necessarily^signify  either  '■to  dip^  or  '■to 
plungeP  "  Such  is  the  declaration  of  one  of  Uie  greatest  men  who  has  lived. 

The  gentleman  attaches  great  importance  to  his  discovery,  that  the 
sprinkling  of  pure  water  was  never  commanded  in  order  to  purification. 
I  am  gratified  that  he  gave  us  his  dissertation  on  the  preparation  of  the  wa- 
ter of  purification  ;  it  will  aid  me  in  my  argument.  The  ashes  of  the  heifer, 
he  tells  us,  were  to  be  put  into  water,  to  show  that  blood  had  a  permanent 
efficacy,  not  only  when  warm,  but  afterwards.  Very  well.  Christian 
baptism  is  designed  to  represent  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  by 
virtue  of  the  blood  of  Christ  and  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
If,  then,  the  water,  after  having  the  ashes  of  the  heifer  put  to  it,  was  to 
be  sprinkled  upon  the  unclean,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  ;  certainly  the 
water  of  baptism  should,  for  the  same  reason,  be  sprinkled  on  the  person 
baptized.  There  is  special  propriety  in  this,  inasmuch  as  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  called  "  the  blood  of.  sprinkling." 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  washing  cannot  be  performed  by  sprinkling. 
Christian  baptism,  he  certainly  knows,  is  not  intended  to  be  a  literal 
washing  of  the  body.  It  is  an  emblematic  washing — the  application  of 
water  to  the  person,  as  an  emblem  of  spiritual  purification.  Is  the  sprink- 
ling of  clean  water  a  suitable  emblem  of  such  cleansing  ?  Ezekiel  the 
inspired  prophet,  certainly  thought  so  ;  and  therefore  he  said,  or  rather 
God  said  through  him — "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  clean"  &c.  Ezekiel  was  doubtless  in  the  right,  and 
my  friend,  Mr.  C,  is  in  the  wrong. 


166  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

But,  let  it  be  remembered,  we  are  not  now  contending  about  the  quan- 
tity of  water  to  be  used  in  baptism,  but  only  about  the  mode  of  applying 
it  to  the  person.  I  am  willing  to  pour  as  much  water,  as  may  be  desired 
— even  as  much  as  was  poured  on  the  altar  which  Origen  says,  was  bap- 
tized by  pouring.  I  presume  the  gentleman  will  not  deny,  that  washing 
or  cleansing  may  be  performed  by  pouring.  His  remarks,  therefore, 
concerning  the  inefficacy  of  sprinkling  to  cleanse,  are  entirely  without 
force. 

The  sprinkling  required  in  the  Levitical  law,  he  tells  us,  did  not  wholly 
cleanse  the  person.  Ezekiel  certainly  represents  the  sprinkling  of  clean 
water,  as  a  complete  emblem  of  purification.  But,  says  my  friend,  the 
unclean  person  was  required  to  go  and  wash,  after  he  had  been  sprinkled. 
He  was  to  wash  himself;  but  who  does  not  know,  that  a  man  may  wash 
himself  in  different  modes.  There  are  shoivcr-baths,  where  the  water 
falls  on  the  person,  as  well  as  baths  of  a  different  kind ;  and  he  is  as  truly 
said  to  bathe  when  the  water  is  poured  upon  him,  as  when  he  gets  into 
it.  The  Hebrew  word,  however,  as  I  have  before  stated,  is  rahats, 
■which  means  simply  to  wash,  without  regard  to  mode.  The  unclean  per- 
son, therefore,  when  directed  to  ivush,  would  never  imagine,  that  any 
particular  mode  was  prescribed — that  he  was  required  to  plunge  himself 
into  water. 

The  gentleman  says,  we  have  in  the  law,  dipping,  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling; and  so  in  the  Gospel  we  have  immersion,  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit, 
and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  the  truth  is,  there  is  not  one 
personal  immersion  required  in  the  law  of  Moses.  There  are  many 
sprinklings  commanded,  but  not  one  important  immersion.  If  there  is, 
let  it  be  produced.  So  in  the  Gospel  we  have  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  and  pouring  or  sprinkling  of  water  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  I 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  seem^  to  be  considerably  annoyed  by  my  quota- 
tions from  learned  authors;  aijd  he  would  have  the  audience  believe,  that 
I  ascribe  to  them  more  learning  than  they  possessed.  I  am  not  awarcf 
that  I  have  given  any  one  of  them  a  higher  place  than  public  sentiment 
has  assigned  him.  If  I  have,  let  it  be  shown.  I  do  not  know  whether 
we  should  be  much  wiser  by  having  a  book  written,  as  he  suggests,  on 
the  subject  of  quoting  authors  ;  unless  the  writer  could  put  us  on  a  plan 
of  weighing  their  talents  and  learning.  When  an  author  is  appealed  to  in 
proof  of  a  fact,  doubtless  fairness  requires,  that  his  whole  testimony  on 
that  point  be  stated.  Mr.  C.  gave  us  a  part  only,  of  the  testimony  of  his 
"  American  apostle" — Stuart,  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  bapto  and  bap- 
tizo,  thus  evidently  doing  his  author  injustice.  1  quoted  Mr.  Carson  to 
establish  a  fact,  viz:  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  a  different  reading, 
for  which  Dr.  Gale  and  my  friend  contend,  in  Rev.  xix.  13;  but  I  did  not 
feel  bound  to  adopt  his  opinion,  that  Origen  did  not  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  bapto. 

I  have  a  word  to  say  about  the  Jewish  idiom  of  the  Greek  language. 
The  gendeman  would  persuade  you,  that  in  the  meaning  of  Greek  words 
in  classic  authors  and  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  very  little  differ- 
ence. I  have  quoted  Dr.  George  Campbell,  one  of  his  favorite  cridcs, 
who  says,  that  although  a  knowledge  of  the  classic  Greek  may  be  of  ser- 
vice in  interpreting  the  New  Testament,  it  will  very  often  entirely  mis- 
lead. I  have  quoted  Ernesti,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  writers  on  inter- 
pretation, who  says,  that  in  interpreting  the  language  of  a  people,  respect 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  167 

must  be  had  to  their  manners,  customs,  and  religion ;  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  written  in  "Hebrew-Greek,"  not  in  classic  Greek;  and  lliat 
in  many  instances  it  would  make  ridiculous  nonsense  to  give  words  in 
the  New  Testament  their  classic  meaning.  It  is,  indeed,  a  matter  of 
which  any  one  can  form  a  correct  judgment.  What  would  you  think  of 
a  man  who  should  insist  upon  explaining  the  language  of  a  Dutch  settle- 
ment, speaking  the  English  quite  imperfectly,  by  the  dictionary  of  Walker 
or  Webster? — especially  when  they  used  English  words  in  relation  to 
things  they  had  never  amongst  us  been  employed  to  denote? 

I  prefer  going  to  the  Bible  itsell",  and  then  to  Greek  christians  who 
knew  in  what  sense  baptizo  was  understood,  when  used  in  relation  to  re- 
ligious rites.  I  liave  appealed  to  tliem,  and  have  proved,  that  they  used 
it  to  express  the  pouring  of  water  on  an  altar,  the  flowing  of  tears  over 
the  face,  the  flowing  of  a  martyr's  blood  over  his  body.  Every  one  can 
see,  that  in  such  examples  there  could  be  no  immersion ;  that  the  word 
expresses  the  application  of  a  fluid  in  small  quantities,  smaller  than  is 
usually  employeil  in  baptizing  by  sprinkling. 

It  is  worthy  of  special  remark,  that  when  immersion  came  to  be  gener- 
ally practiced,  the  Greek  christians,  when  they  wished  definitely  to  ex- 
press that  mode,  used  another  word — kaladuo.  On  this  subject  profes- 
sor Stuart  says — "  Subsequent  ages  make  the  practice  of  the  church  still 
plainer,  if  indeed  this  can  be  done.  The  Greek  words  kataduo  and  kat- 
adusis  were  employed  as  expressive  of  6a/)/2zi/is;"  and  baptism;  and  these 
words  mean  going  doton  into  the  water,  or  immerging.  So  in  the  fol- 
lowing examples:  Chrysostom,  Homil.  xl.  1  Cor.  1,  "  To  be  baptized 
and  to  submerge  [liatuduesthai,)  then  to  emerge  [ananeuein,)  is  a  symbol 
of  descent  to  the  grave,  and  of  ascent  from  it."  Basil  De  Spiritu.  c.  15, 
*'  By  three  immersions  (m  trisi  katadiisesi)  and  by  the  like  number  of  in- 
vocations, the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed."  Damascenus  Or- 
thodox, Fides  iv.  10,  "  Baptism  is  a  type  of  the  death  of  Christ;  for  by 
three  immersions  (katadiiseon)  baptism  signifies,"  &c.  So  the  Apostoli- 
cal Constitutions  (probably  written  in  the  fourth  century)  Lib.  iii.  ch.  17, 
"Immersion  {katadiisis)  denotes  dying  with  him  (Christ:)  emersion 
(anaditsis,)  a  resurrection  with  Christ."  Photius  (apud  CEcumenicum) 
on  Rom.  vi.  "The  three  immersions  and  emersions  [kataduseis  kai  ana- 
duseis)  of  baptism  signify  death  and  resurrection."  Quest,  apud  Athanas- 
iuni,  Qu.  94,  "To  immerse  ikatadusai)  a  child  three  times  in  the  bath 
(or  pool,)  and  to  emerse  him  [anadusai :)  this  shows  the  death,"  &c. 
Chrysostom  in  Cap.  3,  Johannis,  "  We,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  immersing 
{kat aduonton)  our  heads  in  the  water,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and  sinking 
down  [katadus  kuto)  tlie  whole  is  concealed  at  once ;  then  as  we  emerge, 
the  new  man  again  rises,"  pp.  73,  74.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  speak- 
ing of  Christ's  baptism,  represents  him  as  saying  to  John,  ^^  kataduson 
me  fois  Jordanoii  reilhrois'' — Plunge  me  in  the  river  of  .Tordan.  Cyril, 
of  Jerusalem,  uses  this  language :  "  Plunge  them  (kaduete)  down  thrice 
into  the  water,  and  raise  them  up  again."  ^ee  GaWs  Rejlec.  on  Wall, 
V.  3.  pp.  202,  203. 

Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  Mr.  C.  contends,  that  baptizo  is  a  specific  term, 
signifying  definitely  to  immerse;  why  did  the  Greek  fathers,  when  they 
wished  to  express  the  idea  of  immersing,  select  kataduo  instead  o^  baptizo, 
the  word  used  in  the  Bible?  But  suppose  we  take  one  of  these  passages 
from  the  Greeks,  and  translate  baptisma,  immersion,  as  Mr.  C.  does. 
Photius:  "The  three  immersions  and  emersions  of  immersion  [baptisma- 


168  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

tos)  signify,"  &;c. !  How  does  this  sound  ?  Tiie  truth  evidently  is,  that 
baplisma  denotes  the  ordinance,  and  katadicsis,  the  mode  in  which,  at 
that  time,  it  was  commonly  administered.  Hence  the  Greeks  used  bap- 
tisma  in  relation  to  the  ordinance,  when  administered  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  as  well  as  by  dipping. 

The  Latins,  like  the  Greeks,  when  immersion  became  prevalent,  select- 
ed other  words,  such  as  mergo,  mergito,  immergo,  to  express  delinitely 
their  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance.  Cyprian,  as  I  have  proved, 
presiding  over  a  council  of  sixty-six  bishops,  expressed  the  decided  belief 
thac  baptism  administered  by  sprinkling  is  valid,  and,  in  proof  of  it,  quo- 
ted Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25:  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you," 
&c.  The  Latins  certainly  had  the  very  best  opportunity  of  understanding 
the  meaning  of  baptizo,  as  it  was  used  among  the  Greeks;  for  the  Greek 
was  then  a  living  language.  Yet  with  them  baptizo  denoted  the  ordi- 
nance, and  tingo,  mergo,  mergito,  &c.,  the  mode  of  administering  it,  by 
immersion.  If,  as  Mr.  C.  has  said,  baptizo  was  universally  understood 
by  the  Latins  to  mean  immerse,  why  did  they,  when  they  would  defi- 
nitely express  immersion,  select  some  other  word?  The  truth  doubtless 
is,  that  both  Greeks  and  Latins  understood  the  word  to  express  washing, 
cleansing,  whether  by  pouring,  sprinkling  or  immersing.  They,  there- 
fore, with  great  unanimity,  recognized  the  validity  of  baptism  administered 
in  either  of  these  modes.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  inasmuch  as 
their  prejudices  at  the  period  referred  to,  were  generally  in  favor  oi  trine 
immersion. 

But  I  am  getting  so  far  before  the  gentleman  in  the  argument,  that  I 
ought  perhaps  to  wait  for  him  !     And  yet  he  is  one  speech  ahead  of  me ! 

I  will,  however,  proceed  to  state  that  the  places  where  baptism  was 
administered,  do  not  prove  immersion  to  have  been  practiced  by  the  apos- 
tles. John  baptized  in  or  about  Jordan,  and  in  Enon,  near  Salim,  "  because 
there  was  much  water  there."  But  it  cannot  be  proved  that  John  was 
literally  in  the  water  of  Jordan.  We  read  in  one  place  that  he  baptized 
in  (en)  Jordan ;  and  in  John  i.  28,  it  is  said — "  These  things  were  done 
in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing."  Beihabara 
was  probably  a  small  village  near  the  Jordan.  How,  then,  could  John 
baptize  literally  in  Jordan  and  in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan  ?  The  prepo- 
sition en,  I  presume,  here,  as  in  many  other  places,  signifies  near  to. 
Thus  both  passages  are  reconciled.  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  himself,  though 
so  decidedly  favorable  to  immersion,  admits,  that  but  little  stress  can  be 
laid  on  this  preposition,  inasmuch  as  it  is  used  with  the  same  latitude  of 
meaning  as  the  Hebrew  baith,  which  signifies  at  as  well  as  in.  Mr. 
Carson  does  not  think  John  was  literally  in  Jordan ;  though  he  supposes 
that  he  put  the  people  in. 

I  presume  the  gendeman  will  not  urge  an  argument  fronr.  the  expres- 
sion concerning  our  Savior,  that  after  his  baptism  "he  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water."  He  will  scarcely  deny  that  the  common  mean- 
ing of  apo,  the  preposition  used  in  the  passage,  is  simply  from,  not  out 
of.    Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  Christ  as  going  to  (epi)  Jordan  to  be  baptized. 

But  from  the  fact  that  John  went  where  there  was  much  tvater,  and 
baptized,  our  immersionist  friends  infer  that  he  baptized  by  immersion. 
But  is  there  any  certainty  that  this  inference  is  correct?  The  multitudes 
who  resorted  to  John  often  remained  together  for  several  days.  They 
were  Jews,  and  they  coidd  not  have  been  prevailed  on  to  remain  where 
they  could  not  attend  to  their  ablutions.     They  would  not  even  eat  with- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  169 

out  wasning;  and  if,  as  some  immersionists  contend,  thej-  were  in  the 
habit  of  immersing  themselves  before  eating,  there  must  have  been  a 
great  many  immersions  daily,  besides  such  as  John  might  perform  !  It 
is,  however,  certain  that  they  wanted  water  for  the  religious  washings  of 
their  law,  and  for  ordinary  purposes ;  but  can  it  be  proved  that  John 
wanted  "much  water"  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing?  If  my  friend,  Mr. 
C,  will  prove  it,  he  will  have  gained  his  point;  if  he  cannot,  his  argu- 
ment, so  far  as  this  source  of  evidence  is  concerned,  must  be  abandoned. 
It  will  not  do  to  make  such  an  ordinance  depend  upon  vague  inferences. 

I  have  several  facts  to  state,  which,  I  think,  will  satisfy  every  unpreju- 
diced mind,  that  the  aposdes  baptized  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  I  do 
not  design,  however,  to  enter  just  now  upon  the  argument  in  proof  of 
this  mode.  I  can  promise  the  audience  that  it  will  be  brief.  1  design 
giving  you  a  plain  argument  in  English.  It  requires  no  labored  criticism 
to  sustain  our  practice.  Thus  far  I  have  not  attempted  an  argument  di- 
recdy  in  favor  of  pouring  and  sprinkling.  I  have  been  removing  the  rub- 
bish out  of  the  way.  In  the  mean  time,  I  hope  my  worthy  friend  will 
endeavor  to  extricate  himself  from  the  brush,  and  get,  at  least,  into  my 
neighborhood. 

In  regard  to  the  history  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  do  not  know  that  it 
is  necessary  for  me  to  add  any  thing  more  to  what  I  have  presented.  I 
will,  however,  state  an  important  fact  which  cannot  be  disproved,  viz. — 
No  one  can  find  any  account  of  the  practice  of  immersion  before  the 
third  century ;  and  then  we  find  trine  immersion,  accompanied  with 
various  superstitions  and  some  indecencies — the  divesting  of  the  candi- 
dates for  baptism  of  their  garments,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  use  of 
honey,  oil,  spitde,  &c.  And  I  pledge  myself  to  find  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling practiced  and  admitted  to  be  valid  baptism  as  early,  and  even  earlier, 
than  immersion  can  be  found.  The  history  of  the  mode  is  against  the 
exclusive  claims  of  immersion. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  17 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  eleventh  address.] 

Mr.  President — Neither  yourself  nor  this  attentive  audience  can 
complain  of  the  want  of  variety  and  digression  in  our  discussion.  My 
friend  sows  broadcast,  and  with  a  liberal  hand,  and  gives  you  disserta- 
tions numerous  and  diversified.  You  have  been  treated  to  a  part  of  the 
Pedo-baptist  natural  history  of  prepositions.  The  celebrated  eis,  and  his 
comrades  en,  eh,  apo,  kata,  and  old  deuo,  &c.  have  run  the  gaunUet,  and 
paid  the  usual  compliments  to  baptizo.  But  in  the  history  of  this  ven- 
erable family,  my  friend  has  been  rather  precipitate.  He  has  brought 
them  before  us  before  we  had  time  to  pay  them  a  respectful  attention. 
But  he  is  pleased  with  the  license  given  him,  and  is  determined,  if  possi- 
ble, to  lead,  rather  than  to  follow  us.  He  has  ceased  to  be  respondent,  and 
assumed  the  affirmant.  Touching  Baptists,  Anabaptists,  and  their  trans- 
lations, what  have  they  to  do  with  this  discussion  ?  The  Baptists  have  a 
new  translation,  but  it  is  not  the  Baptist  Bible.  The  gentleman,  I  think, 
has  no  occasion,  then,  to  speak  of  them. 

Dr.  Owen,  it  seems,  has  said  that  baptizo  and  nipto  are  used  synony- 
mously. Neither  Dr.  Owen  nor  any  other  man  can  prove  it.  On  yes- 
terday I  said  something  on  the  subject ;  and  I  will  now  say,  that,  in  the 
Greek  scriptures  we  find  7iipto  thirty-four  times;  pluno  seventeen  times; 
hue  thirty-five  limes.     I  also  asserted  then,  that  though  nipto  was  so 

P 


170  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

often  found,  it  was,  when  applied  to  persons,  universally  confined  to  the 
■washing  of  face,  hands,  and  feet ;  and  never  to  the  whole  person,  nor  to 
apparel.  Louo  is  applied  to  the  whole  body,  and  to  certain  parts  of  the 
body ;  but  never  to  the  cleansing  of  garments,  nor  as  interchangeable 
with  nipto.  And  plwio  is  never  applied  to  the  washing  of  the  person  at 
all,  but  always  to  garments.  What  stronger  evidence,  ask  we,  of  the 
precision  of  the  Greek,  tongue  than  this  fact?  The  Greeks  never  con- 
founded these  terms.  Their  minds  seem  to  have  been  cast  in  moulds  of 
precision.  I,  in  common  with  many  others,  have  been  astonished  at  this 
singular  precision  in  the  use  of  words  connected  with  the  use  of  water. 
Even  though  frequently  occurring  in  the  same  verses,  these  terms  are 
never  confounded. 

As  to  kata  duo,  and  its  whole  family,  I  can,  in  a  few  words,  give  its 
history.  There  is  an  old  fashioned  Greek  verb  found,  I  believe,  in 
Hesiod,  Homer,  and  other  still  more  modern  waiters.  It  is  diipto,  from 
which,  in  the  old  English  style  of  changing  ic  into  y,  we  have  the  word 
dyp.  Again,  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  style  of  transmutation  clyp  is  changed 
into  cJyph,  and  that  again  into  dive.  Now  of  this  whole  family  duo  is 
the  remote  ancestor,  and  consequently  without  tlie  kata,  itself  signifies  to 
dip  or  dive.  The  kata  duo,  and  the  anaduo,  and  the  katadusis  and  ana- 
dusis,  are  merely  special  forms  from  the  same  common  fountain.  It  is 
highly  improper  to  perplex  the  uneducated  part  of  the  community  with 
the  learned  sophistry  which  would  make  these  words  separately  equiva- 
lent to  baptisma,  because  sometimes  used,  not  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  in  the  fathers,  as  a  substitute  for  it.  The  practice  of  the  third  cen- 
tury has  nothing  at  sU  to  do  with  the  New  Testament  style. 

Dr.  Beecher,  of  Illinois,  has  dealt  largely  in  this  species  of  sophistry, 
in  his  essays  on  baptism  for  purification.  He  has  writlten  a  book  which 
■virtually  goes  to  prove  that  ivords  representing  the  same  thing  are  iden- 
tically synonymous.  I  have  heard  that  professor  Stuart  of  Andover  has 
said  of  it,  that  he  never  saw  a  more  learned  and  splendid  essay  founded 
on  a  more  gratuitous  assumption. 

Mr.  Rice  says  that  there  never  was  an  instance  of  personal  immersion 
required  under  the  law  of  Moses.  Well,  what  of  it,  if  it  were  so?  But 
the  gentleman  must  have  observed,  that  so  perfectly  associated  with  louo 
"was  the  idea  of  bathing  and  of  immersion  too;  and  that  all  leprous  per- 
sons were  enjoined  to  be  immersed,  or  to  immerse  themselves,  that  when 
the  Assyrian  leper  was  commanded  by  the  prophet  to  go  and  wash,  or 
bathe  {louo  is  the  word)  in  Jordan  ;  he  having  learned  how  leprous  per- 
sons were  to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy,  according  to  Jewish  custom, 
as  indicated  in  the  word  louo,  went  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 
the  Jordan.  I  ask  on  what  principle  of  abstract  reasoning  could  he  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  to  immerse  himself  in  the  Jordan  seven  times  by 
the  word  louo,  if  he  had  not  understood  that  to  be  its  Jewish  acceptation? 
This  is,  in  my  judgment,  an  unanswerable  argument,  that  by  the  word 
louo  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  immerse  themselves  by  the  received 
sense  of  the  term,  and  hence  personal  immersion  was  commanded  in  the 
law. 

I  shall  now  proceed  with  my  authorities  under  my  fifth  argument:  and, 
in  the  first  place,  we  shall  listen  to  Dr.  Campbell  affirming  both  the  clas- 
sic and  the  Jewish  acceptation  of  this  term — baptizo ;  than  whom,  we 
have  no  higher  Presbyterian  authority. 

*'  The  word  baptizein,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  classical,  signifies  to  dip^ 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  171 

to  plunge,  to  immerse;  and  was  rendered  by  TertuUian,  the  oldest  of  the 
Latin  fathers,  tingere,  the  term  used  for  dyeing  cloth,  which  was  by  immer- 
sion. It  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  meaning.  Thus  it  is,  ea  hu- 
dati,  en  to  Jordane.  But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  on  the  preposition 
en,  which,  answering  to  the  Hebrew  betk,  may  denote  with  as  well  as  in, 
did  not  the  whole  phraseology,  in  regard  to  this  ceremony,  concur  in  evinc- 
ing the  same  thing.  Accordingly,  the  baptized  are  said  ana  bainein — to 
arise,  emerge,  or  ascend;  Matt.  iii.  16,  apo  tou  udatos ;  and  Acts  viii.  39,  ek 
ton  udatos,  from  or  out  of  the  water.  Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the 
verbs  raino  and  rantizo,  used  in  Scripture  for  sprinkling,  a.ve  never  construed 
in  this  manner.  I  will  sprinkle  you  with  clean  water,  is,  in  the  Septuagint, 
Raino  eph  umas  katharon  hudor ;  and  not  as  baptizo  is  always  rendered, 
Raino  ximas  en  katharo  udati.  See  also  Eze.  xxvi.  21 ;  Lev.  vi.  27 — xvi. 
14.  Had  baptizo  here  been  employed  in  the  sense  of  raino,  I  sprinkle, 
(which,  as  far  as  I  know,  it  never  is,  in  any  case,  sacred  or  classical,)  the 
expression  would  doubtless  have  been,  Ego  baptizo  eph  umas  udor,  or  apo 
tou  udatou,  agreeably  to  the  examples  referred  to.  When,  therefore,  the 
Greek  word  baptizo  is  adopted,  I  may  say,  rather  than  translated,  into 
modern  languages,  the  mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved  so  far  as 
may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we 
have  so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned  men  allow  their  judg- 
ments to  be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sect  which  they 
prefer.  The  true  partisan,  of  whatever  denomination,  always  inclines  to 
correct  the  diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the  party." — CampbelVs  Disser- 
tations, vol.  iv.  p.  128,  and  p.  24. 
The  great  Selden  has  said — 

"  In  England,  of  late  years,  I  ever  thought  the  parson  baptized  his  own 
fingers  rather  than  the  child. —  Works,  vol.  vi.,  Col.  2008. 

Before  submitting  my  next  argument  on  this  proposition,  I  beg  leave  to 
introduce  the  special  testimony  of  one  of  America's  most  eminent  classic 
scholars.  I  believe  I  only  accord  Avith  enlightened  public  opinion,  when 
I  introduce  professor  Charles  Anthon,  of  Columbia  College,  New  York, 
as  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Greek  scholars  in  the  Union.  His  long 
devotion  to  the  study  and  teaching  of  this  language,  is  not  the  only  reason 
of  this  superiority.  His  laborious  researches  in  ancient  literature,  his 
critical  collation  of  copies,  various  readings,  marginal  notes,  general  criti- 
cisms, as  editor  of  so  many  of  the  classics  already  in  our  colleges,  and 
his  excellent  classical  dictionary,  have  obtained  for  him  this  high  repu- 
tation. 

Professor  Charles  Anthon  being  addressed  by  Dr.  Parmly,  of  New 
York,  on  the  subject  of  this  proposition,  last  spring,  he  favored  him  with 
the  following  answer.  I  shall  quote  the  correspondence,  that  the  subject 
may  come  fairly  before  the  reader. 

''Ko.  1,  Bond  Street,  JV.  F.,  Mai'ch  23,  1843. 
Professor  Charles  Anthon, 

In  conversation  with  Dr.  Spring,  last  evening,  he  stated  that,  in  the  orig- 
inal, the  word  baptism,  which  we  hnd  in  the  New  Testament,  has  no  defi- 
nite or  distinct  meaning  ;  that  it  means  to  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour,  and  has 
a  variety  of  other  meanings — as  much  the  one  as  the  other,  and  that  every 
scholar  knows  it;  that  it  was  the  only  word  that  could  have  been  selected 
by  our  Savior,  having  such  a  variety,  as  to  suit  every  one's  views  and  pur- 
poses. May  I  ask  you,  if  your  knowledge  of  the  language,  from  which  the 
word  was  taken,  has  led  you  to  the  same  conclusion  ?  And  may  I  beg  of 
you  to  let  the  deep  interest  I  take  in  the  subject  plead  my  apology. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  most  respectfully  yours, 

E.  PARMLY." 


172  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

"  Columbia  College,  March  27,  1843. 
Dr.  Parmly, 

My  Dear  Sir — There  is  no  authority,  whatever,  for  the  singular  remark, 
made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Spring,  relative  to  the  force  of  baptizo.  The  prima- 
ry meaning  of  the  word  is  to  dip,  or  immerse;  and  its  secondary  meaning, 
if  ever  it  had  any,  all  refer,  in  some  way  or  other,  to  the  same  leading  idea. 
Sprinkling,  &c.,  are  entirely  out  of  the  question.  I  have  delayed  answer- 
ing your  letter  in  the  hope  that  you  would  call  and  favor  me  with  a  visit, 
when  we  might  talk  the  matter  over  at  our  leisure.  I  presume,  however, 
that  what  I  have  here  written  will  answer  your  purpose.     Yours,  truly, 

CHARLES  ANTHON." 

To  these  I  could  have  added,  from  one  and  the  same  divinity  school, 
Philip  Limborch,  John  Le  Clerc,  Episcopius,  Stephen  Curcellaeus,  who, 
with  Vossius,  succeeded  each  other  in  the  same  professor's  chair  at  Am- 
sterdam, a  Pedo-baptist  school.  For  them  all,  and  expressive  of  their 
views,  I  shall  quote  the  words  of  the  first  named  of  them,  the  famous 
Lemborch,  who  filled  that  chair  from  1664  to  1712,  a  period  of  48  years. 
His  words  on  baptisma  are — "  Baptism  is  that  ceremony  or  rite,  wherein 
the  faithful,  by  immersion  into  water,  as  by  a  sacred  pledge,  are  assured 
of  the  favor  of  God,  remission  of  sins,  and  eternal  life ;  and  by  which 
they  engage  themselves  to  an  amendment  of  life  and  an  obedience  to  the 
divine  commands."  In  another  place  he  says,  "  Baptism  consists  in 
washing,  or  rather  in  immersing  the  whole  body  into  water,  as  was  cus- 
tomary in  the  primitive  times." — Blish.  p.  79. 

With  this  mere  specimen  of  Pedo-baptist  authorities,  I  must  conclude 
my  fifth  argument,  and  proceed  to  my  sixth.  Before  stating  it,  I  desire 
again  to  say,  that  our  arguments  are  not  multiplied  because  we  suppose 
any  one  of  them  is  insufficient  by  itself.  With  me,  it  has  almost  passed 
into  a  maxim,  that  one  good  sound  logical  argument  is  enough  to  sus- 
tain any  proposition  in  the  universe  ;  inasmuch  as  all  the  mind  in  the 
universe  cannot  annihilate  one  good  argument.  But  although  one  good 
argument  is  all-sufficient  to  prove  any  one  proposition  ;  and  although,  in 
various  departments  of  his  works  and  ways,  the  great  Author  of  nature  ' 
has  used  but  one  argument;  yet,  reasoning  from  the  philosophy  of  the 
human  mind,  I  have  thought  it  expedient,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  in- 
troduce various  arguments  deduced  from  different  sources  and  classes  of 
evidence;  rather,  indeed,  after  all,  as  parts  of  one  great  argument,  in 
support  of  the  apostolic  and  divine  ordinance.  Not,  however,  I  repeat, 
because  of  any  supposed  inadequacy  in  any  one  of  them,  but  because  we 
have  so  many  ways  of  reasoning — so  many  modes  of  thinking  ;  no  two 
minds  reasoning  alike  in  all  respects,  no  two  eyes  seeing  alike,  no  two 
ears  hearing  alike,  we  have  to  approach  the  human  understanding  by 
various  avenues,  one  particular  argument  carrying  conviction  to  one  mind, 
while  another,  and  perhaps  a  weaker  argument,  carrying  conviction  to 
another  mind. 

My  plan  on  the  proposition,  it  being  merely  a  question  of  fact,  is  to 
bring  up  my  evidences  in  the  character  of  witnesses,  and  to  classify  them 
by  some  one  general  idea.  Each  individual  is,  in  fact,  a  witness  and  an 
argument  in  himself.  I  summon  none  but  witnesses  of  high  rank,  of  ac- 
knowledged eminence  ;  and  hence,  not  one  of  them  has  been  challenged ; 
not  one  of  them  can  be.  My  witnesses  are  all  renowned  in  some  depart 
ment  of  society,  either  as  lexicographers,  classical  teachers,  critics 
historians,  reformers,  commentators,  translators,  or  theologians,  &c.,  &c 
We  shall,  therefore,  still  call  them  up  in  classes. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I73 

VI.  My  sixth  ARGUMENT  shall  consist  of  a  few  witnesses  selected  from 
English  lexicons  and  encyclopcEdias.  These,  too,  like  the  former,  are  of 
the  school  opposed  to  us  on  the  question.  Not  that  I  disparage  my 
Baptist  friends,  nor  their  men  of  renown.  They,  too,  have  some  names 
of  renown  ;  their  Gills,  and  Gales,  and  Booths,  and  Fullers,  and  Halls, 
&c.  We  are,  indeed,  without  many  theological  schools,  and,  till  recently, 
without  many  colleges  and  distinguished  Rabbis.  Yet  still,  the  Baptists 
in  America,  the  land  of  free  discussion,  are  much  more  numerous  than 
any  learned  denomination  in  it.  Societies  with  a  learned  ministry,  are 
not,  unless  aided  by  a  secular  arm,  greatly  prolific.  Hence  the  Baptists, 
despite  of  the  ignorance  among  their  teachers,  and  it  is  by  no  means,  in 
numerous  instances,  inconsiderable  ;  despite  of  their  want  of  theological 
schools  and  colleges,  and  a  well  disciplined  clerical  corps  of  leaders,  have, 
to  the  great  annoyance  of  their  more  learned,  shrewd,  and  well  marshaled 
competitors  in  the  field,  spread,  like  the  locusts  of  Egypt,  througli  all 
ranks  of  the  community,  and  are  likely  not  to  leave  one  green  thing  in 
the  pastures  of  their  better  educated  brethren.  They  spring  up  in  the 
country  and  in  the  city,  and  spread  themselves  over  the  whole  face  of  the 
earth,  as  though  they  rose  by  magic.  The  reason  is,  they  have  a  plain 
story  to  tell,  and  a  plain  book  from  which  they  read  it;  and  it  strikes 
the  ear  with  a  mighty  force,  as  if  it  came  from  heaven.  It  has,  more- 
over, a  powerful  ally,  called  common  sense  ;  which,  although  not  always 
eloquently,  yet  always  efficiently  pleads  for  it,  not  only  in  the  person  of 
the  preacher,  but  in  that  of  the  hearer.  Whenever  they  secure  a  read- 
ing of  the  book,  a  candid  examination  of  the  evidences,  without  note  or 
comment,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  the  work  is  done. 

I  shall  place  the  learned  and  profound  Richardson  at  the  head  of  this  class 
of  witnesses.  He  defines  the  word  "to  dip  or  merge  frequently,  to  sink, 
to  plunge,  to  immerge."  He  concludes  a  long  list  of  quotations  in  sup- 
port of  his  definition  from  ancient  English  literature,  with  a  few  lines  from 
Cowper — 

Philosophy  baptized 
In  the  pure  fountain  of  eternal  love, 
Has  eyes,  indeed,  and  viewing  all  she  sees 
As  meant  to  indicate  a  God  to  man, 
Gives  him  his  praise  and  forfeits  not  her  own. 

Cowper^s  Task,  book  ii. 

Dr.  Johnson,  in  his  dictionary,  says,  "  to  baptize  is  to  sprinkle,  to 
administer  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  one.  Baptism,  an  external 
ablution  of  the  body  with  a  certain  form  of  words. "  He  speaks 
this  as  a  member  of  the  church  of  England;  but  where  he  speaks  ex 
cathedra,  he  is  thus  quoted  by  Boswell,  as  follows  : 

"  Dr.  Johnson  argued  in  defence  of  some  of  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the 
church  of  Rome.  As  to  giving  the  bread  only  to  the  laity,  he  said, '  they 
may  think  that,  in  what  is  merely  ritual,  deviations  from  the  primitive 
mode  may  be  admitted  on  the  ground  of  convenience :  and  I  think  they 
are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this  alteration,  as  we  are  to  substitute 
sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the  ancient  baptism.^  " 

I  wish  you  now  to  hear  what  the  Monthly  Reviews  of  England  have 
said  on  ihe  baptism  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  on  the  baptism  of  the  lake 
in  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice — a  most  ludicrous  afiair,  both  on  the 
part  of  the  poet,  and  of  the  critics,  who  make  the  coloring  of  a  wave  with  the 
blood  of  a  mouse,  the  sprinkling,  or  the  pouring,  or  the  immersion  of  a 
lake ! ! 

p2 


174  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

"  We  acknowledge  there  are  many  authorities  to  support  it  [immersion] 
among  the  ancients.  The  word  baptize  doth  certainly  signify  immersion, 
absolute  and  total  immersion,  in  Josephus  and  otlier  Greek  writers.'  *  * 
*  '  The  examples  produced,  however,  do  not  exactly  serve  the  cause  of 
those  who  think  that  a  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  on  the  forehead  of  a 
child,  constitute  the  essence  of  baptism.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is  said  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven  :  and  in  a  poem  attri- 
buted to  Homer,  called  The  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  it  is  said  that  a 
certain  lake  was  baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  wounded  combatant — [Ebapteto 
d  aimati  limve  porpureo.)  A  question  has  arisen,  in  what  sense  the  word 
baptize  can  be  used  in  this  passage.  Doth  it  signfy  immersion,  properly 
so  called  ?  Certainly  not :  neither  can  it  signify  a  partial  sprinkling.  A 
body  wholly  surrounded  with  a  mist ;  wholly  made  humid  with  dew  ;  or  a 
piece  of  water  so  tinged  with  and  discolored  by  blood,  that  if  it  had  been  a 
solid  body  and  dipped  into  it,  it  could  not  have  received  a  more  sanguine 
appearance,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  partial  application  which  in 
modern  times  is  supposed  sufficient  to  constitute  full  and  explicit  baptism. 
The  accommodation  of  the  word  haplism  to  the  instances  we  have  referred 
to,  is  not  unnatural,  though  highly  metaphorical  ;  and  may  be  resolved  into 
a  trope  or  figure  of  speech,  in  which,  though  the  primary  idea  is  maintained, 
yet  the  mode  of  expression  is  altered,  and  the  word  itself  is  to  be  understood 
rather  allusively  than  really ;  rather  relatively  than  absolutely.  If  a  body 
had  been  baptized  or  immersed,  it  could  not  have  been  more  wet  than  Ne- 
buchadnezzar's ;  if  a  lake  had  been  dipped  in  blood,  it  could  not  have  put  on 
a  more  bloody  appearance. 

"  Hitherto  the  Antipedobaptists  [or  Baptists]  seem  to  have  had  the  best 
of  the  argument  on  the  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance.  The  most 
explicit  authorities  are  on  their  side.  Their  opponents  have  chiefly  availed 
themselves  of  inference,  analogy,  and  doubtful  construction.  " 

It  is  due  to  our  opponents,  that  when  we  quote  their  special  pleaders, 
we  ought  to  give  their  testimony  on  both  sides. 

Chambers''  Cyclopedia,  or  Dictionary  of  Arts  and  Sciences  :  London,  1786. 
"Baptism,  in  Theology;  formed  from  the  Greek  baptizo,of  bapto — I  dip 
or  plunge,  a  rite  or  ceremony  by  which  persons  are  initiated  into  the  pro- 
fession of  the  christian  religion. 

"  The  practice  of  the  Western  church  is,  to  sprinkle  the  water  on  the 
head  or  face  of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  except  in  the  church  of  Milan,  in 
whose  ritual  it  is  ordered,  that  the  head  of  the  infant  be  plunged  three  timea 
into  the  water ;  the  minister  ot  the  same  time  pronouncing  the  words, '  I 
baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ' — 
importing  that  by  this  ceremony  the  person  baptized  is  received  among  the 
professors  of  that  religion,  which  God,  the  Father  of  all,  revealed  to  man- 
kind by  the  ministry  of  his  Son,  and  confirmed  by  the  miracles  of  his  Spirit. 
A  triple  immersion  was  first  used,  and  continued  for  a  long  time  :  this  was 
to  signify  either  the  three  days  that  our  Saviour  lay  in  the  grave,  or  the 
three  persons  in  the  Trinity.  But  it  was  afterwards  laid  aside,  because 
the  Arians  used  it :  it  was  thought  proper  to  plunge  but  once.  Some  are  of 
opinion,  that  sprinkling  in  baptism  was  begun  in  cold  countries.  It  was 
introduced  into  England  about  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century.  At  the 
council  of  Celchyth,  in  816,  it  was  ordered  that  the  priest  should  not  only 
sprinkle  the  holy  water  upon  the  head  of  the  infant,  but  likewise  plunge  it 
in  the  bason.  There  are  abundance  of  ceremonies  delivered  by  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  as  used  in  baptism,  which  are  now  disused  ;  as  the  giving  milk 
and  honey  to  the  baptized,  in  the  east ;  wine  and  milk  in  the  west,  &:c. 

"  The  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  in  order  to  salvation,  is  grounded 
on  these  two  sayings  of  our  Savior  :  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved  ; '  and,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'"  — [Time  expired. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I75 

Friday,  Nov.  17— U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  eleventh  reply.] 

Mr.  President — -The  gentleman  says,  he  would  have  said  nothing 
about  the  Baptist  translation,  if  I  had  not  called  it  the  Baptist  Bible.  I 
certainly  did  not  intimate,  that  is  was  sanctioned  by  the  Baptists  as  a 
denomination.  There  was,  therefore,  no  necessity  that  he  should  defend 
them. 

The  word  nipto,  he  tells  us,  signifies  the  washing  of  the  hands,  and 
therefore  it  cannot  be  synonymous  with  baptizo,  in  Mark  vii.  3,  4,  as 
Dr.  Owen  supposed.  But  certainly  the  gendeman  himself  agrees  with 
Owen  on  this  point ;  for  his  own  translation  makes  baptizo  denote  the 
washing  of  the  hands.  It  is  as  follows : — "  For  the  Pharisees,  and 
indeed  all  the  Jews  who  observe  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not  until 
they  have  washed  their  hands  by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them ;  and 
if  they  be  come  from  the  market,  by  dipping  them,"  (baptizontai.) 
According  to  his  own  translation,  nipto  denotes  the  washing  of  the 
hands  ;  and  baptizo  means  the  same  thing,  only  in  a  particular  mode.  If, 
then,  baptizing  the  hands  is  baptizing  the  person,  surely  baptizing  the 
face  would  be  at  least  equally  so. 

I  am  not  able  to  understand  what  Dr.  Beecher's  sophistry  has  to  do 
with  our  discussion.  His  work  on  baptism,  the  gentleman  considers  very 
sophistical.  Having  never  seen  it,  I  cannot  say  whether  it  is  so  or  not ; 
but  I  heard  an  immersionist  of  high  standing  pronounce  it  unanswerable ! 
I  presume  he  did  not  consider  it  very  sophistical.  I  do  not  know  whether 
professor  Stuart  ever  spoke  of  it  slightingly,  as  Mr.  C.  has  heard  he  did; 
but  from  my  knowledge  of  the  character  of  that  gentleman,  I  am  induced, 
very  seriously,  to  doubt  whether  he  used  such  language  concerning  Dr. 
Beecher.  It  is  far  better,  I  think,  not  to  introduce  these  flying  reports 
into  such  a  discussion.     They  are  absolutely  worthless. 

I  have  asserted  that  not  a  single  personal  immersion  was  required  in 
the  law  of  Moses.  The  gentleman  is  disposed  to  dispute  the  correctness 
of  the  statement.  He  tells  us,  the  leper  was  required  to  be  immersed; 
that  the  idea  of  dipping  was  so  fixed  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  that  the 
Hebrew  words  rahatz  and  the  Greek  louo  readily  suggested  it.  But  this 
is  an  assertion  that  cannot  be  proved.  Where  is  the  evidence  1  There  is 
absolutely  none.  He  asks,  how  came  Naaman  so  to  understand  the  com- 
mand to  wash?  Let  him  first  prove  that  he  did  so  understand  it,  and  his 
question  will  be  proper.  I  suppose  he  did  not  understand  the  prophet  to 
command  him  to  immerse  himself;  and,  in  this  opinion,  I  am  sustained 
by  Jerom,  the  translator  of  the  Vulgate.  He,  with  all  his  prejudice  in 
favor  of  trine  immersion,  translated  baptizo,  in  this  instance,  by  lavo,  a 
generic  term,  signifying  to  wash.  I  repeat  the  declaration — there  is  not 
in  the  law  of  Moses  a  personal  immersion  required.  If  there  is,  let  it  be 
produced. 

The  gentleman  appeals  to  the  authority  of  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell.  Dr. 
Campbell,  though  a  Presbyterian,  was  decidedly  favorable  to  immersion ; 
yet  he  did  not  believe,  with  my  friend,  that  immersion  is  the  one  only 
apostolic  or  christian  baptism.  He  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  considerable 
learning ;  but  I  am  more  than  doubtful  whether,  as  a  critic  and  translator, 
he  ought  to  be  placed  in  the  first  rank.  I  think,  a  careful  examination  of 
his  translation  will  prove,  that  he  falls  far  short  of  that  accuracy  and  that 
simplicity  of  style,  which  should  characterize  a  translator.  An  instance 
of  his  want  of  simplicity  of  style  just  now  occurs  to  me.     He  thus 


176  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

translates  Matth  v.  1 — "  Jesns,  seeing  so  great  a  confluence,  repaired  to 
a  mountain,"  &c.  The  word  "confluence"  is  sometimes  used  to  sig- 
nify a  multitude  of  people  ;  but  certainly  this  is  not  its  most  common 
meaning.  How  much  more  simple  as  well  as  literal  is  our  common  ver- 
sion— "  Jesus,  seeing  the  multitudes,"  (tous  ochlous,)  &c.  But  this 
by  the  way. 

Dr.  Campbell,  like  other  men,  was  somewhat  under  the  influence  of 
his  feelings  ;  and  it  is,  to  my  mind,  evident  that  his  partiality  for  immer- 
sion induced  him  sometimes  to  speak  unguardedly.  For  example,  he 
states  it  as  a  fact,  that  the  Syriac  version,  in  translating  Matth.  iii.  11, 
uses  the  word  in,  not  with — "  I  baptize  you  i7i  water."  Now  any  one 
who  will  carefully  examine  the  passage  as  it  is  found  in  the  Syriac  Testa- 
ment, will  see  that  he  was  in  an  error.  The  preposition  used  is  baith, 
which,  like  the  Hebrew  baith,  is  very  frequently  employed  in  the  sense 
of  with.  This  preposition  is  used  in  Rev.  xix.  13,  where  the  sense  re- 
quires it  to  be  translated  tvith — "  He  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  sprinkled 
with  (baith)  blood."  The  passage  in  Matth.  iii.  11,  is  thus  translated 
from  the  Syriac  into  Latin  by  Schaaf  and  Leusden,  whose  edition  I  have 
— "  Ego  baptizo  vos  aqua  [not  in  aqua]  ad  conversionem — ipse  baptiz- 
abit  vos  Spiritu  sancto  et  igne  " — I  baptize  you  with  water  to  conver' 
sion — He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  Jire. 

I  will  oppose  to  the  authority  of  Luther,  who  admitted  that  the  orig- 
inal or  etymological  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse,  the  testimo- 
ny of  Ernesti,  one  of  the  ablest  writers  on  interpretation,  who  pro- 
nounces etymology  an  uncertain  and  an  unsafe  guide  in  ascertaining 
the  meaning  of  words.  To  the  authority  of  TertuUian,  who  is  mentioned 
as  having  translated  the  word  by  tingo,  I  will  oppose  that  of  Cyprian  and 
the  sixty-six  bishops,  who  used  it  in  the  sense  of  pouring  and  sprinkling. 

Dr.  Anihon,  I  presume,  is  a  classical  scholar;  but  I  have  abundandy 
proved,  that  an  acquaintance  with  classic  Greek  will  not  qualify  a  man 
to  expound  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  written  in 
"  Hebrew  Greek,"  The  classic  usage,  as  Ernesti,  and  Dr.  Campbell,  and 
Prof.  Stuart  affirm,  will,  if  followed,  in  many  cases  entirely  mislead  the 
interpreter  of  the  New  Testament.  I  would  attach  very  little  importance, 
therefore,  to  the  opinion  of  a  classical  scholar  concerning  an  important 
word  in  the  New  Testament,  unless  I  knew  he  had  studied  the  idiom  of 
the  Greek  spoken  by  the  Jews  and  inspired  writers.  Dr.  Anthon,  says 
my  friend,  decided  that  Dr.  Spring  was  in  error  concerning  this  word. 
But  I  venture  to  say,  that  Dr.  Spring  is  quite  as  well  known  as  a  scholar, 
as  the  gentleman  who  sat  in  judgment  upon  him.  Dr.  Spring  is  one  of 
the  first  men  in  our  country;  and  it  will  not  do  to  attempt  to  put  down 
the  views  he  may  have  expressed,  merely  by  the  ipse  dixit  of  Dr.  An- 
thon. Dr.  Clark  will,  perhaps,  be  admitted  to  have  been  equal  as  a  classi- 
cal scholar,  at  least  so  far  as  languages  are  concerned,  to  Dr.  Anthon ; 
and  he  says,  it  is  certain  that  baptizo  means  both  to  dip  and  to  sprinkle. 
Perhaps  Dr.  Dwight  will  be  admitted  to  have  been  superior  in  Biblical 
criticism  to  Dr.  Anthcn ;  and  he,  after  a  thorough  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject, came  fully  to  the  conclusion,  that  in  the  Scriptures  baptizo  does  not 
at  all  mean  to  itnmerse.  Dr.  Scott,  the  learned  commentator,  was  of  a 
similar  opinion.  I  will  put  the  authority  of  such  men  as  these  against  that 
of  Anthon,  and  of  Bloomfield,  (who  is  admitted  to  be  a  learned  man,)  if 
indeed  his  opinion  has  been  correctly  represented  by  my  friend,  Mr. 
Campbell.     To  what  extent  the  Edinburgh  Reviewers  made  themselves 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  177 

acquainted  with  this  subject,  before  expressing  the  opinion  quoted  by  the 
gentleman,  I  know  not.  They  thought,  it  seems,  that  Mr.  Carson  had  put 
himself  to  needless  trouble  in  maintaining  his  position.  Mr.  Carson,  of 
course,  thought  differently;  and  probably  he  was  the  better  judge  in  the 
case. 

But  really,  this  species  of  argument  is  worth  very  little.  My  friend 
has  told  us,  that  one  good  argument  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  point.  He 
seems,  however,  thus  far  to  have  failed  to  produce  even  one.  The  lexi- 
cons have  failed  him  ;  the  classics  cannot  prove  the  action  he  seeks  to 
find  in  baptizo ;  the  translations  will  not  sustain  him;  and  his  learned 
authorities  have  been  met  by  names  equally  learned,  if  not  more  so. 
Where,  then,  is  the  evidence,  proving  that  immersion  is  the  only  apostolic 
or  christian  baptism  ? 

The  opinion  of  Calvin,  on  any  subject,  I  will  admit  is  of  more  weight 
by  far,  than  mine  or  that  of  my  friend.  But  when  he  himself  says, 
that  in  regard  to  any  particular  subject  he  is  wholly  indifferent;  I  cannot 
attach  much  importance  to  his  opinion  about  it,  unless  I  learn  from  him, 
that  he  has  examined  its  merits.  For  we  all  know,  that  men  are  not  ac- 
customed extensively  to  investigate  subjects  that  do  not  interest  them. 

But  the  gendeman  boasts  of  the  number  of  immersionists  in  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  rapid  increase  of  his  own  church.  I  noticed  in  his 
Harbinger,  some  time  since,  an  article  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  rapid  in- 
crease of  Presbyterians  and  Old  Baptists  during  the  year  preceding ;  and 
I  remember,  he  consoled  himself  by  saying,  that  error  very  commonly 
spreads  faster  than  truth.  When  his  own  denomination  goes  ahead,  it 
affords  cheering  evidence,  that  his  principles  are  true  ;  but  when  others 
increase,  he  says.  Ah,  error  will  outrun  truth  any  how.  [A  laugh.]  But 
let  us  make  a  fair  calculation.  Count  the  Methodists,  the  Presbyterians, 
the  Congregationalists,  the  Episcopalians,  &c. — and  we  can  out-number 
immersionists  three  times  over.  The  gentleman  gains  nothing  by  count- 
ing numbers. 

I  have  now  noticed  his  remark,  so  far  as  necessary.  He  is  yet  "  in  the 
portico."  I  hope  he  vvill  ere  long  venture  into  the  good  Book.  In  the 
meantime,  lest  in  the  Bible  argument  I  should  get  too  far  ahead  of  him,  I 
will  turn  your  attention  more  particularly  to  the  history  o{  this  subject. 

I  have  said,  and  I  will  repeat  it,  that  immersion  cannot  be  found  in  the 
history  of  the  church  earlier  than  the  tliird  century.  The  first  writer 
who  mentions  it,  is  Tertullian,  who  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century ;  and  he  informs  us,  that  the  practice  then  was  trine  immer- 
sion, accompanied  with  sign  of  the  cross,  the  use  of  honey,  oil,  and  the 
indecent  custom  of  entirely  disrobing  the  persons,  male  and  female ! 
Will  my  friend  take  Tertullian  as  his  witness  ?  If  so,  I  hope  he  will 
agree  to  take  his  whole  testimony,  not  a  small  part  of  it.  In  courts  of 
justice,  when  a  man  calls  in  a  witness,  I  believe  he  is  obliged  to  take  his 
entire  testimony — he  cannot  select  just  so  much  as  may  suit  him.  Will 
tlie  gentleman,  then,  agree  to  practice  the  trine  immersion  of  Tertullian, 
with  the  accompanying  ceremonies  ?  No — he  must  cut  off  two  immer- 
sions, the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  divers  other  things  then  practiced.  So 
he  will  reject  some  three-fourths  or  four-fiflhs  of  the  testimony  of  his  own 
witness.  He  cuts  it  down,  till  it  suits  him.  Very  well :  let  me  have  the 
same  privilege.  Let  me  cut  off  a  little  more;  and  it  will  suit  me.  And 
in  doing  so,  I  only  act  upon  the  principle  which  he  adopts — I  follow  his 
example. 
12 


178  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

The  truth  is — this  witness  proves  too  much  for  either  of  us.  When 
we  first  tind  immersion,  we  find  it  attended  with  much  superstition. 
The  question  arises — how  much  of  the  practice  in  the  third  century  is 
superstition;  and  how  much  is  truth?  My  friend  says,  two  immersions, 
the  disrobing,  the  use  of  honey,  the  sign  of  the  cross.  But  may  there  not 
be  a  lilde  more  superstition,  than  he  admits?  Evidently  the  ordinance 
was  greaUy  corrupted  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  separate  the  pure  from  the 
vile,  except  by  going  to  the  Bible  itself.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
Justin  Martyr,  the  earliest  writer  on  baptism,  speaks  of  it  as  a  washing 
iloutron,)  but  not  as  an  immersion.  TertuUian,  as  I  have  said,  is  the  first 
who  speaks  of  immersion. 

But  it  is  an  important  fact,  that  we  find  pouring  and  sprinkling  prac- 
ticed and  universally  admitted  to  be  valid  and  scriptural,  quite  as  early  as 
we  find  immersion.  Cyprian,  who  lived  early  in  the  third  century,  and 
the  sixty-six  bishops  united  with  him  in  council,  were  unanimously  of 
that  opinion.  And  it  is  worthy  of  special  remark,  that  not  a  voice  was 
raised  against  their  decision  in  favor  of  the  validity  and  scripturality  (if  I 
may  coin  a  word)  of  baptism  by  sprinkling.  So  far  as  we  can  learn, 
there  was  not  a  word  of  controversy  on  the  subject,  as  certainly  there 
must  have  been,  if  it  had  been  considered  an  innovation.  Both  Greeks 
and  Latins  were  united  in  regarding  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  as 
valid  and  scriptural. 

But  I  can  find  sprinkling  rather  earlier  than  this.  Walker,  an  English 
writer,  who  studied  this  subject  with  great  care,  in  his  book  on  baptism, 
mentions  the  case  of  a  man,  some  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the  apos- 
tles, who,  whilst  on  a  journey,  was  taken  dangerously  ill,  professed  Chris- 
tianity, and  desired  baptism.  As  water  could  not  be  obtained,  the  place 
being  desert,  he  was  sprinkled  thrice  with  sand.  He  recovered ;  and  his 
case  being  reported  to  the  bishop,  he  decided  that  he  was  baptized  "if 
only  water  were  poured  {jperfunderetur)  on  him."  Here  is  an  instance 
of  baptism  by  pouring,  earlier  than  any  account  of  immersion,  so  far  as  I 
know,  can  be  found. — See  Pond.  p.  45. 

It  has  been  asserted,  that  baptism  by  pouring  and  sprinkling  was,  at 
the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking,  deemed  so  doubtful  as  to  its  valid- 
ity, that  persons  so  baptized  were  not  permitted  to  bear  the  ministerial 
office.  This,  however,  is  not  true.  There  was  a  rule,  as  we  learn  from 
the  council  of  Neoceserea,  that  persons  who  made  profession  of  religion 
on  a  sick  bed,  should  not  enter  the  ministry,  unless  they  afterwards  gave 
decided  evidence  of  piety.  The  difficulty  arose,  not  from  any  doubt  en- 
tertained of  the  validity  of  their  baptism,  but  from  the  doubtful  character 
erf  their  piety.  This  will  be  proved,  if  disputed.  The  christians  of  that 
day  certainly  gave  the  most  unequivocal  evidence  of  their  entire  confidence 
in  the  scriptural  character  of  such  baptisms  ;  for  although  the  prevailing 
belief  was,  that  persons  dying  unbaptized  would  go  to  perdition,  they  had 
no  scruples  about  baptizing  the  sick  by  pouring ;  nor  did  they  ever  re- 
baptize  such  as  had  received  the  ordinance  in  this  manner.  They,  there- 
fore, risked  the  salvation  of  the  soul  upon  the  validity  of  such  baptisms. 
Indeed  it  is  certain,  that  many  of  the  ancients  entertained  the  belief, 
that  John  baptized  by  pouring.  The  proof  of  this  fact  I  have  already 
produced ;  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  repeat  it.  Aurelius  Prudentius 
(A.  D.  390)  represents  him  as  pouring  water  on  the  persons  in  the  river — 
iiperfundit  Jluvio.'^  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  about  the  same  time, 
represents  him  as  baptizing  "  infusis  lyniphis'''' — by  pouring  water.    Ber- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I79 

nard,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  our  Savior  by  John,  says — "  Tnfundit 
aquam  capiti  Creatoris  creatura" — the  creature  poured  ivater  on  the  head 
of  the  Creator.  Lactantius  speaks  of  baptism  performed  ''  purijici  roris 
perfusione'''' — by  the  distilling  of  the  purifying  dew.  In  the  5tli  century 
it  was  very  common  in  many  places  to  baptize  by  pouring. 

I  might  safely  agree  to  decide  this  controversy  by  the  testimony  of  the 
early  Greek  and  Latin  fathers;  for,  to  a  man,  they  believed  that  bap- 
tism, by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  was  true  christian  baptism.  They  furnish 
us  with  concessions  of  immersionists  that  are  worth  something.  They, 
it  will  not  be  denied,  understood  the  Greek  language.  They  certainly 
knew  whether  baptize  signified  only  to  immerse.  And  it  will  not  be 
pretended,  that  they  were  prejudiced  in  favor  of  our  mode.  Our  im- 
mersionist  friends  love  to  claim  them  as  genuine  advocates  of  theirs. 
Yet  with  all  their  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  and  with  all  their  strong  par- 
tialities for  immersion,  they  did  not  know,  they  did  not  believe,  that  im- 
mersion is  the  only  apostolic  or  christian  baptism.  Here  we  have  con- 
cessions that  will  outweigh  all  the  Pedo-baplist  concessions  that  can  be 
produced.  These  concessions  are  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  Mr. 
Campbell  ;  whilst  the  concessions  of  Pedo-baptists  touch  not  the  validity 
and  scriptural  character  of  our  baptism. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  regard  the  testimony  of  the  lexicons,  or  the 
usage  of  the  classics,  or  the  authority  of  the  translations,  or  the  usage  of 
the  Jewish  writings  and  of  the  Bible,  or  the  opinions  and  practice  of 
the  ancient  churches,  or  all  of  these  together ;  we  stand  on  a  firm  foun- 
dation. With  one  voice  they  testify,  that  baptize  does  not  mean  simply 
to  immerse.  With  almost  irresistible  evidence  they  establish  the  validity 
of  our  mode  of  baptism. 

Let  not  the  fact  be  forgotten,  that  when  the  Greeks  would  definitely 
express  immersion,  they  used  A:a/ar/wo;  and  when  the  Latins  spoke  of 
that  mode  of  baptism,  they  used  tingo,  mergo,  immergo,  mergito.  But 
when  they  spoke  simply  of  the  ordinance,  they  all  used  baptize.  How 
are  we  to  account  for  this  fact?  How  can  it  be  explained,  on  the  princi- 
ples for  which  the  genderaan  is  contending? 

I  will  put  the  testimony  of  Origen,  the  learned  Greek  father,  against  the 
opinion  of  Anthon  and  Johnson.  Origen  says,  Elisha  had  the  altar  bap- 
tized ;  and  the  Bible  tells  us  how  that  baptism  was  administered.  The 
water  was  poured  upon  it.  The  altar  was  not  put  down  into  the  water. 
None  of  your  classical  scholars  can  say  that  Origen  did  not  understand 
his  vernacular  tongue.  Athanasius,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  Basil,  understood  the  Greek,  and  they  all  used  the  word  to 
express  the  application  of  a  fluid,  even  in  small  quantities,  to  a  subject. 
The  testimony  of  such  men,  concerning  a  Greek  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, is  worth  more  than  all  the  lexicons  and  classics,  even  if  they 
were  against  us. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  pursue  the  subject  further  to-day.  I  have  it 
precisely  in  the  position  in  which  I  wish  it.  On  to-morrow,  if  spared,  I 
will  make  an  argument  directly  in  favor  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling.— [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 10  o'clock,  A.M. 
\jiiv..  Campbell's  twelfth  address.] 

It  is  important,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  we  always  have  before  us  the 
precise  point  at  issue,  in  every  department  of  this  debate.  Various  minor 
points  will  come  up  in  the  discussion  of  any  great  question.     But,  how- 


180  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ever  numerous  these  points  may  be,  they  should  always  be  considered 
with  reference  to  the  great  point.  Their  relevancy,  pertinency,  and 
power,  should  be  regarded  with  special  reference  to  it. 

That  great  point  now  before  us,  is  to  ascertain,  if  we  can,  from  the 
Scriptures  of  truth,  and  from  ancient  learning,  what  is  the  precise  precept 
of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  commission.  As  we  said  before,  he  doubtless  in- 
tended some  one  definite  action  to  be  performed.  He  had  but  one  design, 
one  aim,  and  he  gave  one  plain  precept  clearly  indicative  of  it.  What 
that  precept  was,  we  cannot  mistake  ;  for  he  said,  "  baptize."  By  this, 
he  certainly  meant  some  one  well-defined  action  ;  not  any  action  which 
every  one  pleases.  Is  not  this  perfectly  plain  ?  I  care  not  what  that  one 
action  may  be.  It  is  acceptable  to  me  because  it  is  his  will.  Had  he 
said  wash,  or  purify,  without  respect  to  any  mode,  I  would  be  pleased 
with  any  mode  whatever,  provided  it  were  indeed  ivashing  or  purifying 
the  whole  person.  But  even  then,  it  must  be  the  whole  person.  His 
will  is  always  my  pleasure.  Were  I  to  consult  flesh  and  blood,  I  had 
much  rather  be  with  than  against  Mr.  Rice.  His  mode  is  certainly  the 
easier  of  the  two,  and  we  all  love  easy  and  comfortable  services.  It  is 
also  the  most  convenient ;  and  there  is  no  cross  about  it.  And  no  one  likes 
to  carry  a  cross  if  he  can  help  it.  It  is  also  said  to  be  more  polite  and 
genteel,  and  that  is  a  good  argument.  Flesh  and  blood,  then — and  they 
are  eloquent  pleaders — are  with  him  and  against  me.  But  when  reason, 
and  conscience,  and  the  love  of  the  Savior  mount  the  throne,  we  feel  and 
know  that  he  has  commanded  some  one  action  to  be  performed,  and  we 
must  understand  it,  if  possible,  and  just  do  that  action,  and  no  other;  for 
nothing  else  will  please  him.  This  is  the  fact  and  the  law,  both  in 
heaven  and  earth.     The  reason  is,  his  will  is  always  wise  and  benevolent. 

I  have  presented  this  subject  in  various  forms,  that  it  may  be  appre- 
hended. When  God  speaks  and  legislates  in  human  language,  he  uses 
our  words  in  their  most  precise,  proper,  and  correct  meaning  at  the  time 
in  which  he  speaks  ;  and,  therefore,  in  interpreting  them,  we  have  only 
to  bring  them  to  the  same  tribunal  and  to  the  same  code  of  laws  to  whidh 
we  appeal  in  any  other  case  of  the  same  time,  country,  language,  &c. 
We  ask  no  special  tribunal,  no  special  laws  in  the  case.  The  tribunal 
to  which  we  appeal,  and  the  laws  by  which  we  would  be  tried,  are  uni- 
versally admitted  in  all  the  commonwealth  of  learning  and  of  law. 

We  have  first  appealed  to  the  great  law,  defining  the  meaning  of  words, 
as  general  and  specific. 

We  have  in  the  next  place,  opened  the  dictionaries  of  that  language  in 
which  the  christian  laws  were  written  by  inspired  apostles.  The  whole 
host  of  lexicographers  depose  that  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge,  is  the  proper, 
primitive  and  current  meaning  of  baptizo.  In  this  point  there  is  no 
discrepancy — all  other  uses  and  acceptations  of  this  word  are  figurative 
and  rhetorical. 

The  gentleman  [Mr.  Rice,3  has  frequently  told  you  what  he  has  prov- 
ed, and  what  he  has  refuted.  I  envy  no  man  the  talent,  the  peculiar  fac- 
ulty of  strongly  and  repeatedly  affirming  his  conviction,  or  imagination, 
that  he  has  proved,  conclusively  and  irrefragably  proved,  himself  right, 
and  his  opponent  wrong.  He  that  imagines  that  his  bold,  simple,  unsup- 
ported assertion  will  pass  with  the  community  for  proof,  "  strong  as  holy 
writ,"  conceives  not  of  his  audience  as  I  do,  nor  as  I  wish  to  do.  With 
me,  a  man's  saying  that  he  has  proved  a  proposition,  and  repeating  it  a 
thousand  times,  passes  for  nothing.     And  thus  I  judge  of  my  audience. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  181 

They  ask  me  not  to  judge  for  them — but  they  ask  me  for  light,  for  evi- 
dence, for  proof.  I  give  it  to  them,  and  then  leave  the  forming  of  con- 
clusions to  themselves.  I  seek  to  treat  them  as  I  would  wish  them  to 
treat  me.  I  ask  no  man  to  tell  me  what  he  has  proved ;  he  may  give  me 
his  opinion  on  that  subject,  if  he  pleases,  and  I  will  then  examine  his 
opinion. 

The  gentleman  says,  he  has  proved  from  lexicons — what?  He  has 
nothing  to  prove !  He  may  find  exceptions,  or  objections,  but  he  has 
nothing  to  prove — except  that  the  authorities  I  offer  are  either  not  truly 
alledged,  or  that  they  are  irrelevant,  or  that  they  are  defective.  Has  he 
done  so  ?  In  what  instance  ?  Has  he  proved  that  bapfizo  is  not  a  spe- 
cific word,  or  that  it  is  generic  ?  At  one  time  he  said  that  baptizo  com- 
prehended more  than  to  wash ;  and,  at  another  time,  tliat  dipping,  the 
proper  and  first  meaning  of  the  word,  is  only  a  mode  of  v\^ashing — thus 
making  it  generic  or  specific,  as  the  case  requires.  Has  he  produced  a 
lexicon,  of  the  eighteen  centuries  past,  giving  sprinkle  or  pour  as  the 
proper,  or  as  the  Jigurative  meaning  of  baptizo?  How  often  must  I 
contradict  and  repel  such  an  assumption?  How,  then,  has  he  sustained 
the  practice  of  his  church  ?  Let  him  adduce  any  modern  dictionary, 
English,  French,  Spanish,  German,  &;c.,  thus  expounding  the  Greek 
words,  bapto  or  baptizo. 

And  the  translations  are  all  with  him  too !  And  why  not  add  all  the 
world  also !  He  has  not  produced  a  version  of  the  liible  of  his  own 
church,  or  of  ours,  ancient  or  modern,  in  any  language,  that  ever  did 
translate  baptizo,  in  one  single  instance,  by  any  word  that  justifies  the 
practice  of  his  church.  What,  in  the  ear  of  reason  and  of  truth,  are 
assertions  worth,  not  only  unsustained  by  a  single  fact,  but  opposed  by 
thousands?  Have  I  not  shown  that  they  are  with  me?  That  so  far  as 
any  of  them  has  introduced  any  word  for  baptism,  it  has  sometimes,  nay 
often,  substituted  immerse,  or  its  equivalent ;  and  never,  on  any  occasion, 
a  word  that  sustains  the  Presbyterian  practice  ?  His  proofs,  such  as  they 
are,  are  all  exparte.  Suppose  I  were  to  quote  Baptist  authorities,  (and 
many  of  them  are  as  authoritative,  rational,  and  veritable,  as  any  in  the 
world,)  what  Avould  he  have  then  asserted!  Yes,  if  he  thus  asserts  now, 
when  I  give  him  all  my  proofs  out  of  the  Pedo-baptist  church,  what 
would  he  say  if  I  had  done  as  he  has  done — quote  all  my  authorities 
from  those  with  me  ? 

Let  him  adduce  any  Baptist  dictionary,  commentator,  annotator,  or 
critic,  that  has  ever  conceded  to  him  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  wetting, 
as  thousands  of  his  party  have  done,  and  been  constrained  to  do  to  us,  in 
die  case  of  immersion ! 

He  says  he  can  bring  book  for  book,  name  for  name,  dictionary  for 
dictionary,  ad  infinitum  !  Then  they  are  like  some  twenty  authorities 
which  he  has  quoted,  in  anticipation  of  me,  marked  out  by  me  as  evi- 
dences— not  one  of  them  asserting  his  practice;  all  of  them,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  vindicating  mine.  Thus  he  gets  before  me  in  time, 
and  place,  and  books,  if  not  in  argument.  But  does  any  one  of  these 
books,  or  authorities,  say  for  him  what  he  teaches  and  practices  ?  Not 
one.  If  such  methods  of  argument,  assertion,  and  proof,  will  pass  for 
evidence  with  this  community,  I  must  say,  I  have  greatly  mistaken  its 
character. 

I  did  not  expect,  nor  intend,  to  bring  the  discussion  of  this  proposition 
to  a  close  to-day.     I  am  compelled,  however,  to  gallop  through  it  in  ihe 

Q 


182  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

best  way  I  can.  We  are,  indeed,  to  have  a  night  session  of  three  hours, 
in  order  to  make  out  the  time  agreed  upon :  for,  were  we  to  close  at  two 
o'clock,  Ave  should  then  have  had  but  sixteen  hours,  instead  of  eighteen, 
on  this  proposition.  I  did,  indeed,  expect  that,  by  intrenching  somewhat 
on  the  time  allotted  other  propositions,  of  less  comprehensive  proof,  I 
would  have  been  allowed  to  go  through  this  question  more  deliberately 
and  fully.  In  hasting  over  such  a  held,  I  shall  frequently  be  obliged 
merely  to  state  some  principles,  and  topics,  from  which  I  would  have 
argued  at  much  greater  length. 

My  friend,  IMr.  R.,  in  his  concluding  remarks  on  yesterday,  spoke  of  some 
peculiar  license  aflbrded  him  from  Ernesti.  That  distinguished  writer  on 
hermeneutics,  has  given  him  no  such  license  as  that  for  wliich  he  pleads. 
Ernesti,  Horn,  Stuart,  and  all  that  school,  with  which  I  profess  to  be 
tolerably  well  acquainted,  affirm  that  we  are  never  to  depart  from  the 
common  and  well  established  meaning  of  words,  without  a  clear  and  well 
established  necessity.  They  try  the  meaning  of  words  by  contemporary 
writers,  by  the  currency  of  usage,  country,  people.  Had  we  the  space 
of  a  long  summer's  day  to  discuss  these  principles  of  interpretation,  1 
would  demonstrate  that  I  am  pursuing  the  course  commended  by  Morus, 
Ernesti,  Horn,  Stuart,  and  all  of  them.  Mr.  R.  has  no  authority  for 
claiming  for  baptizo  a  special  court,  a  special  code,  or  in  any  way  to  ex- 
empt it  from  the  common  rules  of  interpretation.  It  is  not  a  word  of 
idiom,  as  I  have  frequently  observed.  To  dip,  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  like 
other  outward,  physical,  and  well  defined  actions,  are  not  effected  by  any 
national  peculiarity.  Men  performed  these  actions  in  all  ages,  languages, 
and  countries,  in  the  same  manner.  Ernesti  has  given  liim  no  law  any 
more  than  Gregory  X.  to  interpret  the  word  in  dispute,  in  any  shade  of 
sense  differing  from  Josephus,  the  Septuagint,  or  the  Greek  classics.  They 
all  perfecdy  agree  on  the  subject.  He  must  not  get  a  dispensation  or  a 
bull  for  trying  ^«/*/i20,  as  a  heretic  is  tried.  Let  him  show  reasons  why 
he  would  plead  for  a  special  law  in  the  case.  When  such  reasons  are 
offered,  and  not  till  then,  they  shall  be  examined.  We  need  no  special 
pleading,  and  we  cannot  allow  it  in  so  plain  a  case. 

Before  proceeding  to  my  next  argument,  there  yet  remain  two  other 
documents  to  be  heard  from  in  conclusion  of  my  sixth  argument.  There 
is  a  short  extract  from  Calmet,  and  a  still  shorter  one  from  die  Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia. 

Taylor\  Calmet.  "Baptism  is  taken  in  Scripture  for  sufferings,' Can  ye 
drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of,  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  which  I 
am  baptized  with  ! '  Mark  x.  38.  And  Luke  xii.  50,  '  I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  ]'  We 
tind  traces  of  similar  phraseology  in  the  Old  Testament,  (Ps.  Ixix.  2,  3.) 
where  waters  often  denote  tribulations  ;  and  where,  to  be  swallowed  up  by 
the  waters,  to  pass  through  great  waters,  &c.,  signifies  to  be  overwhelmed 
by  misfortunes. 

"  There  is  a  very  sudden  turn  of  metaphor  used  by  the  apostle  Paul,  in 
Rom.  vi.  3-5,  '  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  deaths  theretbre  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  his  death — that  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have 
heen  planted  together  [with  him]  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also 
planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.'  Now  what  has  baptism  to  do 
with  planting-?  Wherein  consists  their  similarity,  so  as  to  justify  the 
resemblance  here  implied?  In  1  Peter  iii.  2L  we  tind  the  apostle  speak- 
ing of  baptism,  figuratively,  as  'saving  us  ; '  and  alluding  to  Noah,  who 
long  lay  buried  in  the  ark,  as  corn  long  lies  buried  in  the  earth.    Now,  as 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  183 

after  having  died  to  his  former  course  of  life  in  being  baptized,  a  convert 
was  considered  as  rising  to  a  renewed  life,  so  after  having  been  separated 
from  his  tbrmer  connections,  his  seed-bed  as  it  were,  after  Jiaving  died  in 
being  planted,  lie  was  considered  as  rising  to  renewed  life  also.'' 

Ediiibwgh  Ency. — "  In  the  time  of  the  apostles  the  form  of  baptism  was 
very  simple.  The  person  to  be  baptized  was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel, 
with  the  words  whicli  Christ -had  ordered,  and  to  express  more  fully  his 
change  of  character,  generally  assumed  a  new  name.  The  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  was  omitted  only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  whocould  not  leave 
their  beds.  In  this  cas€»sprinkling  was  substituted,  which  wns  called  clinic 
baptism.  The  Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  schimatics  in  the  east,  retained 
the  custom  of  immersing  the  whole  body  ;  but  the  Western  church  adopted, 
in  tiie  thirteenth  century,  the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  which  has 
been  continued  by  the  Protestants,  Baptists  only  excepted." 

I  am  sorry  to  dip  into  the  Greek  again  ;  and,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of 
condensing,  I  prefer  to  read  my  seventh  argument  and  its  developments 
as  derived  from  the  words  used  in  construction  with  baptizo,  as  I  have 
sketched  it  in  my  book  on  baptism.  I  will  pass  over  it  as  rapidly  as 
possible. 

VII.  Our  seventh  argument,  in  development  and  eonfirmation  of  the 
true  meaning  of  baptizo,  is  derived  from  the  words  used  in  construction 
with  it,  as  contra-distinguished  from  all  its  rivals,  raino,  cheo,  loiio ;  and 
the  prepositions  epi,  en,  els,  ek,  apo,  used  in  construction  with  them. 

We  shall  commence  with  epi,  the  word  essential  to  the  use  of  raino, 
rantizo,  and  that  family,  For  the  reasons  already  given  we  are  obliged, 
in  positive  laws  and  precepts,  to  take  all  the  words  in  their  primitive, 
proper,  or  common,  and  not  in  their  figurative  and  peculiar  significations. 
Epi  frequently  signifies  on  or  upon;  en,  generally  in  ;  eis,  into;  ek,  of, 
out  of,  or  from  ;  and  apo,  itom.  Bat  we  iiave  a  shorter  and  more  satis- 
factory way  of  ascertaining  the  use  and  import  of  these  prepositions, 
than  the  more  common  method  of  comparing  all  the  occurrences.  We 
take  them  and  their  principals  together.  For,  in  this  way,  there  is  less 
room  for  false  and  inconclusive  reasoning,  and  the  most  illiterate  may 
thus  comprehend  them.  We  shall  illustrate  this  by  taking  raino  and  its 
compounds,  peri,  raino  and  epi  together,  and  bapto  and  baptizo,  with  en 
and  eis,  as  they  are  found  in  common  usage.  I  assert,  then,  that  for  some 
reason  raino  and  epi  agree  together ;  baptizo  and  en  also  agree  to- 
gether. But  raino  and  en,  or  baptizo  and  epi,  so  perfectly  disagree,  as 
never  to  be  found  construed  in  amity  in  any  Greek  author,  sacred  or 
profane. 

1.  Peri-raino  epi  ton  katharisthcnta — sprinkle  the  blood  upon  him 
to  be  cleansed.  Lev.  xiv.  7  ;  2.  Peri  -ranei  epi  teen  oikian — sprinkle 
upon  the  house.  Lev.  xiv.  51  ;  3.  Ranei  epihilasterion — he  shall  sprinkle 
it  upon  the  mercy-seat.  Lev.  xvi.  14.  This  phrase  occurs  a  second  time 
in  the  same  verse — Peri-ranei  epi  ton  oikon — he  shall  sprinkle  it  u[)on 
the  house;  epi  ta  skeua;  epi  tas psuc/ias,  upon  the  persons.  The  same 
idiom  is  here  found  three  times  in  one  verse.  Num.  xix.  18;  again,  in 
the  19th  verse,  Peri  -ranei  epi  ton  akatharton — he  shall  sprinkle  it  upon 
the  unclean  ;  again,  Eze.  xxxvi.  25,  Raina  epi  hiiinas  kutharon  hudoor 
— I  will  sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water.  In  construction,  then,  with  the 
person  upon  whom  water  is  sprinkled,  the  verb  raino  is  followed  by  epi ; 
never  by  en  or  eis.  A  sprinkles  water,  blood,  oil,  dust,  or  ashes  upon  B ; 
but  never  sprinkles  B  in  blood,  oil,  dust,  &c. :  whereas  baptizo,  in  such 
cases  is  followed  by  en  or  eis,  never  by  epi.     A  immerses  B,  not  upon, 


l84  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

or  ivith,  but  in  water.  This  is  a  most  convincing  fact,  that  baptizo,  oc- 
curring eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  is  never  construed  with  epi, 
nor  raino  with  en  or  eis.  Baptizo  is  fre'quently  construed  with  en  and  eis, 
and  raino  with  epi ;  but  they  never  interchange  their  particles.  A  shadow 
does  not  more  naturally  accompany  an  object  standing  in  the  sunshine,  in 
this  latitude,  than  does  epi  accompany  raino,  and  en,  baptizo,  in  the  cases 
described. 

All  this  is  equally  true  in  the  case  of  cheo,  to  pour.  The  object  on 
which  water  or  anything  is  poured,  is  designated  by  epi,  never  by  en. 
The  thing  poured  or  sprinkled  always  follows  the  verb  to  pour  or  sprinkle  ; 
the  person  is  always  preceded  by  upon.  Neither  of  these  facts  ever  oc- 
curs in  the  case  of  baptizo.  In  that  case  the  person  always  follows  the 
verb;  and  the  material  in  which  the  action  is  performed,  is  always  pre- 
ceded by  en,  expressed  or  understood.  Hence  the  uniform  construction 
in  the  one  case  is,  "  I  immerse  B  in  loater  ;"  in  the  other  case  the  con- 
struction is,  "  I  pour  or  sprinkle  water  upon  B^  Not  more  clearly  dif- 
ferent are  these  two  constructions  in  English  than  they  are  in  Greek. 
Indeed,  the  object  immersed  is  never  governed  by  a  preposition — the 
object  sprinkled  or  poured  is  always  governed  by  a  preposition.  The 
actions,  then,  in  the  original  are  just  as  distinct  as  the  words  baptizOy 
cheo,  raino,  and  their  respective  constructions. 

Louo,  to  wash,  is  by  some  supposed  to  be  identical  with  baptizo. 
They  imagine,  that  because  baptizo  is  metaphorically  rendered  by  loiiOy 
to  wash,  in  a  few  instances,  they  must  be  identical  in  meaning.  But  such 
is  not  the  fact.  Baptizo  is  sometimes  figuratively  rendered  by  louo; 
but  louo  is  never  rendered  by  baptizo  !  Hence,  and  I  wish  I  could  read 
this  with  the  most  imposing  emphasis,  louo  and  baptizo,  and  their  repre- 
sentatives, to  wash,  and  to  baptize,  are  not  convertible  terms.  But,  in  the 
definition  of  words,  the  word  defined  and  the  definition  must,  in  all  cases, 
be  convertible,  if  the  definition  be  a  correct  one.  Hence  baptizo  does 
not  mean  to  wash,  except  by  accident,  metonymically.  To  one  accus-^ 
tomed  to  read  the  New  Testament  with  a  critical  eye,  these  are  facts 
which  clearly  forbid  such  an  assumption.  For  instance,  louo  and  bap' 
tizo  occur  in  the  same  sentence,  and  sometimes  in  the  same  clause  of 
a  sentence,  in  direct  contra-distinction.  Thus  in  the  case  of  the  jailor. 
Acts  xvi.,  "  He  washed  their  stripes  and  was  baptized,'''' — and  Ananias 
said  to  Paul,  "Arise,  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins." 

It  is  not  said,  Be  washed  and  then  wash  away  thy  sins.  It  does  not 
say.  He  washed  their  stripes,  and  was  washed  himself  and  all  his  family. 
These  examples  most  satisfactorily  demonstrate  that  the  aposdes  never 
used  baptizo  and  louo,  or  immerse  and  wash  as  convertible  or  equivalent 
terms.  Baptism  is,  therefore,  not  washing,  nor  washing  baptism  ;  in 
virtue  of  the  meaning  of  the  original  terms.  Rantizo  and  htco  are  as 
inimical  as  baptizo  and  louo;  for  we  find  them  standing  in  the  same 
clause  together.  Thus  Paul  says,  "  Having  your  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience,  and  your  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  Sprink- 
ling and  washing  are,  therefore,  as  inconvertible  as  immersion  and 
washing.     *     *     *     * 

The  congruity  of  things,  therefore,  calls  for  certain  prepositions  in 
construction  with  verbs  of  action,  and  these  go  very  far  to  setde  any 
thing  douDtful  in  the  acceptation  of  the  principal  word  in  any  given  pas- 
sage. Now  as  baptizo  has  frequently  both  en  and  eis  construed  with  the 
liquid  or  material  used  in  the  ordinance,  and  raino  and  cheo  never  j  foU 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  185 

lows  it  not  that  these  prepositions  demonstrate  a  meaning  in  these  words 
wholly  infompatible  with  each  other,  so  far  as  action  is  concerned] 

It  is  as  impossible  either  to  pour  or  sprinkle  a  man  into  or  in  a  river,  as  it 
is  to  immerse  him  upon  it,  or  to  immerse  water  upon  him.  It  is,  therefore, 
offering  the  grossest  violence  to  all  the  laws  of  congruous  construction  to 
attempt  to  translate  baptizo  by  sprinkle,  pour,  or  purify  ;  or  raino  and  cheo 
by  immerse,  plunge,  or  overwhelm.  The  best  lexicography,  both  of  the 
principals  and  tiieir  usual  retinue  of  particles  and  circumstances,  peremp- 
torily forbids  such  liberties.  Concerning  ek  and  apo,  we  shall  say  some- 
thing in  our  next  argument. 

VIU.  Our  eighth  argument  is  derived  from  the  places  where  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  was  anciently  administered ;  which  will  still  farther  de- 
velope  the  force  of  the  prepositions  in  construction  with  baptizo. 

Baptism  was  first  administered  in  rivers.  The  first  Baptist,  during  his 
public  ministry,  spent  much  of  his  time  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan.  Thither 
resorted  to  him  "all  Judea  and  Jerusalem,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  the 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  They  were  not  baptized  upon  Jordan,  nor 
were  they  baptized  with  Jordan,  nor  was  Jordan  baptized  upon  them  ;  but 
they  were  baptized  in  Jordan.  Our  English  in  is  but  the  adoption  of  the 
Greek  en.  The  Romans  borrowed  their  in  from  the  Greeks,  and  we  bor- 
rowed our  in  from  the  Romans  ;  and  all  these  ins  are  of  one  and  the  same 
elgnification  and  construction.  In  is  neither  at,  with,  nor  by ;  except  by 
figure.  It  is  literally  in.  In  the  house,  is  not  at  the  house,  with  the  house, 
nor  by  the  house  ;  but  in  the  house. 

Now,  as  epi  does  not  bring  the  Jordan  upon  them,  and  as  eis  and  en  place 
them  in  the  river,  the  meaning  o? ek  and  apo  is  by  necessity  established  as 
assisting  the  baptized  to  emerge  out  of  the  river. 

If  the  liberty  which  Pedo-baptists  have  taken  with  these  prepositions,  in 
the  heat  of  controversy,  has  called  forth  the  admiration  and  reproofs  of  their 
own  most  learned  and  sober-minded  men,  why  should  it  be  thought  strange 
that  we  should  be  astounded  at  the  recklessness  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Miller 
of  Princeton,  and  others,  who,  in  defiance  of  their  own  reputation  for  learn- 
ing and  good  sense,  have  contradicted,  in  express  terms,  all  our  lexico- 
graphers, translators,  reformers,  historians  and  distinguished  critics,  for  the 
sake  of  the  papal  dogma  of  infant  rantism,  consecrated  by  John  Calvin, 
John  Knox,  Theodore  Beza,  and  their  adherents. 

On  counting  the  actual  occurrences  of  en  in  the  New  Testament  I  find 
it  is  found  2660  times.  Of  this  immense  number  of  times,  though  these 
learned  doctors  tell  you  of  its  two-and-twenty  meanings,  it  is  translated  in 
your  common  Testament  2045  times  by  in.  Yet  such  critics  as  Dr.  Miller, 
when  they  put  on  their  Pedo-baptist  spectacles,  will  have  it  with  always 
when  baptism  is  alluded  to.  John  baptizes  with  water ;  but,  when  the 
phrase  comes,  en  to  Jordanee,  he  passes  it  by.  He  does  not  say  he  baptized 
them  with  Jordan  ;  but,  passing  it  by,  he  says  that  eis  means  at  or  to,  in 
such  cases.  Well,  not  having  time  to  count  over  the  whole  book,  I  found 
in  the  four  gospels  that  eis  occurs  795  times.  Of  these,  it  is  translated  by 
into  372  times,  and  by  to,  for  into,  more  than  one  hundred  times  ;  for  to  the 
house,  to  the  temple,  to  the  city,  to  Jerusalem,  Bethany,  Nazareth,  &c., 
means  into;  and  of  273  times  im/o,  it  might  have  been  very  often  into; 
thus  making,  in  all,  500  out  of  795  occurrences. 

As  for  ek  and  apo,  frequently  rendered  out  of  and  yrom,  it  is,  on  two  ac- 
counts, unnecessary  to  speak  particularly  ;  because,  first,  whether  they  are 
inore  commonly  rendered  hy  from,  or  out  o/",  avails  nothing,  seeing  that /roTw, 
nine  times  in  ten,  is  out  of,  in  sense.  For  example,  from  heaven,  from  the 
temple,  from  the  city,  from  the  grave,  means  out  of  these  places,  and  not 
from  the  boundaries  of  them.  In  the  second  place,  it  being  evident  that 
baptizo,  with  en  and  eis,  most  certainly  places  the  subject  in  the  pool,  in 
the  river,  or  in  the  bath,  ek  and  apo  must  bring  them  out  of  it. 

Fancy  or  taste  may  increase  indefinitely  the  figurative  meaning  of  words; 

ci2 


18G  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

but  the  number  of  figurative  meanings  is  of  no  philological  account  in  fix- 
ing the  common  or  proper  meaning  of  any  word,  still  less  the  mere  connec- 
tives of  speech. 

The  partial  and  one-sided  mode  of  interpretation  is  nowhere  more  appa- 
rent than  in  the  cavils  about  these  prepositions.  We  sliall  produce  but  a 
single  example :  Epi  and  en  will  illustrate  the  matter.  After  raino  or  cheo, 
epi  is  always  translated  upon,  without  one  demurrer  in  all  the  Pedo-baptist 
ranks ;  yet  epi,  out  of  920  times  in  the  New  Testament,  is  translated  by 
upon  only  158  times,  that  is,  about  once  in  six  times ;  whereas,  en  is  trans- 
lated four  times  in  every  five  by  in.  Yet  to  sprinkle  upon  is  never  cavilled 
at  by  a  Pedo-baptist ;  while  to  baptize,  or  immerse  in,  is  always  repudiated 
as  an  unwarrantable  license  on  the  part  of  a  Baptist !! 

But  the  reason  given  why  John  baptized  at  Enon,  one  would  think,  ought 
to  silence  every  doubt  or  cavil  on  that  question.  But,  alas  !  for  frail  human 
nature  !  it  will  not  always  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead. 
Hence,  although  we  are  expressly  told  that  John  baptized  at  Enon,  because 
there  was  muck  water  there;  the  spirit  of  the  sectary  sets  about  to  prove 
that  there  was  not  much  water  there,  but  only  a  few  rivulets.  And,  if  at 
last  lie  is  constrained  to  admit,  that  even  many  pools  might  be  collected 
from  many  rivulets,  he  sets  about  finding  some  other  use  for  the  many  rivu- 
lets and  pools  than  for  the  performance  of  baptism.  In  his  heated  imagi- 
nation, he  sees  all  the  dromedaries  and  camels  of  Arabia  carrying  the  peo- 
ple to  John's  tent,  and,  that  these  thirsty  animals,  coming  off  their  long 
journey,  might  have  something  to  drink,  the  humane  John,  who  alwayis 
kept  a  bason  and  a  squirt  upon  his  table  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing,  pitch- 
ed his  tent  near  to  Enon  for  the  sake,  not  of  baptizing,  but  of  watering  the 
caravans  that  flocked  to  his  baptism.  Credat  Judceus  Appela,  non  ego.  To 
argue  against  imagination,  is  like  arguing  against  love  or  our  instinct- 
ive appetites.  Still  we  must  remark,  that  polla  hudata  signifies  much 
water,  and  tliat  John  the  apostle  uses  the  phrase  in  his  writings  no  less 
than  Jive  times  ;  the  other  instances,  too,  all  requiring  much  water.  The 
mystic  mother  of  papal  Rome  sits  on  '•  many  waters."  Are  these  little 
rivulets,  indeed  !  The  voice  of  God,  too,  is  compared  to  the  sound  of  many 
waters!    r^an  these  be  rivulets  1 

John,  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  style,  uses  polla  hudata,  in  the  plural 
iorm,  for  much  water.  I  believe  we  never  have  hudor  in  the  singular  num- 
ber in  all  the  Septuagint;  hence,  we  are  confirmed  in  the  belief  that,  in 
Jewish  style,  the  plural  form  indicates  much  water,  just  as  the  word  always 
indicates  to  us. 

But  does  not  the  sentence  itself  refute  the  presumptuous  construction 
sometimes  imposed  on  it.  Reads  it  not,  that  John  baptized  at  Enon  for  a 
given  reason]  He  did  not  encamp  or  lodge  there  for  that  reason  ;  but  he 
baptized  there  for  that  reason.  Hence,  the  baptizing  and  the  reason,  much 
water,  must  fairly  and  honorably  go  together.  John  baptized  at  Enon  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  there  was  much  water  there. 

Suppose,  for  example,  we  were  told  that  a  celebrated  mill-wright  had 
located  on  a  certain  creek  because  it  contained  much  water,  who  would 
more  honor  his  own  understanding,  he  that  affirms  he  located  there  for 
the  sake  of  watering  his  stock — or  he  who  says,  for  the  sake  of  erecting 
mills'! 

As  to  the  location  of  Enon,  whether  it  were  north  of  John's  first  location, 
some  fifty  miles  up  the  river  Jordan,  or  whether  it  was  a  stream  issuing 
from  a  fountain  called  "Ainyon,  Doves-eye  Spring,''^  or  whether  it  was  a  suti- 
fountain,  near  Salim,  venerated  by  the  old  Canaanites,  are  questions  I  have 
neither  leisure  nor  inclination  to  discuss.  Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Bap- 
tism, discusses  such  questions  at  great  length.  I  refer  the  curious  to  him, 
and  will  only  give  a  short  extract  from  his  work  on  the  use  of  the  words 
polla  hutata : 

"  It  is  observable,  that  the  rivers  Euphrates  at  Babylon,  Tiber  at  Rome, 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  187 

and  Jordan  in  Palestine,  are  all  described  by  polla  hudata.  Jeremiah  speaks 
of  the  first,  and,  addressing  Babylon  says,  O  thou  that  dvvellest  upon  7nany 
waters,  thine  end  is  come  ;  for  Babylon  was  situated  on  what  the  Jews  call- 
ed the  river,  the  great  river  Euphrates.  The  Evangeli.st  John  describes 
Rome,  which  was  built  on  the  Tiber,  by  saying.  The  great  harlot,  the  great 
city  which  reigneth  over  the  kings  of  the  earth,  sitteth  upon  many  waters, 
Ezekiel  describes  Judea  and  Jordan,  by  saying  to  the  princes  of  Israel,  Your 
mother  is  a  lionness,  her  whelps  devour  men,  slie  was  fruitful  by  reason  of 
many  toalers ;  an  evident  allusion  to  the  lions  that  lay  in  the  thickets  of  Jor- 
dan. The  thunder  which  agitates  clouds,  charged  with  floods,  is  called  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  upon  many  waters ;  and  the  attachment  that  no  mortifica- 
tion can  anniliilate,  is  a  love  which  many  waters  cannot  quench,  neither 
can  the  floods  drown.  How  it  comes  to  pass  that  a  mode  of  speaking,  which 
on  every  other  occasion  signifies  much,  should  in  the  case  of  baptism  sig- 
nify little,  is  a  question  easy  to  answer." 

To  an  unsosphisticated  mind,  this  passage,  together  with  the  various  lo- 
cations of  John  along  the  Jordan,  sometimes  on  this  side,  and  sometimes  on 
that  side,  methinks,  independent  of  every  other  argument,  would  refute  the 
notion  of  sprinkling.  But  how  much  more  when  the  meaning  of  the  word 
and  the  laws  of  construction,  already  established,  assert  that  John's  disci- 
ples were  immersed  in  the  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." 

My  worthy  friend  says  that  he  has  got  ahead  of  me — but  by  this  being 
ahead  he  cannot  mean  ahead  in  argument,  but  in  place.  He  goes  in  ad- 
vance :  he  leaves  the  matter  upon  my  hands  unanswered.  In  this  way, 
he  goes  ahead  of  me.  He  was  going  to  Biblical  usage  ;  but  instead  of 
that,  he  brings  up  TertuUian  to  disprove  in  advance  what  he  supposes  I 
will  present.  But  I  will  pursue,  as  I  have  done,  my  regular  course  of 
argument,  not  regarding  his  witticisms,  but  the  convictions  of  the  under- 
standings and  hearts  of  the  audience. — [^Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 10^  o'clock,.^.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  twelfth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  had  expected  that  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  would  to-day 
make  a  furious  assault  upon  the  citadel  of  the  sprinklers.  It  had  been 
supposed  by  many,  that  he  was  holding  in  reserve  his  most  destructive 
fire,  and  that  to-day  we  should  hear  the  roar  of  his  great  guns,  and  wit- 
ness the  destruction  of  our  strong  fortress.  Such  being  our  anticipations, 
we  really  did  not  expect  to  see  him  come  and  read  us  an  argument !  It 
is  truly  marvellous,  that  one  of  the  greatest  debaters  of  the  age — one  who 
has,  for  the  last  thirty  years,  been  engaged  in  this  species  of  controversy, 
should  find  it  necessary  to  read  his  arguments  !  Is  it  true,  that  he  had 
his  defence  of  immersion  prepared,  "  cut  and  dried,"  before  the  discus- 
sion commenced,  to  be  read  to  the  audience?  Cannot  my  friend  sustain 
his  cause  by  any  other  means  ?  I  never  heard  of  hut  one  man  reading 
a  speech  in  Congress  ;  and  I  believe  every  body  laughed  at  him. 

My  friend,  however,  finds  himself  in  tlie  situation  of  a  certain  lawyer, 
who  had  with  great  care,  written  and  memorized  a  speech  in  defence  of  a 
cause  he  had  undertaken.  In  the  progress  of  things,  the  aspect  of  the 
case  was  considerably  changed,  some  portions  of  his  testimony  being  re- 
jected. The  lawyer  commenced  his  speech,  but  was  soon  interrupted 
by  the  judge,  as  bringing  in  irrelevant  matters.  He  again  attempted  to 
proceed,  and  was  again  interrupted.  He  became  impatient,  and  replied 
with  great  emphasis,  "  May  it  please  your  Honor,  it  is  in  my  speecli,  and 
I  must  speak  it."  [Laughing.]  So  it  is  in  the  gentleman's  book,  and 
he  must  read  it.     [Continued  laughter.] 


188  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

For  three  days  the  gentleman  has  been  out  of  the  Bible.  On  yester- 
day, he  told  us  he  was  in  the  portico,  and  he  is  in  the  portico  still.  I 
know  not  how  to  account  for  his  movements.  According  to  our  rules, 
we  debate  no  question  more  than  three  days,  except  by  consent  of  par- 
ties ;  though  I  informed  him  that  I  would  continue  the  debate  as  many 
hours,  each  day,  as  he  pleased.  I  have  given  him  a  fourth  day  to  bring 
up  his  argument ;  and  yet  he  tells  me  he  has  not  time  enough.  I  am  ap- 
prehensive he  never  will  have  time  enough  to  sustain  his  cause,  I  have, 
however,  agreed  to  continue  the  discussion  of  the  present  subject  this 
evening. 

I  have  a  remark  or  two  to  make  concerning  the  action  of  baptism.  The 
Savior  commanded  the  observance  of  an  ordinance.  Baptism  is  not  an 
action,  but  an  ordinance.  The  gentleman  was,  however,  not  quite  for- 
tunate in  one  of  his  illustrations.  He  mentioned  the  word  ride  as  an 
example  of  a  specific  term.  Now  I  had  supposed  that  we  could  ride  in 
several  different  ways  ;  on  horseback,  in  stage,  steam  car,  or  boat.  Per- 
haps I  might  admit,  that  baptizo  is  as  specific  as  the  word  ride;  for  we 
can  ride  in  about  as  many  ways  as  we  can  ivash.  But  let  it  be  distinctly 
understood,  that  baptizo  denotes,  in  the  New  Testament,  an  ordinance, 
not  an  action.  And  I  have  proved,  contrary  to  the  reasonings  of  my 
friend,  th-at  in  the  Old  Testament,  several  washings  or  ordinances  were 
appointed,  the  mode  of  which  was  not  prescribed,  neither  by  the  word 
used,  nor  even  in  any  other  way.  Let  this  fact  stand  as  an  unanswerable 
refutation  of  all  his  efforts  to  prove  the  necessity  of  a  specific  word  to 
denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

He  professes  to  believe,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  greater  labor  and 
exposure  attending  the  practice  of  immersion,  it  would  be  his  interest  to 
believe  and  practice  as  we  do.  This  affords  some  pretty  good  evidence 
that  we  are  in  the  right,  for  it  is  scarcely  credible,  that  our  Savior  would 
have  appointed  an  ordinance,  at  all  times  inconvenient,  and  often  danger- 
ous and  impracticable.  Some,  indeed,  plead  these  very  difficulties  in  favor 
of  immersion.  In  being  plunged  under  water  they  consider  themselves  as 
bearing  the  cross!  I  read  in  the  Bible  of  no  cross,  but  that  which  is 
found  in  denying  ourselves  of  all  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  and  liv- 
ing soberly,  righteously  and  godly  in  this  present  evil  world.  My  friend 
has  told  us,  in  his  Harbinger,  that  Paul  was  too  small  to  be  able  to  bap- 
tize !  Still,  it  would  seem,  he  managed  to  baptize  some  few.  Since, 
however,  the  practice  of  immersion  is  difficult  for  all,  and  particularly  so 
for  small  men  like  myself;  I  think  it  would  be  wise  in  my  friend  to 
adopt  a  mode  requiring  less  labor  and  exposure — to  aim  more  at  securing 
purity  of  heart — the  great  thing — and  less  at  putting  the  cross  in  bodily 
endurance. 

I  must  briefly  reply  to  what  the  gentleman  has  said  about  the  lexicons. 
As  to  my  assertio7is,  of  which  he  complains,  the  difference  between  him 
and  myself,  I  think,  is — that  I  make  assertions  and  prove  them  ;  he  makes 
assertions  and  leaves  them.  Whenever  my  statements  are  called  in  ques- 
tion, they  will  be  proved.  I  have  asserted  and  proved,  that  the  lexicons, 
ancient  and  modern,  with  entire  unanimity  define  baptizo,  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  as  well  as  to  sink,  plunge,  &c.  I  have  asserted  and  proved,  that 
they  give  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  as  the  Jirst  and  leading  meaning  of  the  word 
in  the  Bible.  I  have  called  upon  the  gentleman  to  produce  one  lexicon 
that  gives  immerse  as  its  leading  signification  in  the  New  Testament. 
He  has  not  done  it;  and  I  presume,  he  cannot.     Where  is  there  a  lexicon. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  189 

ancient  or  .-jnodern,  that  defines  this  word  as  a  specific  term,  having  but 
one  meaning  ?  I  verily  believe,  the  gentleman  cannot  produce  more  than 
one,  if  he  can  find  one.  Where  is  the  lexicon,  that  gives  immerse  as  its 
leadino-  meaning,  as  it  is  used  in  the  Bible  and  religious  writings  of  the 
Jews  ?  Yet  he  would  persuade  the  audience,  that  the  lexicons  sustain 
him  in  the  position  that  baptizo,  as  appropriated  to  the  ordinance  of 
christian  baptism,  is  a  specific  term,  meaning  only  to  immerse  !  ! !  Mr. 
Carson  candidly  acknowledged,  that  all  the  lexicographers  and  commen- 
tators were  against  him.  I  have  before  read  this  acknowledgment, 
and  I  will  read  it  again.  "  My  position,"  says  he,  "is  that  it  (baptizo) 
always  signifies  to  dip ;  never  expressing  any  thing  but  mode.  Now  as 
I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against  me  in  this 
opinion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the 
authority  of  lexicons." — P.  79. 

The  gentleman  tells  the  audience,  that  I  am  in  the  habit  of  quoting 
authors  on  my  own  side  of  the  question  ;  whilst  he  is  sustaining  his 
cause  by  those  opposed  to  him.  Do  you  remember  what  trouble  I  gave 
him  with  Dr.  Gale,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  immersionists  ? 
Dr.  Gale,  as  I  have  proved,  admitted  that  baptizo  does  not  so  necessarily 
express  the  action  of  putting  under  water,  as  it  expresses  something 
else.  Yet  the  very  thing  he  has,  throughout  this  discussion,  labored  to 
prove,  is  that  baptizo  does  express  definitely  and  necessarily  the  action 
of  putting  under  water.  The  concession  of  Gale,  therefore,  is  destruc- 
tive to  his  argument.  And  have  I  not  brought  against  him  Carson,  an- 
other most  zealous  immersionist,  whom  he  admits  to  be  a  profound  lin- 
guist? He  has  earnestly  contended,  that  bapto  is  a  specific  term,  and  that 
it  means  to  dye  only  in  a  figurative  sense.  Mr.  Carson  most  positively 
denies,  and  most  unanswerably  refutes  this  principle,  proving  that  it 
means  to  dye  by  sprinkling  as  literally  as  by  dipping.  I  have  not 
brought  forward  immersionists,  as  he  has  adduced  Pedo-baptists,  who 
avowed  themselves  wholly  indifferent  on  the  subject ;  but  I  have  appeal- 
ed to  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion — men  laboring 
most  earnestly  to  defend  their  favorite  dogma. 

But  I  have  not  appealed  only  to  Gale  and  Carson;  I  have  brought 
against  the  gentleman  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers, — men  who,  however 
superstitious  they  may  have  been,  understood  the  Greek,  and  whose  pre- 
judices were  all  in  favor  of  immersion — men  whom  my  friend  loves  to 
count  on  his  side.  I  proved  that  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  them,  in 
giving  the  sense  of  Rev.  xix.  13,  substituted  rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  i'or  bapto, 
and  that  Mr.  Carson  could  escape  the  force  of  this  fact  only  by  conclud- 
ing that  Origen  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  word  !  And  al- 
though Mr.  Campbell  has  said  and  published,  that  no  translator,  ancient  or 
modern,  ever  rendered  any  of  this  family  of  words  to  sprinkle,  I  have 
proved  that  the  translators  of  the  venerable  Syriac,  the  old  Ethiopic  and 
the  Vulgate,  (all  of  whom,  according  to  him,  were  immersionists,)  did  so 
translate  bapto.  But  he  says,  there  must  have  been  a  different  reading. 
Where  is  the  evidence  ?  Is  there  any  one  copy  of  the  New  Testament 
found  in  all  the  searching  for  old  manuscripts,  which  presents  a  difierent 
reading?  There  is  not  one.  Why,  then,  contend  for  a  difierent  read- 
ing ?  Simply  and  only  because  the  claims  of  immersion  demand  it !  ! ! 
If,  on  such  a  pretence,  one  passage  of  the  Bible  may  be  changed,  it  may 
all  be  rendered  doubtful. 

I  have  appealed  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  and  amongst  them  Jerom, 


190  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  learned  translator  of  the  Vulgate.  These  were  immersiomsts  of  the 
old  school ;  and  they,  with  unbroken  unanimity,  use  baptizlp  to  denote 
the  ordinance  administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  pronounce  bap- 
tism thus  administered  valid  and  good.  The  gentleman  forgets,  when  he 
represents  me  as  having  appealed  almost  exclusively  to  authoi'ities  on 
my  own  side  of  the  question ;  but  a  man's  recollection  sometimes  fails 
him  remarkably,  when  he  is  sorely  pressed. 

The  gentleman  made  a  broad  assertion  concerning  a  principle  incul- 
cated by  Ernesti ;  but  unfortunately,  he  read  not  a  word  from  that  author. 
I  admit,  that  in  all  ordinary  cases  we  are  to  adhere  to  the  common  accep- 
tation of  words  amongst  the  people  whose  language  we  are  interpret- 
ing. And  hence  it  is,  that  I  have  appealed  to  the  usage  of  baptizo 
amongst  the  Jewish  writers.  I  read  to  you  the  declaration  of  Ernesti 
and  of  Dr.  George  Campbell,  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
is  not  classic  Greek,  and  that  the  classics  are  very  unsafe  guides  in  inter- 
preting the  language  of  that  book,  applied,  as  it  is,  to  new  subjects  and 
new  ordinances.  My  friend  makes  assertions,  but  fails  to  prove  them;  I 
make  assertions  and  prove  them.  This  is  the  difference  between  us.  Per- 
haps, however,  I  ought  to  give  the  authority  of  his  "American  apostle," 
professor  Stuart ;  for  he  admits  him  to  be  a  very  learned  critic.  He  says : 
"  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word,  in  cases  not  relevant  to  this  rite, 
clearly  does  not  entitle  you  [immersionists]  to  such  a  conclusion  with  any 
confidence.  If  you  say,  '  The  classical  usage  of  the  word  abundantly  justi- 
fies the  construction  I  put  upon  it ;'  my  reply  is,  that  classical  usage  can 
never  be  very  certain  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
ment.  V/ho  does  not  know,  that  a  multitude  of  Greek  words  here  receive 
their  coloring  and  particular  meaning  from  the  Hebrew,  and  not  from  the 
Greek  classics?  Does  theos,  [God,)  ouranos,  [hea.ven,)  sarx,  {^esh,)  pisHs, 
(faith,)  dikaiosuna,  {righteousness,)  and  other  words  almost  without  number, 
exhibit  meanings  which  conform  to  the  Greek  classics;  or  which,  in  several 
respects,  can  even  be  illustrated  by  them  !  Not  at  all.  Then  how  can  you 
be  over  confident  in  the  application  of  the  classical  meaning  of  baptizo, 
where  the  word  is  employed  in  relation  to  a  rite  that  is  purely  christian  1  -* 
Such  a  confidence  is  indeed  co'inmon ;  but  it  is  not  the  more  rational,  nor  the 
more  becoming  on  that  account.'" 

Such  is  the  language  of  one  of  the  first  critics  in  America.  And  here 
let  me  remark,  Stuart  notices  a  very  important  peculiarity  in  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament  in  connection  with  baptizo.  He  states,  that  when 
baptizo  occurs  in  the  classics  in  the  sense  of  immersing,  it  is  generally  fol- 
lowed by  the  preposition  eis,  as  baptizo  eis  ;  but  in  the  New  Testament  this 
expression  occurs  in  but  a  single  instance.  There  we  find  baptizo  with 
the  dative  case  simply,  or  with  the  preposition  en — the  very  form  of 
expression  employed  by  the  classics  to  denote  the  fluid  ivith  which  bap- 
tism is  performed.  If  the  inspired  writers  spoke  and  wrote  in  regard  to 
this  word,  as  the  classics  did,  as  Mr.  Campbell  contends,  and  if  they 
designed  to  express  the  action  of  immersing ;  why,  I  emphatically  ask, 
did  tiiey  so  uniformly  avoid  the  phraseology  employed  by  the  classics  to 
express  that  idea,  and  adopt  precisely  the  phraseology  which  in  classical 
authors  does  not  express  it? 

But  the  gentleman  insists,  that  lavo,  to  wash,  is  only  a  figurative 
meaning  of  baptizo.  Where  is  tlie  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  oft-re- 
peated assertion  ?  Let  him,  if  he  can,  produce  one  lexicon,  that  gives 
to  tvash  as  only  a  figurative  meaning  of  baptizo.  I  venture  to  say,  he 
cannot  do  it.  But  he  tells  us,  that  the  two  words  Irnto  and  baptizo,  so 
far  from  meaning  the  same  thing,  are  presented  in  the  Bible  in  contrast. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  191 

I  do  not  say,  that  louo  (to  wash)  has  the  same  meaning  precisely  as 
baptizo.  There  is  just  this  difference :  louo  means  any  kind  of  wash- 
ing; baptizo  is  in  the  Bible  uniformly  used  in  relation  to  religious  ivash- 
ings — the  use  of  water,  and  of  water  ojili/,  in  the  sense,  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  purification.  Yet  christian  baptism,  as  Mr.  C.  will  not  deny,  is 
constantly  spoken  of  as  a  ivashing,  and  loiw  and  loutron  are  the  words 
used  in  such  passages.  Thus,  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  And  such 
were  some  of  you ;  but  ye  are  washed,  (apeloiisasthe,)  but  ye  are  sanc- 
tified," &c.  1  Cor.  vi,  11.  And  writing  to  Titus — "According  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  (loutron)  and  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c.  In  these  passages  the  gentleman 
himself  believes  the  apostle  had  reference  to  baptism,  and  called  it  a 
washing }  and  yet  he  tells  us,  the  Greek  word  which  signifies  to  wash, 
stands  in  contrast  with  baptizo! ! !  Justin  Martyr,  the  first  of  the  christ- 
ian fathers  who,  so  far  as  we  know,  wrote  on  this  subject,  speaks  of  bap- 
tism as  a  ivashing,  as  I  have  before  stated.  My  friend  gives  us  some 
rare  specimens  of  criticism  ! 

He  has  at  length  reached  the  Bible,  and  is  aiming  to  get  into  Jordan. 
1  might  very  safely  admit,  though  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  John  went 
literally  into  Jordan.  But  the  question  is,  what  did  he  do,  after  he  got 
in  ?  Mr.  C.  infers,  that  he  immersed  tlie  people.  But  where  is  the 
proof?  He  thinks  John  could  not  have  gone  into  the  water,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  immersing.  Is  there,  however,  any  certainty  that  his 
inference  (for  it  is  but  an  inference)  is  legitimate  ?  There  are  many  an- 
cient pictures  which  represent  persons  standing  in  a  stream,  and  the  min- 
ister pouring  water  on  their  heads.  There  are  several  of  very  ancient 
date,  that  represent  John  baptizing  our  Savior  in  this  mode;  and,  as  I 
have  proved,  many  of  the  ancients  believed,  that  John  did  uniformly  thus 
baptize.  On  what  evidence,  then,  can  it  be  asserted,  that  if  John  went 
into  the  water,  he  must  have  immersed  ?  It  is  one  thing  to  go  into  wa- 
ter, and  quite  another,  to  plunge  under  the  water. 

But  observe,  it  is  said,  as  I  have  already  proved,  that  John  was  bapti- 
zing in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan.  John  i.  28,  "  These  things  were 
done  in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing."  If  John 
baptized  in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan,  how  could  he  have  baptized  liter- 
ally in  Jordan  ?  It  cannot  be  proved,  that  John  went  into  the  Jordan  ;  and 
if  it  could,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  went  in  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
mersing.    The  gentleman's  argument,  therefore,  is  without  force. 

In  reply  to  the  very  disparaging  remarks  made  by  Mr,  C.  concerning 
the  venerable  Dr.  Miller,  I  will  only  say,  that  his  reputation  is  too  well 
established  to  need  any  defence  from  me.  It  will  require  something  far 
more  potent,  than  the  denunciation  of  the  gentleman,  to  bring  him  down 
from  the  eminence  which  as  a  great  and  good  man  he  occupies. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  quoted  Bloomfield  as  sustaining  his  views.  I 
beg  leave  now  to  read  Bloomfield,  and  to  prove,  that  he  is  with  us.  On 
the  passage  in  Matth.  iii.  11,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,"  &c.  he 
thus  remarks : 

"■En  hudadi  [with  water.]  The  en  is  thought  redundant;  and  com- 
mentators adduce  examples  from  classical  writers.  It  rather,  however, 
denotes  the  instrument,  as  Luke  xiv.  34,  and  often."  If,  then,  en  de- 
notes the  instrument,  the  expression,  en  hudat,  means  with  water,  not 
in  water.  Mr.  Bloomfield,  then,  would  not  read  "  I  immerse  you  in  wa- 
ter," but  "I  baptize  you  with  water." 


192  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  C.  appeals  to  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  as  pi  oving 
immersion.  "  And  they  went  down  both  into  {eis)  the  water,  boili  Philip 
and  the  eunuch;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  coiieup 
out  of  [ek)  tiie  water,"  &c.  But  has  he  produced  one  lexicon,  thai  says, 
eis  uniformly  or  commonly  means  into?  He  has  not;  and  if  he  :  ad,  I 
could  appeal  to  a  number  of  the  very  best,  ancient  and  modern.  >  hich 
deny  it.  Scapula,  one  of  the  gentleman's  favorite  authorities,  gives  os  the 
first  meaning  of  eis,  ad,  to.  Bretschneider,  whom  lie  admits  to  b  ■  one 
of  the  most  critical  lexicographers,  gives  to  [ad)  as  its  first  and  U  iding 
meaning;  and  Stuart  agrees  with  him.  Bullman,  whose  large  tireek 
grammar  is  a  standard  work,  gives  its  leading  signification,  to,  into. 
Other  authorities  will  be  produced,  if  necessary.  1  will  even  mal.i  the 
genUeman  himself  my  witness.  In  his  translation  of  the  New  Teslunent 
he  has,  in  very  many  instances,  translated  it  to,  not  into.  In  a  niiinber 
of  places  where,  in  the  common  version,  it  is  translated  into,  he  renders 
it  to.     I  will,  if  he  desire  it,  refer  to  the  passages. 

The  rule  observed  by  the  Greeks  in  relation  to  the  preposition  fis,  is 
this :  when  they  wished  by  force  of  the  luords  definitely  to  express  the 
idea  of  going  into,  they  prefixed  the  preposition  to  the  verb,  as  eiserchomai 
eis,  or  embaino  eis.  If  Mr.  C.  will  tell  us,  how  many  times  the  prepo' 
sitions  eis  and  en  precede  the  verb,  where  in  our  version  eis  is  translated 
into;  we  will  venture  to  compare  numbers  with  him.  In  some  cases, 
the  connection  shows  that  it  means  into;  in  other  cases,  that  it  means 
simply  to. 

But,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  I  will  admit,  though  it  cannot  be  proved, 
that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  literally  into  the  water.  The  question 
then  arises,  what  did  Philip  do  after  they  got  in?  Did  he  immerse  the 
eunuch?  My  friend  says,  yes;  but  where  is  the  evidence?  He  in- 
fers, that  the  eunuch  was  immersed,  from  the  fact  of  their  going  into  the 
water.  The  inference,  however,  is  not  certainly  legitimate ;  for  he  might 
have  gone  into  water  and  had  it  poured  on  him.  Besides,  there  are 
strong  reasons  for  believing,  that  he  was  not  immersed.  The  place  was" 
desert;  and  it  is  not  at  all  probable,  that  they  found  sufficient  water 
there  for  an  immersion.  Moreover,  it  is  not  probable,  either  that  tiie  eu- 
nuch undressed  in  the  public  road  ;  or  that  he  traveled  on  with  his  gar- 
ments perfecdy  wet.  The  same  remarks  may  be  made  concerning  the 
people  baptized  by  John.  Did  the  multitudes,  male  and  female,  continue 
dressed  in  their  dripping  garments  ?  Regard  to  health  and  to  decency 
would  forbid  it.  Yet  we  read  nothing  of  clianges  of  raiment,  or  of  accom- 
modations for  changing,  even  if  they  had  with  them  other  garments.  But 
at  a  later  day,  when  immersion  prevailed,  we  find  baptisteries,  napkins, 
towels,  changes  of  garments,  &c.  Since,  however,  we  read  of  no  such 
things  in  the  days  of  John,  or  of  the  apostles,  we  conclude  they  did  not 
practice  immersion. 

But  let  me  again  turn  to  Bloomfield,  whom  my  friend  quoted  as  in  favor 
of  immersion.     Commenting  on  Acts  viii.  38    he  says  : 

"  Ebaplizen  auton  (he  baptized  him) — no  doubt,  with  the  use  of  the  pro- 
per form  ;  but  whether  by  immersion  or  by  sprinkling  is  not  clear.  Dodd- 
ridge maintains  the  former ;  but  Lardner  ap  Newc.  the  /a«er  view  ;  and 
1  conceive,  more  rightly.  On  both  having  descended  into  the  water,  Philip 
seems  to  have  taken  up  water  with  his  hands,  and  poured  it  copiously  on  the 
eunuc/is  head." 

Bloomfield  was  with  my  friend  yesterday  ;  but  he  seems  to  have  been 
eonverted,  for  he  is  with  us  to-day.     My  friend  has  referred  to  but  one 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I93 

example  of  christian  baptism,  which  seems  to  favor  immersion ;  and  this 
will  not  sustain  him. 

John,  it  is  true,  was  baptizing  in  Enon  near  Salim,  because  there  was 
much  water  there.  But  did  he  want  much  water  to  baptize  in  ;  or  did  he 
want  it  for  other  purposes?  As  I  have  already  stated,  multitudes  of  the 
Jews  who  resorted  to  him,  remained  together  several  days  at  a  time. 
They  must  observe  their  daily  ablutions.  For  these  and  for  ordinary 
purposes  they  needed  much  water ;  but  it  cannot  be  proved  that  John 
wanted  the  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing. 

The  expression,  ^^  much  water,''''  moreover,  literally  translated,  is 
many  waters  (pclla  hudata.)  I  will  read  the  remarks  of  Prof.  Stuart 
on  this  expression.     After  narrating  the  facts,  he  remarks  : 

"Now  .John  was  baptizing  in  (or  at)  Enon,  near  Salim,  hoti  hudata polla 
en  ekei,  for  there  was  MUCH  WATER  there ;  or  (more  literally,)  there 
were  MANY  WATERS  there.  The  question  is  whether  John  baptized  at 
Enon,  near  Salim,  because  the  waters  there  were  abundant  and  deep,  so  as 
to  afford  convenient  means  of  immersion,  or  whether  the  writer  meant 
merely  to  say,  that  John  made  choice  of  Enon,  because  there  was  an  abun- 
dant supply  of  water  there  for  the  accommodation  of  those  who  visited  him 
for  the  sake  of  being^baptized,  and  hearing  the  powerful  addresses  he  made 
to  the  Jews.  The  former  statement  makes  the  much  waters,  or  many  waters 
necessary,  or  at  least  convenient  and  desirable,  for  the  purposes  of  the  bap- 
tismal rite  ;  the  latter,  for  supplying  the  wants  of  the  multitudes  who  attend- 
ed the  preaching  of  .Tohn.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  a  very  singular 
mode  of  expression,  if  the  sacred  writer  meant  to  designate  the  former  idea, 
to  say  fioti  hudata  polla  en  ekei.  Why  not  say,  because  the  water  was  deep 
or  abundant  simply  ]  A  single  brook  of  very  small  capacity,  but  a  living 
stream,  might,  with  scooping  out  a  small  place  in  the  sand,  answer  most 
abundantly  all  the  purposes  of  baptism,  in  case  it  were  performed  by  immer- 
sion, and  answer  them  just  as  well  as  many  waters  could  do.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  single  brook  would  not  suffice  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
great  multitudes  who  flocked  to  John.  The  sacred  writer  tells  us  that 
"there  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  of 
Jordan,"  Matt.  iii.  5;  and  that  they  were  baptized  by  him.  Of  course, 
there  must  have  been  a  great  multitude  of  people.  Nothing  could  be  more 
natural  than  for  John  to  choose  a  place  that  was  watered  by  many  streams, 
where  all  could  be  accommodated. 

"  The  circumstances  of  the  case,  then,  would  seem  to  favor  the  interpre- 
tation which  refers  the  mention  of  the  many  waters  to  the  wants  of  the  peo- 
ple who  flocked  to  hear  John." — Stuart  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  pp.  37,  38. 

He  gives  from  the  Old  Testament  an  example  of  the  use  of  polla 
hudata  to  signify  many  springs  or  streams  of  water.  When  the  country 
was  invaded,  and  Jerusalem  was  likely  to  be  besieged,  it  is  said — "  So 
there  was  gathered  much  people  together,  who  stopped  all  the  fountains, 
and  the  brook  that  ran  through  the  midst  of  the  land,  saying,  why  should 
the  king  of  Assyria  come,  and  find  much  water  ?  "  [polla  hudata.)  2 
Chron.  xxii.  4.  Here  evidently  the  expression  means  many  fountains  or 
email  streams,  not  deep  water. 

But  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  infers,  that  John  immersed,  because  he  went 
where  there  was  much  water.  Is  this  inference  legitimate  ?  Is  there 
any  certainty  that  he  wanted  much  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing? 
I  think  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  and,  when  all  the  circumstances  are 
considered,  by  no  means  probable. 

I  have  now,  I  think,  without  having  had  the  opportunity  to  lurite  a 
speech,  met  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman,  and  showed  their  weakness. 
I  have  wished,  and  the  audience,  I  think,  have  desired  to  see  him  enter 
13  R 


194  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  Bible.  I  am  gratified  to  see,  that  there  is  some  prospect  of  his  doing  so. 
I  design,  to-day,  making  an  argument  directly  in  favor  of  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  I  should  have  done  so  on  yesterday,  but  my  friend  was  too 
far  behind.  I  have  met  and  answered  his  arguments,  and  kept  ahead  of 
him ;  and,  unless  he  shall  hereafter  travel  faster,  I  apprehend  that  he  will 
remain  quite  in  the  rear. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18—11  o'clock,  A.M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  thirteenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Were  I  to  touch  on  so  many  topics,  and  have  them 
so  singularly  assorted  as  those  which  you  have  just  now  heard  from  Mr. 
Rice,  in  one  short  speech,  I  should  expect  to  make  but  little  progress 
through  the  day.  My  reading,  it  seems,  is  a  great  annoyance  to  my 
friend.  The  more  concentrated  arguments,  exhibited  in  that  form,  re- 
quire a  more  special  attention  than,  as  yet,  he  has  bestowed  on  any  thing 
I  have  advanced ;  for,  indeed,  the  gentleman  asserts  much  more  than  rea- 
sons, and  affirms  more  than  he  proves.  His  gifts  are  rather  of  that  order. 
I  have  no  preference  for  reading,  as  all  who  know  me,  I  presume,  will 
admit.  But  I  cannot,  at  present,  indicate  my  course  farther  than  to  say, 
that  one  great  reason  of  my  presenting  some  of  these  arguments  in  this 
form  is,  that  they  abound  in  criticisms  and  matters  somewhat  minute,  re- 
quiring great  accuracy,  and  which  no  stenographer  in  Christendom  could 
rationally  be  expected  to  report  accurately.  To  take  down  so  many 
foreign  words,  pronounced  so  rapidly,  and  to  place  them  in  their  proper 
order,  in  such  a  disquisition,  is,  I  think,  impossible.  For  this  reason,  I 
prefer  to  read  a  few  items  of  critical  analysis.  I  am  neither  to  be  allured 
nor  driven  from  my  course,  to  suit  the  convenience  of  my  worthy  friend. 
He  knows  full  well  how  his  desultory  and  incoherent  mode  of  speaking 
will  appear  in  print,  especially  upon  subjects  demanding  a  close  and  neat 
analytic  and  sometimes  synthetic  arrangement.  He  had  better,  however, 
attend  to  the  argument,  and  he  shall  have  speaking  to  satiety,  in  proper 
time  and  place.  I  am  one  of  those  who  can  afford  to  read ;  I  fear  he 
cannot. 

I  do  not  fully  comprehend  some  of  his  allusions  to  myself,  or  my 
method,  or  both;  especially  his  remark  that  I  "  have  imposed  myself 
upon  you  by  my  reading."  I  do  not  comprehend  this.  He  is  certainly 
doing  himself  great  injustice,  if,  indeed,  he  have  anything  better  to  offer, 
especially  in  the  reckless  and  unauthorized  assertions  which  he  has  made  ; 
provided,  only,  that  there  be  either  philosophy  or  good  sense  in  the  fol- 
lowing remarks,  whicli  I  will  read  for  his  especial  benefit,  from  that 
eminent  Presbyterian  doctor  and  critic.  Dr.  George  Campbell : 

"  I  have  heard  a  disputant,  in  defiance  of  etymology  and  use,  maintain 
that  the  word  rendered  in  the  New  Testament,  baptizo,  means  more  proper- 
ly to  sprinkle  than  to  plunge  ;  and,  in  defiance  of  all  antiquity,  that  the 
former  was  the  earliest,  and — the  most  general  practice  in  baptizing.  One 
who  argues  in  this  manner,  never  fails,  with  persons  of  knowledge,  to  betray 
the  cause  he  would  defend:  and  though,  with  respect  to  the  vulgar,  bold  as- 
sertions generally  succeed  as  well  as  argument,  and  sometimes  better;  yet, 
a  candid  mind  will  always  disdain  to  take  the  help  of  falsehood,  even  in  the 
support  of  truth." 

So  speaks  Dr.  Campbell.  How  pertinent  these  remarks  are  to  the 
whole  case  before  us,  mothinks  requires  neither  note  nor  comment.  I 
must,  it  seems,  again  refer  to  the  word  specific.  It  is  not  at  all  incom- 
patible with  the  special  character  of  an  action,  that  it  must  be  always 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  195 

performed  in  the  same  way.  That  there  are  various  ways  of  reading, 
militates  not  with  the  iact  that  reading  is  a  specific  action.  The  pro- 
nunciation, tone,  time,  cadence,  &c.,  may  vary  ;  still,  reading  is  neither 
singing,  nor  speaking,  nor  writing.  So  of  dipping,  sprinkling,  pouring. 
These  actions  may  all  be  performed  different  ways  :  still,  they  retain  their 
peculiar  and  incommunicable  difference.  No  one  with  whom  it  has  been 
my  good  fortune  to  discuss  any  question,  appears  to  have  made  more  pro- 
ficiency in  the  art  of  making,  perhaps  sometimes  inadvertently,  false 
issues.  I  am  now,  according  to  him,  proving  that  baptizo  is  only  used 
in  one  acceptation — that  it  is  not  used  figuratively.  I  am  not  affirming 
nor  proving  that  baptizo  never  means  anything  but  dip,  in  any  accepta- 
tion of  usage.  It  has  this  only  as  its  literal,  natural,  original,  and  proper 
meaning  ;  and  never  means  any  thing,  even  figuratively  or  in  a  secondary 
sense,  incompatible  with  this  sense.  All  our  most  learned  lexicographers 
say  this.  With  Mr.  Anthon,  they  say,  if  it  ever  have  any  other  sense 
than  dip,  it  is  one  analagous  to,  or  compatible  with  this,  its  proper  and 
perpetual  meaning.  Even  "wash  and  cleanse"  are  noted  as  its  figura- 
tive meaning  in  some  of  our  best  lexicons.  Have  I  not  said  that  any 
specific  action  may  yield  a  thousand  results  ?  Has  the  gentleman  forgot- 
ten the  instances  given  in  reference  to  the  word  kill? 

Mr.  R.  either  forgets  or  misquotes  the  lexicons.  He  says  some  of 
them  give  wash  and  cleanse  as  the  proper  or  literal  meaning  of  baptizo. 
Now  I  have  frequently  controverted  this,  and  shown  that  some  of  them 
positively  declare  that  it  is  a  figurative  meaning.  Schleusner  represents 
washing  as  the  effect  of  dipping  ;  and  Bretschneider  does  not  say  that 
"  it  simply  means  to  wash,  to  cleanse,"  in  the  New  Testament — that  is  a 
particular  case.  No  dictionary  has  ever  said,  what  I  have  sometimes 
heard  from  my  friend,  that  it  signifies  "  to  wash  in  any  mode."  Have  I 
not  read  from  Beza  and  others,  that  it  so  signifies  only  by  consequence? 
Such,  indeed,  is  the  definition  of  the  distinguished  Schleusner,  in  his 
lexicon.  His  words  are,  jam,  quia  hand  raro  aliquid  immergo  ac 
intingi  in  aquam  solet  ut  lavetur.  Because  it  frequently  occurs  that 
a  thing  is  to  be  immersed  or  dipped  into  water  that  it  may  be  washed. 
I  therefore  speak  in  harmony  with  all  the  dictionaries,  when  I  say  that 
cleansing,  washing,  &;c.,  is  the  effect  of  the  action  baptism,  and  not  the  act 
itself. 

He  would,  in  his  paradoxical  mood,  this  morning,  have  it,  also,  that  he 
had  quoted  Baptist  authority  against  me  !  If,  indeed,  he  had,  what  then  ? 
They  are  not  infallible  !  But  who  are  they?  Dr.  Carson,  and  who  else? 
There  is  no  discrepancy  between  Messrs.  Gale,  Carson,  or  any  other 
Baptist,  and  myself,  on  the  action  of  baptism.  They  all  subscribe,  exari- 
imo,  to  the  proposition  I  am  sustaining.  They  all  affirm  the  solemn  con- 
viction, that  immersion  is  the  only  christian  baptism.  They  have  no 
more  faith  in  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  wetting  the  face,  than  they  have 
in  the  salt,  and  spittle,  and  sign  of  the  cross,  formerly  attached  to  the  cer- 
emony? They  all  say  thai  baptizo  means  dip,  immerse,  and  that  only 
in  its  true,  and  proper,  and  christian,  and  Jewish,  and  classic  acceptation. 
We  are  all  of  one  heart  and  soul  on  this  proposition.  Messrs.  Gale,  and 
Carson,  and  myself  may  differ  on  some  critical  matters.  I  certainly  dis- 
sent in  some  matters  of  that  sort.  But  these  do  not,  in  the  least,  afl'ect  the 
issue  here,  any  more  than  an  Indian  mound  affects  the  sphericity  of  the 
earth.  Better,  too,  that  Mr.  R.  had  quoted  Baptist  writers  against  me, 
than  that  I  had  quoted  them  in  my  favor. 


196  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

Mr.  Rice  spends  his  strength  on  matters  as  frivolous  as  the  Apocryphal 
cases  of  Judith  and  Sirach — as  ivhen  the  former  immersed  herself;  and 
how  an  unclean  person  was  cleansed  from  contact  with  the  dead !  mat- 
ters as  intelligible  as  the  laws  of  purification,  so  often  explained,  as  if  his 
inability  to  find  the  precise  place  where  Judith  went  into  the  water,  must 
change  the  meaning  of  the  word  ! !  These  matters  have  been  disposed 
of  a  thousand  times  ! 

"  Mr.  Carson  says  the  dictionaries  are  all  wrong,"  and  proves,  by  the 
classics,  that  they  are  so  in  his  view  of  the  secondary  meaning  of  this 
word.  He  also  will  extend  the  meaning  of  bapto  without  the  interposi- 
tion a  of  metonymy.  I  differ  from  him  in  this  particular.  But  that  avails 
not  one  atom  in  the  great  conclusion  to  which  we  have  come.  I  agree 
with  him,  that  we  have  just  as  good  right  to  judge  the  dictionaries  by  the 
classics,  as  the  makers  of  them  had  to  judge  the  classics. 

With  regard  to  the  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic,  and  the  Vulgate,  and  some 
other  ancient  versions,  on  which  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  loves  to  dwell,  I 
have  time  to  make  only  a  remark  or  two.  In  these  days  it  is  easy  to  fill 
a  volume  with  dissertations  on  such  learned  matters,  for  the  benefit  of 
common  people.  I  have  many  volumes  of  this  kind  of  learning  at  my 
disposal — but  what  avail  such  disquisitions  here  I  I  have,  indeed,  affirm- 
ed that  none  of  all  these  versions  has  ever  translated  baptizo  to  favor  Pe- 
do-baptist  practice.  I  examined  them  carefully  enough  to  come  to  this 
conclusion.  Now,  after  all  that  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Rice  on  some 
dozen  of  them,  has  he  even  pretended  to  quote  one  instance  of  any  one 
of  them  ever  translating  it  by  any  word  averring  his  practice?  We 
might  speak  for  a  week  upon  them — upon  the  Hebrew  tabel  and  rahnZy 
upon  the  Syriac  amad,  and  the  Arabic  mnada,  &c.  <fcc.,  but  inasmuch  as 
he  cannot  adduce  one  such  instance,  what  would  be  the  advantage? 

His  apology  for  Dr.  Wall's  neglect  of  replying  to  Dr.  Gale,  is  wholly 
unsatisfactory.  He  says,  he  did  not  intend  to  reply  to  Dr.  Gale  on  the 
action  of  baptism  !  Why  then  did  he  write  a  considerable  portion  of  this 
volume  on  that  subject,  if  he  did  not  intend  to  reply  ?  He  has  indeed 
replied  to  him  on  many  points ;  on  all  points  of  importance  save  this  one. 
But  of  it  he  took  no  notice  whatever  ! !  And  yet  the  very  point  on  which 
they  were  pre-eminently  in  collision. 

In  the  same  style  of  response,  my  friend  accuses  me  of  seeking  to 
interpret  Rev.  xix.  13,  for  the  sake  of  my  criticism  !  This  is  doubtless 
very  candid  and  magnanimous.  I  have  no  need  of  that.  We  have  the 
same  scene  described  in  Isaiah,  just  as  I  presume  John  wrote  it.  And,  in 
the  case  of  the  present  versions,  we  have  it  "dipped  in  blood,"  and  on 
that  account  have  nothing  to  complain  of.  I  have  logically  and  legally, 
as  I  conceive,  shown  that  Mr.  R.  must  prove  that  the  word  bebammenon 
was  in  the  Greek  text,  from  which  these  versions  were  made,  before  he 
can  make  out  the  first  case  of  an  exception  to  my  universal  proposition. 
That  he  will  not  attempt,  and,  therefore,  that  point  is  fairly  and  fully 
settled. 

I  quoted  from  Ernesti,  the  other  day,  from  memory.  I  shall  now  read 
a  few  periods  from  him  on  the  proper  method  of  interpretation.  From 
these  sentences  you  may  judge  of  the  correctness  of  the  quotations  and 
comments  which  you  have  heard  from  him. 

"  5  21.  From  what  has  already  been  said,  in  this  chapter,  about  the  use 
of  words,  we  may  discover  the  ground  of  all  the  certainty  which  attends  the 
interpretation  of  language.     For  there  can  be  no  certainty  at  all  in  respect 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  197 

to  the  interpretation  of  any  passage,  unless  a  kind  of  necessity  compel  us 
to  affix  a  particular  sense  to  a  word  ;  which  sense,  as  I  have  said  before, 
must  be  one ;  and  unless  there  are  special  reasons  for  a  tropical  meaning,  it 
must  be  the  literal  sense."     (Morus,  p.  47.  xi.) — Ernesli,  p.  10. 

"  5  31.  The  principles  of  interpretation  are  common  to  sacred  and  profane 
varitings.  Of  course  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  investigated  by  the  same  rules 
as  other  books.  These  fanatics,  therefore,  are  not  to  be  regarded,  who,  des- 
pising literature  and  the  study  of  the  languages,  refer  every  thing  merely 
to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  Not  that  we  doubt  the  influence  of  the  Spi- 
rit;  or  that  men  truly  pious,  and  desirous  of  knowing  the  trutii,  are  assisted 
by  it  in  their  researches,  especially  in  those  things  that  pertain  to  faith  and 
practice."     (Morus,  p.  69.  xix.) 

"  If  the  Scriptures  be  a  revelation  to  men,  then  are  they  to  be  read  and 
understood  by  men.  If  the  same  laws  of  language  are  not  observed  in  this 
revelation,  as  are  common  to  men,  then  they  have  no  guide  to  the  right  un- 
derstanding of  the  Scriptures;  and  an  interpreter  needs  inspiration  as  much 
as  the  original  writer.  It  follows,  of  course,  that  the  Scriptures  would  be 
no  revelation  in  themselves  ;  nor  of  any  use,  except  to  those  who  are  inspir- 
ed. But  such  a  book  the  Scriptures  are  not;  and  nothing  is  more  evident 
than  that,  '  when  God  has  spoken  to  men,  he  has  spoken  in  the  language  of 
men  ;  for  he  has  spoken  by  men,  and  for  men.' "  (Note  by  professor  Stuart.) 
— Ernesti,  pp.  15,  16. 

A  word  or  two  on  baptizo  eis  and  baplizo  en,  as  commented  on  by 
professor  Stuart.  On  infant  sprinkling  Mr.  Stuart  is  a  partizan.  Though 
he  is  a  very  candid  one,  still  he  is  sectarian  on  this  subject.  But,  quoting 
with  approbation  the  following  words  of  Calvin,  he  gives  in  his  adhesion 
to  sprinkling  on  other  grounds  than  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Calvin  had 
not  only  said  that  the  church  had  "  from  the  beginning  taken  to  herself 
the  right  to  change  the  ordinances  somewhat,  excepting  the  substance ;" 
but  in  another  place  spake  in  this  v.'ise:  "  It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all 
whether  the  person  baptized  is  wholly  immersed,  or  whether  he  is  mere- 
ly sprinkled  by  an  affusion  of  water.  This  should  be  a  matter  of  choice 
to  the  churches  in  different  regions,  although  the  word  baptizo  signifies 
to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient 
church.''''  The  first  I  quote  from  memory ;  the  second  I  quote,  I  think, 
almost  verbatim  from  the  Institutes,  iv,  c.  xv.  sec.  19.  To  these  last 
words,  adds  Mr.  Stuart:  "To  this  opinion  I  do  most  fully  and  heartily 
subscribe."  Of  course,  Mr.  Stuart  is  not  quite  so  easily  satisfied  with 
the  identity  of  the  sense  of  baptizo  eis  and  baptizo  en.  In  one  place  he 
says  \h2,\.baptizo  eis  would  more  certainly  prove  immersion  in  the  .Jordan 
than  baptizo  en.  But  yet  when  baptizo  ei-%  the  very  phrase  found  in 
Mark  i.  9,  comes  to  be  reconsidered  by  him,  it  becomes  so  doubtful, 
that  even  this  most  common  classic  use  is  discarded.  Persons,  how- 
ever, so  generous  as  he  and  Calvin,  I  think,  could  not  be  convicted  by 
all  the  laws  of  the  Greek  language  on  this  subject!  There  is  no  cure 
for  such  obliquities,  but  the  grace  of  God.  To  reason  with  such  preju- 
dices and  early  predilections,  is  as  hopeless  as  to  reason  against  the 
animal  instincts,  or  the  fiercer  passions  of  our  nature.  I  can  sympathize 
with  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  and  such  liberal  spirits  as  professor  Stuart. 

I  was  once  a  Presbyterian,  fully  imbued  with  all  the  doctrines  of  the 
church.  Its  catechisms  were  as  lamihar  as  household  words.  My  un- 
derstanding, my  conscience,  my  affections  were  all  baptized  in  the  font 
of  pure  orthodox  Presbyterianism.  I  experimentally  knew  the  struggle, 
the  inward  conflict,  of  calling  in  question  any  of  its  sage  decisions.  I 
traveled  over  all  the  ground  more  than  thirty  years  ago.     I  gathered  all 

r2 


198  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  Pedo-baptist  authorities  around  me,  when  infant  baptism  began  to 
totter  in  my  mind.  I  did  not  wish  to  read  any  Baptist  books  ;  I  sent  to 
booksellers  for  a  whole  suit  of  Pedo-baptist  authors.  But  the  more 
earnestly  I  sought  argument  and  evidence  and  proof  in  them,  the  less  I 
found.  The  more  I  read,  the  more  I  doubted.  I  became  even  angry 
that  they  could  not  give  me  proof  of  infant  baptism.  I  finally  threw  them 
from  me  with  disgust — Edwards,  the  last  hope,  proved  himself  fallacious, 
despite  of  all  my  wishes.  His  argument  was,  what  logicians  call,  a  beg- 
ging of  the  question,  from  beginning  to  end.  I  seized  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. Six  months  most  fervent  examination  of  the  pure  text  wrought  a 
full  conviction,  that  infant  affuaion  had  no  more  footing  in  the  Bible 
than  infant  comiminioji,  than  praying  to  the  saints,  or  auricular  con- 
fession. 

But  to  give  up  Pedo-baptism  and  Presbyterianism  was  to  immolate  my 
prospects,  ray  influence  and  my  earliest  and  long  cherished  ecclesiastic 
partialities  and  associations.  Truth  and  conscience  finally  triumphed. 
I  yielded  to  the  light,  1  have  never  since  regretted  it.  The  Lord  led 
me  by  a  way  I  knew  not  of,  and  cared  not  to  go.  I  say,  then,  I  can 
sympathize  with  many  good  and  well  meaning  men,  whose  minds  and 
feelings  are,  or  may  be,  where  mine  were  some  thirty  years  ago. 

Mr.  Rice  and  his  brethren  turn  logical  Unitarians  and  Universalists  in 
all  debates  on  baptism.  I  had  a  long  protracted  controversy  with  one  of 
those  Rabbis  of  Universalism,  some  years  since.  I  know  their  tactics 
well.  Take,  ibr  example,  the  words,  aioon,  aioonion,  aidios.  They  are 
constrained  to  admit  that  these  words  do  mean,  eternal,  everlasting,  un- 
ending, sometimes.  Nay,  that  in  all  etymological  import  and  grammati- 
cal, that  is,  literal  propriety,  they  certainly  do  mean  duration  without 
end  ;  that  no  other  words  in  universal  language  do  more  fully,  more  pre- 
cisely, intimate  that  which  is  unending;  but,  yes,  but,  say  they,  in  all 
cases  where  punishment,  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  spoken  of, 
there  they  do  not  mean  literally  everlasting — any  more  than  when  ap- 
plied to  hills  and  mountains,  &c.  Then  they  find  a  number  of  special 
cases  ;  and  by  an  interminable  talk  about  these  special  cases,  and  by  every 
sort  of  mystification,  false  issues,  and  special  pleading,  they  induce  thou- 
sands to  believe  that  aioon,  aioonion,  aidios,  and  all  that  family,  when 
applied  to  future  punishment,  mean  not  eternal,  unending.  Nay  ;  when 
you  remind  them  that  these  words  represent  the  state  of  future  felicity — 
they  retort  just  as  you  have  heard  on  immersion — they  believe  in  eternal 
happines — but  not  because  aioon,  &c.  so  intimate  in  this  case.  I  have 
never  observed  a  more  full  and  perfect  parallelism  than  in  this  present 
case,  and  my  argument  with  the  Universalist. 

Again,  in  the  case  of  the  Unitarians  ;  take  the  words,  Lord,  God,  Jeho- 
vah, and  they  admit,  at  once,  that  these  terms  do,  in  their  literal,  pro- 
per, and  pure  grammatical  construction,  mean  the  Supreme,  Eternal,  and 
Un-originrited  God  ;  one  that  always  was,  and  is,  and  evermore  shall 
be.  But,  say  they,  words  have  many  meanings,  and  the  context  must 
decide  the  meaning.  Now,  the  word  God  is  applied  to  magistrates, 
rulers,  angels,  &c.  and  used  in  a  subordinate  sense  times  without  num- 
ber. They  make  out  a  number  of  examples,  reason  speciously  about 
them,  and  finally  conclude  that  in  all  cases  when  applied  to  the  son  of 
Mary  they  are  used  not  in  their  literal,  proper,  and  primary  sense ;  but 
is  a  rather  figurative  and  special  sense.  Precisely,  and  without  one 
shade  of  variation,  manage  they  their  cause  of  special  pleading,  as  my 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  I99 

friend,  Mr.  Rice,  has  clone  all  through  this  question.  Their  system  of 
philology,  criticism,  modes  of  quotation  are  identically  the  same  as  his. 
The  only  difierence  is,  that  the  word  is  baptism,  and  not  theos,  thus,  or 
Jehovah. 

So  of  eis,  en,  eh,  cipo — eis  signifies  into,  and  is  so  translated  more 
than  two  thousand  times  in  the  common  version — often  by  imfo,  and  to, 
where  it  ou'^ht  to  be  into — but  althoucrh  it  takes  saints  into  heaven,  and 
sends  the  wicked  iiito  hell,  it  must  never  mean  into  when  baptism  is 
spoken  of.  It  can  lead  us  into  any  place  but  into  the  water.  So  with 
all  the  prepositions  connected  with  baptism.  Not  one  of  them  will  either 
help  us  into  the  Jordan  or  out  of  li.  They  will  bring  us  to  it,  but  not  into 
it;  and  if  by  accident  we  get  into  it,  they  will  not  bring  us  out  of  it  \\  It 
is  all  of  the  same  category  with  Unitarian  and  Universalian  logic  and  tactics. 

Doddridge  says,  "  That  man  is  the  best  commentator  and  the  safest  ex- 
positor of  Scripture,  and  always  most  likely  to  arrive  at  its  true  meaning  who 
follows  common  sense,  and  takes  the  words  of  the  New  Testament  in 
their  most  common  and  usual  signification," — or  in  words  to  that  efiecL 
When  so  read,  it  annually  converts  thousands  of  Pedo-baptists  into 
Baptists. 

Mr.  Rice,  as  you  have  often  noticed,  has  a  very  powerful  argument — 
he  says,  by  way  of  chorus,  "  It  w^on't  do;  no,  it  won't  do."  [A  laugh.] 
Why?  because  it  does  not  suit  his  side  of  the  question.  But  I  must 
resume  my  line  of  argument. 

X.  My  tenth  argument  shall  be  deduced  from  those  passages  which  Pe- 
do-baptists usually  urge  against  baptizo  and  baptisma,  as  not  indicating 
immersion.  The  very  passages  which  they  quote  against  our  views, 
together  with  their  efforts  at  explaining  them  away,  greatly  confirm  and 
establish  our  conclusions.  We  shall  commence  with  Mark  vii.  3,  4, 
and  Luke  xi.  38.  (The  Jews,)  "  Except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat 
not.  And  when  they  come  from  market,  except  they  wash,  [baptisoon- 
tai,^  they  eat  not.  And  many  such  things  they  hold,  as  the  zoashings, 
[baptistnous,^  of  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  beds,"  [or  couches.] 
Luke  xi.  38.  "The  Pharisees  wondered  that  Jesus  had  not  washed  [ebap- 
tisthe~\  before  dinner." 

I  wish  to  make  a  remark:  I  am  never  for  ascribing  to  any  man  motives 
for  his  conduct — motives  very  far-fetched — other  than  the  plain  sense  of 
the  case  would  indicate.  The  gentleman  has  told  you,  that  I  was  obliged 
once  to  translate  baptizo  by  the  word  wash.  How  he  knows  that  I  was 
obliged  to  do  it — how  he  knows  that  I  was  so  perplexed,  is  a  matter 
which  he  can  probably  explain.  The  case,  however,  is  this  :  In  setting 
up  the  New  Testament  from  Dr.  Campbell's  Gospels,  the  compositor 
followed  the  copy  which  was  placed  before  him,  it  not  being  corrected 
in  this  passage ;  and  the  mistake  thus  passed  through  several  editions 
without  being  noticed ;  and  as  nothing  is  depending  upon  it,  it  so  stands. 
Besides,  as  I  have  before  said,  there  is  nothing  improper  in  so  using  it 
as  a  figurative  representation  of  the  word.  I  have  no  objection  to  using 
the  word  occasionally  as  a  metonymy — as  the  effect  for  the  cause.  I 
have  some  curious  remarks  to  make  on  this  fact  by  and  by,  but  I  w^ill  not 
make  them  now. 

"These  washings  before  dinner,  reported  by  Mark  and  Luke,  contain  the 
only  two  instances  in  which  any  part  of  baptizo  is  ever  translated  by  loash 
in  the  New  Testament.  And,  fortunately,  the  antithesis  between  the  wash- 
ings here  mentioned,  indicated  by  tlie  words  employed  in  the  original  and 
the  facts  stated,  not  only  do  not  sustain  the  common  version  in  transla- 


200  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ting  both  words  by  the  same  word,  wash ;  but  clearly  intimate  that  the  lat- 
ter term,  baptizo,  ought  here  to  have  been  rendered  immerse.  In  verse  3d, 
it  is  nipto  with  pugmce,  a  word  already  shown  to  mean  washing  the  hands, 
face,  or  feet,  always  when  applied  to  the  human  person.  This  is  true  in 
every  case  in  the  Bible.  Moreover,  it  ha.s  pugmce,  the  fist,  in  construction 
with  it ;  that  is,  as  Lightfoot  and  others  interpret  it,  to  the  fist,  or  so  far 
as  the  fist  extends.  When  the  hand  is  shut,  says  Pollux,  as  quoted  by  Car- 
son, the  outside  is  ca.]\ed  pugmee.  Now,  as  this  limits  the  first  washing, 
the  second,  being  expressed  by  baptizo,  and  having  no  part  of  the  body 
mentioned  as  its  peculiar  regimen,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Greeks, 
(and  the  Romans,  in  the  case  of  lavo,)  the  whole  body  is  meant.  Hence, 
they  dip  or  bathe  themselves  after  being  to  market,  whereas,  ordinarily,  they 
wash  their  hands  only  up  to  the  wrist. 

"  Both  Campbell  and  McKnight  translated  the  word  in  this  passage,  im- 
merse. Some  of  our  lexicons,  such  as  Schleusner's,  Scapula's,  Stokius', 
&;c.,  quote  this  passage  in  proof  that  washing  is  sometimes  the  effect  of  im- 
mersion. The  meaning  of  baptisooniai,  here,  as  in  Luke  xi.  38,  being  thus 
clearly  indicated,  (for  Luke  speaks  of  the  same  custom  as  Mark,)  we  have, 
then,  found  baptizo,  in  its  eighty  occurrences  in  the  New  Testament,  uni- 
formly signifying  immersion  ;  and  never  sprinkling  nor  pouring. 

"  Baptismos  is  also  translated  washing  in  Heb.  ix.  2,  as  well  as  in  Mark 
vii.  4.  The  diverse  washings  of  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,  tables,  couches, 
persons,  and  things  mentioned  among  the  traditions  of  the  elders  and  the 
institutions  of  the  law,  were  for  ceremonial  cleansing.  Hence,  all  by  im- 
mersion ;  inasmuch  as  nothing  was  ever  cleansed,  since  the  world  began, 
by  sprinkling  water  upou  it.  Meantime,  I  assume  this  fact,  but  I  will 
hereafter  demonstrate  it : — McKnight  and  Campbell  were  much  more  learn- 
ed in  the  true  meaning  of  this  word  than  the  whole  college  of  the  king's 
translators.  McKnight  translates  the  "  diverse  washings''''  of  the  common 
version  by  "  diverse  immersions,''^  Heb.  ix.  2. 

"  Baptismos  is  never  applied  to  the  christian  ordinance — baptisma  gener- 
ally ;  and,  therefore,  our  translators  never  translated  the  latter  but  by  bap- 
tism, and  baptismos  three  times  by  washing.  We  have,  then,  in  the  one 
huiFidred  and  twenty  occurrences  of  baptizo,  baptismos,  baptisma,  and  bap- 
tistees,  not  found  a  single  exception. 

"But  we  find  bapto,  in  Daniel,  in  some  of  its  flexions,  twice  translated 
wet;  and  that,  too,  by  the  dew  of  heaven!  It  was,  then,  a  general  wet- 
ting— profuse  as  immersion  ;  and  this  metonymy  of  the  effect  for  the  cause, 
clearly  indicates  that  in  the  days  of  the  Septuagint,  the  idea  of  sprinkling 
was  never  associated  with  bapto.  Dews  are  more  wetting  in  this  country, 
much  more  so  in  Asia,  in  the  environs  of  the  Euphrates — than  any  Pedo- 
baptist  sprinkling  since  the  council  of  Ravenna.  Soaking,  wetting,  dyeing, 
coloring  and  even  washing,  it  has  always  been  conceded,  are  frequent  mean- 
ings of  bapto;  because,  as  all  the  dictionaries  explain,  these  processes  are 
accomplished  by  immersing.  Indeed,  these  metaphors  all  go  to  show  that 
immersion  was  the  proper  and  fixed  meaning  of  the  term  ;  for,  unless  things 
were  covered  in  some  way,  they  could  neither  be  dyed,  colored,  washed, 
Boaked,  or  even  thoroughly  wet." — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18— Hi,  .5.  M. 
[mr.  uice's  thirteenth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — I  will  commence  my  remarks  (though  it  maybe  rather 
out  of  the  regular  order)  by  noticing  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  con- 
cerning Schleusner,  viz  :  that  he  gives  to  wash  as  a  figurative  meaning 
of  baptizo.  Schleusner  does  first  define  it  to  immerse,  and  to  wash  by- 
immersing;  but  he  gives,  as  the  second  meaning,  not  as  a  figurative 
meaning,  ablao,  lavo,  aqua  pingo — to  cleanse,  to  wash,  to  purify  with 
water ;  and  for  examples  of  this  second  meaning  he  refers  to  the  New 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  301 

Testament,  particularly  Mark  vii.  4,  "  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash,  (baptizontai)  they  eat  not.  Were  not  these 
literal  washings  ?  Is  not  baptizo  here  used  in  a  literal  sense  ?  The  gen- 
tleman's own  lexicon  is  against  him  ;  and  so  are  all  the  others.  When 
I  make  assertions,  I  will  certainly  prove  them.  The  gentleman  may  rest 
assured  of  that. 

I  think  he  is  getting  a  little  warm  in  debate.  So  much  the  better. 
Let  us  hear  something  to  waken  up  our  energies.  I  regret,  however,  that 
he  does  not  get  on  faster  with  his  reading. 

He  tells  us,  he  has  not  attempted  to  prove,  that  baptizo  means  only  to 
immerse,  hut  that  this  is  its  native,  original  and  proper  meaning.  But 
if  he  would  read  Ernesti,  (and  he  speaks  highly  of  liim,)  he  would  dis- 
cover, that  in  proving  this,  he  really  proves  nothing  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion.    On  page  52  of  Ernesti,  we  read  as  follows: 

''Etymology,  an  uncertain  guide.  The  fluctuating  use  of  words,  which 
prevails  in  every  language,  gives  rise  to  frequent  changes  in  their  meaning. 
There  are  but  fow  words  in  any  language,  wliicti  always  retain  tfieir  radical 
and  primary  meaning.  Great  care,  therefore,  is  necessary  in  the  interpre- 
ter, to  guard  against  rash  etymological  exegesis,  which  is  often  very  falla- 
cious. Etymology  often  belongs  rather  to  the  history  of  language,  than  to 
the  illustration  of  its  present  meaning ;  and  rarely  does  it  exhibit  any  thing 
more  than  a  specious  illustration,'''' 

Suppose  then,  the  genUeman  could  demonstrate,  that  the  native,  original 
meaning  of  baptizo,  was  to  sink  or  to  plunge;  of  ^yhat  advantage  would 
this  be  to  his  cause  ?  I  could  admit  it,  though  it  cannot  be  certainly  proved  ; 
for  it  would  still  remain  extremely  doubtful,  whether,  as  used  some  cen- 
turies afterward,  by  a  people  speaking  a  peculiar  idiom  of  the  Greek, 
and  in  relation  to  matters  foreign  to  its  first  usage,  it  retained  the  same 
meaning.  Ernesti,  you  observe,  who  is  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  ablest 
writers  on  interpretation,  tells  us,  that  but  few  words  in  any  language 
(even  when  siill  used  by  the  same  people)  always  retain  their  radical  and 
primary  meaning.  I  have  furnished  you  with  some  examples  (and  they 
might  be  multiplied  indefinitely)  in  which  English  words,  in  the  space  of 
two  centuries,  have  entirely  lost  their  original  meaning  ;  and  the  gentle- 
man himself  has  pointed  out  several  examples  of  the  kind  in  his  new 
translation.  Within  two  hundred  years  the  English  language  has,  in  re- 
gard to  multitudes  of  its  words,  undergone  a  radical  change;  and  shall  we 
be  told,  Uiat  words  in  the  Greek  retained  their  primary  meaning  unchanged 
during  the  long  period  of  its  existence  before  the  advent  of  our  Savior, 
and  even  when  transferred  to  another  nation  and  to  new  subjects  ?  He 
must  either  piove,  that  baptizo,  at  the  time  when,  and  amongst  the  people 
for  whom  christian  baptism  was  instituted,  meant  only,  or,  at  least,  com- 
monly to  immerse  ;  or  he  must  fail  to  sustain  his  cause. 

It  is  true,  as  he  says,  diat  Dr.  Gale  is  with  him  in  advocating  the  exclu- 
sive claims  of  immersion  ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  I  have  quoted  him  to 
refute  his  arguments.  True,  our  immersionist  critics  all  come  to  the  same 
conclusion,  though  by  dilTerent  and  contradictory  modes  of  reasoning. 
Both  Gale  and  Cox,  according  to  Carson,  gave  up  the  question,  at  least 
so  far  as  bapfo  is  concerned;  and  I  have  proved  that  Gale  has  given  it  up, 
so  far  as  baptizo  is  concerned.  So  they  travel  on,  fighting  by  the  way, 
but  arriving  finally  at  the  same  place.  But,  mark  it,  the  Pedo-baptists 
are,  en  masse,  against  the  geiuleman.  If  a  very  few  admit,  that  immer- 
sion was  the  apostolic  practice  ;  I  can  only  say,  they  have  admitted  too 
much.     Against  their  concessions,  however,  I  have  adduced  the  testimony 


202  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

of  the  old  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  who  immersed  three  times,  in  favor  of 
the  validity  and  scriptural  character  of  our  baptism. 

Carson,  my  friend  thinks,  had  no  need  to  contradict  the  lexicons, 
though  he  can  prove  them  wrong.  Thus  far,  however,  he  has  failed  to 
produce  a  lexicon  that  makes  to  ivash  a  figurative  meaning  of  baptizo. 
Nor  has  he  been  able  to  produce  one,  though  repeatedly  urged  to  do  it, 
that  gives  immerse  as  the  primary  or  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  as  used 
amongst  the  Jews,  and  in  the  Bible. 

I  have  proved,  that  Origen  used  bapto  in  the  sense  of  sprinkling ;  and 
he,  it  is  presumed,  understood  the  Greek  as  well  as  my  friend.  On  the 
shoulders  of  such  a  giant,  even  though  I  were  a  Lilliputian,  1  would  not 
fear  the  assaults  of  Mr.  C.,  whom  I  am  bound  to  considers  mighty  man, 
since  he  contradicts  Origen  and  all  the  lexicons  !  He  held  up  before  you 
a  volume  of  Wall  in  reply  to  Gale,  and  triumphantly  asserted,  that  he  did 
not  venture  to  reply  to  Gale's  speculations  about  a  different  reading  in 
Rev.  xix.  13.  He  did  not,  however,  tell  you  that  Wall  was  himself  an 
immersionist,  contending  for  pouring  only  in  case  of  necessity  ;  and  that 
he  was  writing  almost  exclusively  on  infant  baptism.  No — he  would  leave 
on  your  minds  the  impression,  that  the  whole  volume  was  written  in  de- 
fence of  pouring  or  sprinkling,  when  the  truth  is,  that  probably  not  a  tenth 
of  it  is  on  that  subject.      He  will  gain  nothing  by  this  mode  of  warfare. 

The  gentleman  tells  us  that  Prof.  Stuart  quotes  Calvin,  as  claiming  for 
the  church  the  right  to  change  the  ordinances,  except  the  substance.  Stu- 
art has  not  quoted  such  a  remark  from  Calvin.  Neither  Stuart  nor  Calvin 
ever  claimed  for  the  church  any  such  authority.  On  the  contrary,  Cal- 
vin, in  his  commentary  on  Acts  viii.  38,  says,  as  regards  the  ceremony 
of  baptism,  in  so  far  as  it  was  delivered  to  us  by  Christ,  it  were  a  hundred 
times  better  to  be  slain  by  the  sword,  than  that  we  should  allow  it  to  be 
taken  from  us.  But  he  believed  that  the  Savior  did  not  prescribe  any 
particular  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance  ;  and  therefore  the  church 
had  from  the  beginning  freely  practiced  dilTerent  modes,  as  immersion, 
trine  immersion,  partial  immersion,  pouring  and  sprinkling.  Stuart  takes 
the  same  view  of  the  subject,  denying  most  positively,  that  the  New 
Testament  contains  a  command  to  practice  immersion,  and  callng  upon 
any  one  who  asserts  the  contrary,  to  produce  such  a  command.  It  is  not 
true,  then,  to  say,  that  either  of  these  men  claimed  for  the  church  the  right 
to  change  the  ordinances  of  God's  house.  They  maintained,  that  the  mode 
of  administering  baptism  is  indifferent,  because  not,  in  their  opinion,  pre- 
cribed  by  the  Savior. 

My  friend  labors  to  get  Philip  and  the  eunuch  into  the  water  by  the 
force  of  the  preposition  eis,  maintaining  that  its  proper  meaning  is  into. 
The  audience  will  remember  that  I  quoted  Buttman's  Greek  grammar, 
a  standard  work,  as  defining  it  to,  into,  in  answer  to  ivhither,  that  is,  to 
(not  into)  what  place  ?  Its  leading  meaning,  therefore,  according  to  Butt- 
man,  (whose  authority  I  must,  with  all  deference,  consider  higher  than 
that  of  my  friend,)  is  simply  to.  Precisely  so  it  is  defined  by  Scapula, 
"arf,  m" — to,  into.  Hedericus  defines  it,  in,  (2)  ad,  (3)  ergu;  into,  to, 
towards.  Donnegan  thus  defines  it :  general  signification,  to,  into,  with 
verbs  of  motion.  Robertson  gives,  as  the  primary  or  original  meaning — 
"into,  then  to,  towards,  Sic,  after  verbs  of  motion,"  &c.  Bretschnei- 
der,  as  I  have  already  said,  gives  to  as  its  first  and  leading  meaning, 
Schrivellius  defines  it,  ad,  in;  item,  erga — to, into ;  also  toivards.  Not 
one  of  these  lexicons,  nor  any  other  know^n  to  me,  says,  that  eis  gener- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  203 

ally  means  iiito  ;  but  several  of  the  best  of  them  gives  to  as  its  leading 
meaning. 

The  gentleman  charges  Pedo-baptists  with  adopting  the  principles  of 
interpretation  by  which  Universalists  and  Unitarians  seek  to  sustain  their 
tenets.  Is  this  charge  true  ?  Have  I  not,  throughout  this  discussion, 
been  contending  for  tlie  ordinary  and  proper  meaning  of  words,  as  they 
are  used  by  the  people  whose  language  we  are  expounding?  But  I 
pledge  myself  to  prove,  before  the  close  of  this  discussion,  that  he  has 
much  more  affinity  with  Unitarians  and  Universalists  than  I. 

But  let  me  read  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  translating  the  word  eis, 
into,  and  ek,  out  of — as  the  gentleman  wishes ;  that  the  audience  may 
judge  of  the  soundness  of  his  criticisms :  2  Kings  vi.  4,  "  When  they 
came  into  (eis)  Jordan,  they  cut  down  wood."  Did  the  persons  go  lit- 
erally into  Jordan  in  order  to  cut  wood  ?  Isa.  xxxvi.  2,  "  And  the  king  of 
Assyria  sent  Rabshekeh  out  of  (ek)  Lachesh  into  (eis)  Jerusalem,  unto 
Hezekiah  with  a  great  army."  John  vi.  23,  "  Howbeit,  there  came  other 
boats  out  of  (ek)  Tiberias."  John  viii.  23,  "And  he  said  unto  them,  ye 
are  out  of  (ek)  beneath ;  I  am  out  of  (ek)  above:  ye  are  oitt  of  (ek)  this 
world;  t  am  not  out  of  (ek)  this  world,"  Ch.  ix.  1,  "And  as  Jesus 
passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  blind  out  of  (ek)  his  birth."  Verse  7,  "  And 
yesus]  said  unto  him,  go  wash  into  (eis)  the  pool  of  Siloam."  Verse 
11,  "And  [Jesus]  said  unto  me,  go  into  (eis)  the  pool  of  Siloam  and 
wash."  Ch.  xi.  31,  "She  goeth  into  (eis)  the  grave  to  weep  there." 
Verse  38,  "  Jesus  cometh  into  (eis)  the  grave.  It  was  a  cave  and  a 
stone  lay  upon  it." 

I  will  read  another  passage  or  two  from  Jolin  xx.,  for  the  gentleman 
seems  to  consider  this  an  important  point.  "  The  first  day  of  the  week 
cometh  Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it  was  yet  dark,  into  (eis)  the 
sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  stone  taken  away  out  of  (ek)  the  sepulchre,  &c. 
Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple,  and  came  i7ito  (eis) 
tJie  sepulchre.  So  they  ran  both  together :  and  the  other  disciple  did 
outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  i7^to  (eis)  the  sepulchre.  And  he  stooping 
down,  and  looking  in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying;  yet  Avent  he  not  in,"  &c. 

The  unlearned  hearer  can  at  once  perceive,  that  by  translating  these 
prepositions  into  and  out  of  without  regard  to  the  connection,  we  make 
the  Scriptures  speak  nonsense  and  contradictions.  But  the  gentleman 
thinks,  that  in  many  passages  where  these  words  are  translated  to  and 
from,  the  real  meaning  is  into  and  out  of;  as  we  speak  of  sending  a 
letter  from  Lexington  to  Philadelphia.  In  all  such  cases,  however,  the 
idea  expressed  is  that  of  going  from  one  point  to  another  point.  Hence, 
we  should  laugh  at  a  man  who  would  speak  of  going  out  of  Lexington 
into  Philadelphia  !  He  parades  before  us  with  triumph  the  number  of 
instances  in  which  in  the  New  Testament  eis  is  translated  into.  But 
will  he  please  to  tell  the  audience  in  how  many  of  those  cases  the  verb  is 
preceded  by  the  preposition  ?  The  general  rule  in  this  subject,  I  have 
already  presented.  In  some  cases  the  connection  and  the  sense  show, 
that  eis  means  into,  and  ek,  out  of.  Then  they  should  be  so  translated. 
In  other  cases,  such  as  I  have  just  read  in  your  hearing,  the  connection 
and  ihe  sense  prove  that  these  prepositions  mean  to  ami  from.  But  in 
cases  where  the  connection  does  not  determine  their  meaning,  as  in 
Acts  viii.  38,  the  Greeks,  if  they  wished  definitely  to  express  the  action 
of  going  into  or  coming  out  of,  prefixed  a  preposition  to  the  verb,  as 
eiserchomai  eis,  I  go  into ;  ekporeuomai  ek,  I  go  out  of.    In  the  case  under 


204  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

consideration,  however,  these  definite  expressions  are  not  employed ;  and 
since  to  go  down  to  the  water,  makes  as  good  sense  as  to  go  down  into, 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  PhiUp  and  the  eunuch  went  down  into  the  water. 

In  thus  reasoning,  however,  I  am  doing  a  work  of  supererogation ;  for 
I  can  safely  admit,  as  already  remarked,  that  they  did  go  literally  into 
the  water.  And  I  defy  any  man  then  to  prove,  that  Philip  immersed  the 
eunuch.  What  advantage,  then,  is  gained  by  the  labor  to  prove,  that 
they  did  go  in  ? 

My  friend  says,  he  can  sympathise  with  me  ;  for  he  has  been  a  Pres- 
byterian, and  knows  what  it  is  to  be  under  the  unhappy  influence  of  such 
a  system.  I  am  obliged  to  him ;  but  I  am  so  little  sensible  of  my  need 
of  his  sympathies,  that  I  am  quite  unable  fully  to  appreciate  his  kindness. 
I  even  find  myself  doubting,  whether  he  ever  was  a  bona  fide  Presbyte- 
rian. Presbyterianism  I  once  heard,  very  appropriately,  compared  to  a 
kind  of  grass  that  grows  in  some  parts  of  the  South,  which  is  said  to  be 
very  valuable,  but  if  once  it  becomes  fairly  set,  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
rooting  it  out.  [A.  laugh.]  If  a  man  ever  becomes  a  genuine  Presbyte- 
rian, it  will  stick  by  him,  living  and  dying.  [Laughter.]  I  really  doubt 
whether  the  gentleman  ever  was  the  true  blue. — [Continued  laughter.] 

But  he  tells  us,  he  has  examined,  thoroughly,  this  whole  subject — dis- 
covered and  repudiated  the  errors  of  Pedo-baptism.  Peter  Edwards,  I 
believe,  was  once  a  good  Baptist ;  but  upon  careful  examination  of  the 
whole  ground,  he  came  over  to  the  side  of  truth,  and  wrote  one  of  the 
ablest  works  I  have  seen  in  favor  of  Pedo-baptism.  Dr.  Thomas  Scott, 
the  commentator,  for  a  time,  had  difliculties  on  this  subject;  but  on  tho- 
rough examination  of  the  evidence  in  the  case,  he,  too,  settled  down  in 
the  firm  conviction  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  doctrines  for  which  I  am 
now  contending.  In  company  with  such  men,  I  cannot  realize  my  need 
of  the  sympathy  of  the  gentleman. 

He  tells  you,  that  the  common  English  version  of  the  Scriptures  is 
making  immersionists  quite  rapidly.  Then  why  did  he  not  let  it  alone  ? 
Why  has  he  made  a  new  translation,  if  the  old  one  was  doing  the  work 
so  effectually  ?  And  why  have  immersionists  (and  he  amongst  them)  so 
liberally  bestowed  their  censures  upon  it^  Why  has  the  gentleman,  and 
those  who  agree  with  him,  been  writing  and  preaching  so  long  and  so 
constantly  on  this  very  plain  subject,  so  clearly  presented  in  the  common 
Bible  ?  Ah,  I  seriously  doubt,  whether  he  has  not  felt  great  dissatisfac- 
tion with  our  excellent  translation,  on  this  very  subject. 

I  will  briefly  notice  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  on  Mark  vii.  4,  and 
Luke  xi.  38.  In  the  former  passage  we  read — that  "  the  Pharisees,  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  &c.  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  [Greek — except  they  bap- 
tize,'] they  eat  not."  Now  the  question  is — did  the  Pharisees,  and  all 
the  Jews,  immerse  themselves  before  eating,  whenever  they  came  from 
the  market  or  public  place?  Mr.  C.  does  not  venture  to  say,  that 
tliey  did.  He  adds  the  pronoun  them,  referring  to  the  hands — "  by  dip- 
ping them."  But  there  is  no  such  word  in  the  Greek,  and  he  has  nc 
right  to  supply  it.  Mr.  Carson,  speaking  of  the  very  translation  adopted 
by  the  gentleman,  pronounces  it  nothing  more  than  "  an  ingenious  con- 
ceit;" and  he  states,  that  in  such  connection,  where  no  part  of  the  body 
is  mentioned,  or  excepted,  the  whole  body  is  meant.  So  he  would  make 
the  Jews  literally  immerse  themselves  before  eating;  though  there  is  not 
the  least  evidence  of  the  prevalence  of  any  such  custom,  and  it  is  almost 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  206 

incredible  that  it  could  have  existed.     But  the  cause  of  immersion  de- 
mands the  belief  of  great  improbabilities. 

The  translation,  given  by  Mr.  Campbell,  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it, 
is  no  translation  at  all.  He  makes  one  little  Greek  adverb  contain  the 
whole  phrase,  "■by  pouring  a  little  water  on  them;''''  and  then  he  drops 
some  two  of  the  Greek  words  out  of  the  text,  and  translates  the  phrase,  ean 
me  baptizontai,  (literally,  unless  they  baptize,)  by  the  preposition  6y, 
and  the  participle  dipping,  and  supplies  the  word  ttiem,  referring  to  the 
hands ! !     Such  a  translation  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen. 

The  only  charge  ever  made  against  Christ  and  his  disciples,  connected 
with  this  subject,  was,  that  they  neglected  to  ivash  their  hands  before 
eating.  The  baptism  here  spoken  of,  therefore,  was  a  washing  of  the 
hands,  which,  as  it  was  a  religious  washing,  is  represented  as  baptizing 
the  person ;  and,  it  is  certain,  that  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  have  wa- 
ter poured  on  their  hands.  So  universal  was  this  custom,  that  a  servant 
was  described  as  one  who  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  his  master. 
"  Here  is  Elisha-ben-shaphat,  2vho  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Eli- 
jah.'''' The  word  baptizo  in  this  passage,  therefore,  denotes  the  partial 
application  of  water. 

But  I  proved,  that  in  one  instance  Mr.  Campbell  himself  had  translated 
baptizo,  to  wash  or  use  washing,  (Luke  xi.  38.)  He  tells  us,  however, 
that  tins  was  by  a  mistake  of  the  compositor,  which,  in  the  reading  of  the 
proof-sheets,  was  overlooked.  I,  of  course,  cannot  contradict  this  state- 
ment; but  I  am  constrained  to  consider  it  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
blunders  that  ever  fell  under  my  observation.  I  cannot  but  wonder,  that 
a  man  so  sharp-sighted  as  Mr.  C,  publishing  edition  after  edition  of  a 
new  translation,  one  prominent  object  of  which  was  to  translate  that  very 
word,  should  at  last  have  stereotyped  such  an  error  undiscovered  !  !  !  The 
meaning  of  the  word  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  is  sufficiently 
clear.  It  is  scarcely  credible,  that  the  Pharisee  should  have  wondered 
that  our  Savior  had  not  immersed  himself  before  dinner.  His  surprise 
evidently  arose  from  the  fact  that  he  had  not  washed  his  hands.  The 
new  Baptist  translation  labors  under  the  same  difficulty  I  had  supposed 
my  friend  to  feel,  in  regard  to  this  passage,  and  also  Mark  vii.  4.  In  both 
cases,  they  translate  baptizo  by  the  word  bathe;  which  every  body 
knows  does  not  express  either  mode  or  specific  action.  The  translators 
were  zealous  immersionists;  and  they  set  out  with  the  purpose  of  transla- 
ting this  word  correctly.  But  they  could  not  venture,  in  these  two  cases, 
to  translate  it  immerse:  it  would  have  looked  too  badly  ! 

I  see  not  why  Mr.  C.  should  make  so  much  ado  about  his  momentous 
fact,  that  God  never  commanded  purification  to  be  effected  by  sprinkling 
unmixed  water  on  a  person.  I  have  called  on  him  to  show  one  instance 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  where  a  person  was  ever  commanded  to  be  immersed 
in  water,  pure  or  mixed ;  and  he  has  not  been  able  to  do  it.  Hi?  attempt 
to  prove  immersion  by  loiio,  a  word  which  is  universally  admjtted  to  be 
generic,  and  to  mean  simply  to  wash,  shows  how  he  feels  the  difficulty. 
Let  the  fact,  then,  be  known,  that  the  Old  Testament  requires  a  number 
of  purifications  by  sprinkling  water,  but  not  one  immersion.  I  am  unwill- 
ing to  anticipate  the  argument  of  my  friend  from  the  burial  of  Christ,  as 
mentioned  in  Kotn.  vi.  ;  and  yet  I  have  nothing  particularly  to  do,  unless  I 
do  still  run  ahead  of  him.  1  have  replied  to  his  arguments,  besides  offer- 
ing many  to  which,  as  yet,  he  has  attempted  no  answer.  I  will,  tiien,  in- 
troduce my  argument  directlv  in  favor  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

S 


206  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

My  first  remark  on  this  point  is  this  :  Baptism  is  a  significant  ordi- 
nance. Man  is  a  sinful  being;  and  when  baptized  with  water,  the  univer- 
sal purifier — he  is  taught,  at  once,  this  truth,  that  he  is  polluted,  and  that 
he  must  be  cleansed  from  sin  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  water  of  baptism 
is,  then,  an  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing — of  sanctification.  Hence  it  is 
so  frequently  in  the  New  Testament  mentioned  as  a  washing.  The  gen- 
tleman, I  presume,  will  not  deny,  that  baptism  is  a  significant  ordinance, 
an  emblem  of  sanctification.  I  need  not,  therefore,  multiply  evidence  to 
prove  it. 

I  have  now  several  important  facts  to  state,  which,  I  think,  clearly 
establish  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending,  viz :  that  baptism  is 
scripturally  performed  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ;  the  first  of  which  is  this: 

All  the  personal  ablutions  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  mode  of  which  is 
prescribed,  tvere  required  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling.  The  gentle- 
man has  boasted  of  his  universal  affirmations.  Now  I  affirm  the  fact  just 
stated  to  be  true,  without  exception.  There  is  not  a  washing  of  the  Le- 
vitical  law,  having  respect  to  persons,  nor  an  important  washing  of  any 
kind,  the  mode  of  which,  if  there  is  any  mode  commanded,  is  not  sprink- 
ling. By  turning  to  Leviticus,  ch.  xiv.  you  will  find  particular  directions 
concerning  the  cleansing  of  the  leper. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 12  o'clock,  P.  31. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fourteenth  address.] 

Before  entering  upon  my  address,  I  will  ask  Mr.  Rice,  Did  you,  sir, 
ever  see  this  lexicon  I  now  hold  in  my  hand — Stokius  on  the  New 
Testament  ? 

Mr.  Rice.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  Campbell.  Mr.  Rice  acknowledges  that  he  has  never  seen  this 
lexicon.  Did  he  not,  then,  I  am  constrained  to  ask,  speak  too  hastily 
when  he  said,  that  there  is  not  a  dictionary  in  the  world  that  says,  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  are  figurative  meanings  of  baptizo? 

Mr.  Rice.     If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  to  explain. 

Mr.  Campbell.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Rice.  I  said  that  I  never  heard  of  such  a  dictionary,  and  I  called 
upon  my  friend  to  produce  one.  And  as  he  had  not  produced  it,  I,  giving 
him  full  credit  for  his  learning,  supposed  and  took  it  for  granted,  that 
there  was  not  one  on  earth. 

Mr.  Campbell.  This  is  not  perfectly  satisfactory.  It  might  have  been 
so  but  for  the  fact  that  in  his  third  speech,  when  making  his  first  formal 
eff'ort  to  sustain  wash,  he  strongly  affirmed  that  "  there  is  not  a  lexi- 
cographer, ancient  or  modern,  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  who  says  that 
baptizo  means  to  wash,  figuratively."  I  noted  the  words.  Since  then, 
too,  he  has  had  other  opportunities  of  knowing  that  Stokius  is  not  the 
only  one  who  says  so.  He  is  only  one  of  a  considerable  number,  who 
affirms  that  wash,  cleanse,  wet,  &c.,  are,  by  consequence,  or  tropically,  or 
metonymically,  meanings  of  baptism.  Stokius,  one  of  the  most  learned 
Rabbis  in  the   school   and  learning  of   orthodoxy,  deposes   as    follows  : 

1.  Generatim,  ac  vi  vocis  intinctionis   ac  immersionis  notionem  obtinct. 

2.  Speciatim  (A)  proprie  est  immergere  ac  intingere  in  aquam.  3.  (B) 
Tropice,  per  metalepsin  est  lavire  abluere,  quia  aliquid  intingi  ac  im- 
mergi  solei  in  aquam  ut  lavetur  vel  abluatur.  Which  I  translate: — 
Generally  it  obtains  the  sense  of  dipping  or  immersing.  Without 
respect  to  water  or  any  liquid  whatever.     2.   Specially,  and  in  its  proper 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  207 

signification,  it  signijics  to  dip  or  immerse  in  water.  This  is  its  New  > 
Testament  sense.  3.  Tropicall)^  and  by  a  metalepsis,  it  means  to  wash, 
to  cleanse,  because  a  thing  is  usually  dipped  or  immersed  in  water  that  it 
may  be  washed,  that  it  may  be  cleansed.  Its  general  sense  is  to  dip. 
Its  proper  sense,  to  dip  in  water.  Its  figurative  sense,  to  wash,  to  cleanse. 
This  is  a  true  version  of  this  great  author;  and  it  is  exactly  what  I 
believe  and  have  taught  from  the  beginning.  Have  I  not,  then,  in  my 
own  time  and  way,  after  giving  him  full  space  to  develop  himself  and  his 
argument,  clearly  shown  that  he  has  misconceived,  mistated  and  greatly 
misrepresented  the  Greek  lexicons,  and  especially  those  on  the  New  Tes- 
tament. He  has  often  vauntingly  asked  for  a  New  Testament  lexicon, 
that  gives  immerse  as  the  proper  and  primary  meaning  of  baptizo.  He 
has  got  it  now  !     Indeed,  they  all  do  so,  that  define  its  proper  meaning. 

Mr.  Rice.     I  will  fix  that  directly. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  wish  to  have  it  explained  now,  ox  fixed,  as  the  gen- 
tleman says.     I  pause  for  a  reply. 

Mr.  Rice.  I  will  shew  from  Ernesti,  that  tropical  words  sometimes 
become  proper  ones,  and  a  secondary  meaning  is  used  for  the  first : 

"  But  there  are  several  different  points  of  light  in  which  tropical  words 
are  to  be  viewed.  For,  first,  the  primitive  or  proper  signification,  strictly 
understood,  often  becomes  obsolete,  and  ceases  for  a  long  period  to  be  used. 
In  this  case,  the  secondary  sense,  which  originally  would  have  been  the 
TROPICAL  one,  becomes  the  proper  one.  This  applies  especially  to  the 
names  of  things.  Hence  there  are  many  words  which  at  present  never 
have  their  original  and  proper  sense,  such  as  etymology  would  assign  them, 
but  only  the  secondary  sense,  which  may  in  each  case,  be  called  the  proper 
sense  ;  e.  g.  in  English,  tragedy,  comedy,  villain,  pagan,  knave,  &c. 

"  Secondly,  in  like  manner,  the  tropical  sense  of  certain  words  has  be- 
come so  common  by  usage,  that  it  is  better  iinderstood  than  the  original  sense. 
In  this  case,  too,  we  call  the  sense  proper  ;  although  strictly  and  technically 
speaking,  one  might  insist  on  its  being  called  tropical.  If  one  should,  by 
his  last  will,  give  a  library  [bibliothecam^  to  another,  we  should  not  call  the 
use  of  bibliotheca  tropical  ;  although,  strictly  speaking,  it  is  so  ;  for  biblio- 
theca  originally  meant  the  shelves,  or  place  where  books  are  deposited." — 
Ernesti,  pp.  23,  24. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  am  sorry  that  my  confidence  in  the  candor  of  my 
friend  is  somewhat  diminished  by  this  manouvre. 

Mr.  Rice.     Tropical  words,  with  the  critics,  are  not  figurative  words. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  should  like  to  refer  the  decision  of  the  translations 
which  I  have  given,  to  classical  gentlemen  present.  Mr.  Rice  says,  a 
tropical  word,  or,  as  I  understand  it,  a  word  used  tropically,  is  not  a 
figurative  word  with  the  critics.  This  is  a  new  doctrine  in  the  schools. 
"Whence  comes  the  word  that  indicates  figurative  use  ?  Comes  it  not 
from  tropos,  and  that  from  trepo,  to  turn  ?  To  turn  a  word  from  its 
proper  signification,  is  to  make  it  a  trope ;  and  that  is  what  we  call  a 
figure.  There  is  no  dictionary  of  credit  that  otherwise  explains  and  de- 
fines these  words,  or  that  distinguishes  tropical  from  figurative  language, 
as  used  in  the  schools  of  logic  and  rhetoric.  But  this  is  not  mere  infer- 
ence or  conjecture  in  this  particular  case.  Stokius  gives  the  name  of  the 
figure.  He  calls  it  a  metalepsis.  So  the  matter  is  ended  with  him  as 
respects  Ernesti — Ernesti's  remarks  and  the  question  before  us,  belong 
not  to  the  same  class.  They  are  wholly  misapplied.  They  belong  to 
another  subject. 

But  why  this  excitement  about  Stokius?     He  is  only  a  little  plainer 


208  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

than  some  of  the  others.  He  goes  no  farther  than  Schleusner  and  Bret- 
schneider.  He  gives  the  name  of  the  figure,  and  calls  it  a  melalepsis,  which 
transfers  the  name  of  an  effect  to  its  cause.  They  explain  it  as  a  figure 
or  trope,  without  naming  it.  My  ear  has  been  pained — repeatedly 
pained,  with  the  manner  that  some  dictionaries  are  quoted  by  my  friend. 
I  do  not  like  to  go  into  expositions  of  this  sort ;  nor  into  debates  about 
foreign  languages  before  a  popular  assembly.  But  really,  I  am  obliged 
to  say,  that  Schleusner  and  13retschnieder  are  as  much  with  me  as  Stoki- 
us,  and  as  much  mystified  by  my  respondent. 

Hear  Schleusner's  own  words.  The  question  is,  when  and  how 
comes  baptizo  to  mean  wash,  cleanse?  He  says  :  1.  Jam  quia  haud  rnro 
aliquid  itnmergi  ac  intingi  in  aquam  solet,  ut  lavetur  hinc.  2.  Ab- 
luo  lavo  aqua  pergo  notat.  Because  a  thing  must  be  dipped  or  immersed 
into  water  that  it  may  be  washed.  Hence  comes  the  sense,  I  wash,  I 
cleanse.  Now  he  might  as  well  have  called  it  a  metonymy  ;  for  he  de- 
scribes the  figure  without  calling  its  name,  while  Stokius  does  not. 

The  gentleman  also  knows,  that  Bretschneider  so  understands  it.  He 
knows  that  he  defines  baptisma,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  mean  nothing 
but  "immersion,  or  submersion;"  and  why  he  should  so  often  quote  a 
special  clause,  '■'■lavo  aliio  siinpliciter,^^  in  direct  contravention  of  this 
definition,  is  of  the  same  category  with  the  two  still  more  venerable 
names  of  Schleusner  and  Stokius.  Now  these  are  all  New  Testament 
lexicographers,  well  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  idiom  of  which  Mr.  R. 
speaks  so  sensitively,  and  they  are  still  more  decidedly  with  us,  though 
Pedo-baptists,  than  any  one,  or  all  of  the  classic  dictionaries. 

This  is  the  first  and  the  only  time,  since  our  commencement,  that  we 
have  had  any  debate ;  and  it  is  upon  the  real  gist  of  the  whole  contro- 
versy. I  stake  the  whole  cause  of  immersion  on  this  single  point,  for 
this  is  just  the  point  on  which  the  whole  baptismal  controversy  turns.  I 
am  willing,  then,  to  give  it  all  the  conspicuity  it  deserves — to  open  up  the 
case,  and  place  it  fairly  before  the  community.  Mr.  Rice  has  been  con- 
strained to  admit,  on  the  testimony  of  three  New  Testament  lexicons,  as 
well  as  upon  that  of  many  others,  that  baptizo  properly,  originally,  and 
primarily  signifies  to  dip  ;  but  he  also  contends  that  it  properly,  primarily, 
and  originally  signifies  to  ■wash.  He  will  not,  indeed,  say,  that  it  means 
to  sprinkle,  or  pour.  It  properly,  however,  signifies  to  wash.  Now 
this  wash,  he  says,  is  a  generic  word,  as  we  all  admit.  Next  he  has  got 
three  modes  of  umshing ;  he  will  take  sprinkling,  and  give  us  dipping, 
on  condition  that  we  say  that  his  is  baptism.  This  is  a  fair  narrative  of 
the  case,  as  he  will  admit.  Well  then,  of  course  this  word  wash  is  the 
struggle.  The  whole  battle  is  about  wash.  He  says  it  is  the  proper, 
primary,  and  original  meaning — at  all  events,  he  sometimes,  rather 
in  a  faltering  tone,  says,  it  is  certainly  a  proper  meaning  of  the  word. 
Now,  then,  we  have  got  the  great  New  Testament  lexicons,  as  well  as 
some  other  great  authorities,  deposing  that  it  does  not  at  all  properly 
mean  to  wash,  but  only  so  by  accident,  by  trope  or  figure ;  and  that, 
too,  only  as  an  effect  of  immersion. 

I  contend,  before  Christendom,  that  the  question  is  now  decided.  That 
plainer  proof  cannot  be  afforded  on  any  literary  question  now  before  the 
schools.  This  is  just  what  ought  to  be.  The  debate  is  now  brought 
down  to  one  clear,  tangible,  appreciable  point,  which  all  may  see  and  all 
may  comprehend. 

If  the  Savior  spoke  plainly  upon  a  point  which  involves  the  salvation 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  201 

of  the  world,  we  ought  to  speak  plainly  upon  every  thing  connected  with 
it.  I  ask  all  persons  of  reflection,  if  the  Savior  spoke  tropically  or  figu- 
ratively, when  giving  laws,  involving  the  salvation  of  the  world,  when  he 
should  have  spoken  plainly,  and  without  a  figure  ?  Do  men,  in  dictating 
or  in  writing  their  last  wills  and  testaments,  speak  figuratively  and  rhe- 
torically ?  Surely,  then,  we  cannot  take  shelter  in  a  trope,  in  a  metaphor, 
or  figure  of  speech,  when  discussing  the  most  sacred  and  solemn  of  ordi- 
nances enacted  by  the  savior  of  men- 

To  leave  this  matter  for  a  moment,  I  have  been  invited  by  my  friend, 
to  pay  more  attention  to  the  Jewish  use  of  this  word  than  to  the  classical; 
as  if  I  had  not  given  it  the  first  part  of  my  attention  ;  or  as  if  there  were 
some  real,  undefined  difference  between  the  Jewish  and  classical  style. 
I  would  not  care  to  write  a  book  on  such  questions,  for  those  who  might 
have  leisure,  or  taste,  to  read  it;  but,  really,  to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of 
a  plain  and  unsophisticated  popular  assembly,  by  such  verbose  and  inter- 
minable jargon,  I  could  not  endure. 

Did  I  not,  however,  begin  with  Jewish  use  ?  Did  I  not  take  the  types 
in  the  law,  and  shew  from  the  Septuagint  how  dip,  sprinkle,  and  pour 
were  contrasted,  at  the  veiy  fountain  head  of  precision? 

But  my  prudent  and  calculating  friend  would  not  wait  for  me.  He 
gave  us  Josephus  in  anticipation.  At  least  he  concurred  with  the  learned 
Wall,  and  the  more  learned  Stuart,  that  Josephus  wrote  Greek  very  clas- 
sically; but  then,  the  misfortune  is,  that  this  proves  nothing  for  us;  for 
the  cunning,  artful  Josephus  imitates  the  Greeks,  for  the  sake  of  gaining 
Gentile  favor!  Instead  of  using  his  Hebrew  Greek  style,  the  shrewd  Jew 
laid  it  aside,  and,  it  seems,  preferred  to  mimic  the  Gentiles.  There  is  no 
conquering  such  logicians.  They  ivill  have  the  advantage.  Josephus, 
and  all  the  Greeks  contemporary  with  the  apostolic  age,  used  this  word 
Just  as  Stokius,  Schleusner,  and  Bretschneider  use  it ;  as  Wall,  Camp- 
bell, McKnight,  and  a  thousand  others  have  contended  that  it  should  be 
used.  All  the  difference,  according  to  Stuart,  is,  that  the  Jews  did  not, 
in  one  book,  the  Bible,  use  bapto  and  baptizo  in  as  many  acceptations 
as  can  be  found  in  all  the  classics.  He  found  no  new  or  special  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Bible.  Not  one.  He  thought  that  the  Jews  used  wash 
more  frequently  than  the  Greeks.  But  that  was  only  an  opinion.  Dr. 
Wall  found  no  difference.  But  then  Mr.  Rice  says  he  was  an  immer- 
sionist !  He  did  not  like  to  oppose  Dr.  Gale  on  that  subject.  He  only 
gave  one  tenth  of  his  book  to  immersion,  and  nine-tenths  to  the  babes ! 
How  singularly  men's  prejudices  pervert  their  optics !  But  I  could  have 
brought  many  passages  from  Josephus,  who,  in  fifty  places  probably  uses 
the  word,  and  always  uses  it  to  signify  immerse,  as  Stuart,  Carson, 
and  Ewing  have  shewn.  But  this  would  be  in  vain.  If  I  say  Jose- 
phus lived  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  that  he  was  well  acquaint- 
ed with  both  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  that  it  is  certain  he  used  the 
word  just  as  the  Greeks  always  used  it — I  am  anticipated.  I  am  told  by 
Mr.  Rice,  that  this  was  through  his  affectation  of  Grecian  learning!!  I 
repeat  it,  no  one  could  prove  to  such  men  that  which  they  are  determined 
not  to  believe.  Did  not  Stokius,  Schleusner,  Bretschneider,  McKnight, 
Wall,  Campbell,  &,c.,  understand  the  Jewish  idiom? 

But  to  return  to  the  New  Testament  lexicons.     I  have  said  that  Sto- 
kius is  not  alone  in  his  definitions.     Take  a  little  specimen.    [Here  Mr. 
Campbell,  taking  up  Dr.  Wall's  work  in  answer  to  Dr.  Gale,  and  insert- 
ing his  fingers  between  the  leaves.]     Here  is  just  the  one-tenth  oi  the 
14  s2 


SIO  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

book,  according  to  the  optics  of  my  friend.  If,  my  fellow-citizens,  this 
be  one-tenth  of  ihe  whole,  do  apply  the  same  doctrine  of  ratios  to  the 
assertions  and  reasonings  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice.  [A  iaugli.]  Mr.  Rice 
says,  by  way  of  apology  for  the  strong  and  honest  sayings  of  Wall, 
Campbell,  McKnight,  Bretschneider,  that  they  were  immersionists  ;  he 
does  not  mean  Baptists,  but  only  theoretically  with  us.  This  is  one  of 
my  friend's  ingenious  arts  of  getting  ahead  of  me.  He  took  Josephus, 
Judith,  and  Naaman,  and  now  he  will  take  all  these  great  christian  Rabbis 
b)'  some  manoeuvre.  I  could  bring  scores  Jrom  the  Presbyterian  and 
Episcopal  churches,  all  concurring  with  these;  but  my  quoting  them,  or 
even  his  apprehension  that  I  am  about  to  quote  them,  will  instantly  con- 
vert them  into  immersionists  !  Should  he  admit  the  true  meaning  of  a  word 
in  the  Koran,  would  that  constitute  him  a  Turk  ?  Their  philological,  ex 
cathedra  admissions  and  concessions  do  not  convert  them  into  Baptists. 
With  me,  a  christian  is  one  who  practices  Christ's  precepts,  and  an  im- 
mersionist  is  either  an  immersed  man,  or  one  who  immerses  others. 

Calvin,  Stuart,  Wall,  Campbell,  McKnight,  and  many  such  distinguish- 
ed men,  thought  it  an  enlargement  of  soul,  a  generous  and  magnanimous 
liberality  not  to  be  so  scrupulously  exact  as  to  contend  for  a  strict  obedi- 
ence to  all  matters  of  clear  theological  accuracy,  reposing  upon  the  easy 
couch  that  the  church,  from  the  beginning,  assumed  to  herself,  "  the  right 
of  changing  the  ordinances  somewhat,  excepting  the  substance."  But  I 
must  risk  the  charge  of  illiberalily  in  avowing  my  conviction,  that  there 
is  nothing  within  human  power  so  terrific  and  appaling,  as  any  attempt 
to  touch  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  by  accommodating  any  of  Christ's  ordi- 
nances to  the  pride,  the  caprice,  the  vanity,  or  apathy  of  any  man  or  set 
of  men.  There  is  one  sentence  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount  that  keeps 
tingling  in  my  ears  when  I  hear  men  talk  so — Jesus  said,  "Whosoever 
shall  violate  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  commandments,  and  shall  teach 
others  to  do  so,  shall  be  of  no  account  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  In 
my  esteem  the  highest  style,  and  honor,  and  dignity  of  man,  is  to  know, 
to  teach,  and  to  practice  the  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  am  zealous 
for  the  letter ;  for  although  a  man  may  have  the  letter  and  the  form  with- 
out the  spirit,  he  cannot  have  the  spirit  without  the  letter  and  the  form  of 
godliness.  To  neglect,  to  disparage,  or  corrupt  the  ordinances  of  God 
never  were,  in  any  age,  small  matters  in  the  sight  of  God.  Isaiah,  in 
his  twenty-fourth  chapter,  saith — "The  land  shall  be  emptied  and  utterly 
spoiled — the  earth  mourneth — the  world  languisheth  and  fadeth  away — 
the  liaughty  do  languish — the  earth  is  defiled  under  the  inhabitants  there- 
of; because  they  have  transgressed  the  laws,  changed  the  oroinaxck, 
broken  the  everlasting  covenant."  This  is  enough  for  one  lesson  on  the 
solemnity  of  the  ordinances. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  gives  me  no  reason  to  hope  favorably  in  his  case. 
He  does  not  say,  yet  indicates  as  much  as,  that  he  will  never  sufTer  him- 
self to  change,  and  that  I  never  knew  any  one  of  his  class  to  change. 
This  is  dangerous  ground.  Popes  have  changed.  Liberius  changed 
four  times  during  his  life,  yet  was  always  infallible.  I  would  not  for  this 
commonwealth  say  that  I  will  never  change.  God  gave  us  tvvo  ears,  Mr. 
President,  and  he  put  one  on  each  side  of  our  heads.  I  move,  sir,  that 
we  keep  them  there,  and  do  not  put  them  botli  on  one  side.  I  believe, 
sir,  that  we  should  not  only  hear  on  both  sides,  but  ihut  we  ought  to  hear 
both  sides,  and  whenever  enligiitened,  act. 

The  paf<sage  from  Ernesti  is  just  to  my  taste — I  wish  the  gentlemaa 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  211 

had  read  a  little  farther.  He  would  have  given  us  two  Hayings  of  much 
pith.  Melanrlhon  said — "The  Scripture  cannot  be  understood  theologi' 
cally  unless  it  be  understood  grammndcaUii.''''  Luiher  also  said,  "A 
certain  knowledge  of  the  i-ense  of  Scripiure  depends  solely  on  the  words." 
No  one,  I  will  add,  is  at  liberty  to  plead  for  a  special  law  or  tribunal  in 
any  case  of  scriptural  investigation. 

And,  ouce  more,  I  will  say  that  to  talk  of  Greek,  and  Hebrew,  and 
Roman  idiom,  and  peculiarity,  in  expounding  words  indicated  by  outward 
bodily  actions,  seems  as  visionary  and  eccentric  as  to  argue  that  eating, 
drinking,  sleeping,  walking,  riding,  &c.,  are  subject  to  the  changes  of 
political  opinion,  religious  belief,  or  geographical  lines. — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 12^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  kice's  fourteenth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — My  friend,  Mr.  C,  I  discover,  is  becoming  extremely 
imeasy.  He  seems  to  feel,  that  unless  he  can  succeed  in  diverting  the 
minds  of  the  audience  from  the  subject  in  debate  to  something  personal, 
his  cause  is  lost.  1  regret  to  see  him  so  sorely  pressed,  that  he  feels  it 
necessary  to  attempt  to  injure  me  by  making  the  impression,  that  I  mis- 
stated a  fact  in  regard  to  Wall's  reply  to  Gale.  It  is  so  little  a  thing  to 
come  from  a  great  man.  Without  having  counted  the  pages,  I  made  the 
remark,  that  not  more  than  a  tenth  of  it  is  occupied  in  replying  to  Gale 
on  the  mode  of  baptism.  He  holds  up  before  you  the  first  part  of  the 
volume,  to  show  you,  that  it  is  much  more  than  a  tenth  of  it;  but  he  does 
not  inform  you,  that  a  number  of  pages  in  this  division  are  an  introduc- 
tion to  the  work,  and  not  a  reply  to  Gale  on  the  mode  !  I  still  believe, 
that  not  more  than  about  a  tenth  is  occupied  on  that  particular  point.  As 
before  remarked,  Wall  declared  his  purpose  not  to  answer  at  length  the 
arguments  of  Gale  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  Eut  this  is  a  very  small 
matter.     I  can  sustain  my  cause  without  descending  to  such  trifles. 

The  genUeman  thinks  he  has,  at  length,  found  a  lexicon  that  gives 
wash  as  a  figurative  meaning  of  baptizo.  With  quite  an  air  of  triumph 
he  brings  forward  Stokius  ;  and  he  attempts  to  make  a  great  deal  of  capi- 
tal of  my  declaration,  that  no  Greek  lexicon  so  defined  this  word.  But  I 
will  make  the  blow  aimed  at  me  recoil  on  his  own  head.  Suppose  he 
had  even  succeeded  in  finding  one  lexicon  that  gives  tvash  as  a  figu- 
rative meaning  of  baptizo;  he  would  only  have  put  me  in  company 
with  himself.  For  he  has  asserted,  and  repeatedly  published,  that  no 
translator,  ancient  or  modern,  Christian,  Jew,  or  Turk,  ever  rendered 
hapto,  or  any  of  that  family  of  words,  to  sprinkle.  I  have  proved  the  fact 
indisputably,  that  the  ancient  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic  and  the  Vulgate  do  so 
translate  bapto,  and  ihat  Origen  did  substantially  the  same  thing.  Yet 
whilst  I  have  convicted  him  of  having  repeatedly  asserted  what  is  wholly 
untrue,  he  labors  to  make  capital  of  the  fact,  (which  is  indeed  not  a  fact) 
that  I  made  a  general  statement,  to  which  he  has  found  one  exception 
amongst  all  the  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern  !  !  ! 

By  the  way,  he  has  spoken  of  a  change  of  views  as  a  mark  of  wisdom. 
[  will  prove,  before  the  close  of  this  discussion,  that  he  has  changed  again 
and  again,  until  he  has  got  almost  back  to  "Babylon,"  from  which, 
some  years  since,  he  fled  in  such  haste. 

But,  after  all,  what  says  Stokius  ?  He  gives  immerse  as  the  originm 
meaning  of  baptizo,  and  wash  as  its  tropical  meaning.  Have  I  not  r»» 
peatedly  stated,  that  I  could  admit,  without  injury  to  my  cause,  that  im- 


212  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

merse  was  the  original  meaning  ?  But  the  gentleman  insists,  that  a  trope 
is  a  figure,  and  that  the  tropical  meaning  of  a  word,  is  a  figurative  mean- 
ing. It  is  true,  that  with  rhetoricians  tropes  are  figures  ;  but  with  critics 
the  tropical  meaning  of  a  word  is  simply  a  secondary  meaning.  But  let 
us  again  hear  Ernesti  on  the  tropical  meaning  of  words  : 

"But,  there  are  several  different  points  of  light  in  which  tropical  words 
are  to  be  viewed.  For,  first,  the  primitive  or  proper  signification,  strictly 
understood,  often  becomes  obsolete,  and  ceases  for  a  long  period  to  be  used. 
In  this  case,  the  secondary  sense,  which  originally  would  have  been  the  tro- 
pical one,  becomes  the  proper  one.  This  applies  especially  to  the  names 
of  things.  Hence,  there  are  many  words  which,  at  present,  never  have 
their  original  and  proper  sense,  such  as  etymology  would  assign  them,  but 
only  the  secondary  senses,  which  may  in  such  cases  be  called  the  proper 
sense  ;  e.  g.  in  English,  tragedy,  comedy,  villain,  pagan,  knave,  &c. 

"  Secondly,  i?i  like  manner,  the  tropical  sevse  of  certain  words  has  be- 
come so  common,  by  usage,  thai  it  is  better  understood  than  the  original  sense. 
In  this  case,  too,  we  call  the  sense  proper  ;  although  strictly  and  technically 
speaking,  one  might  insist  on  its  being  called  tropical.  If  one  should,  by  his 
last  will,  give  a  library  [bibliothecam]  to  another,  we  should  not  call  the  use 
of  bibliotheca  tropical ;  although  strictly  speaking  it  is  so,  for  bibliotheca 
originally  meant  the  shelves  or  place  where  books  are  deposited." — Ernesti, 
pp.  23,  24. 

I  have  now  clearly  proved,  that  the  secondary  or  tropical  meaning  of 
words  often  becomes  the  common  and  the  proper  meaning.  And  are  we 
not  seeking  for  the  common — the  p^reper  meaning  of  baptizo?  But  I 
will  read  a  note  by  professor  Stuart  on  the  same  subject.     He  says : 

"  The  literal  sense  [of  words]  is  the  same  as  the  primitive  or  original 
sense  ;  or,  at  least,  it  is  equivalent  to  that  sense  which  has  usurped  the  place 
of  the  original  one.  For  example,  the  original  sense  of  the  word  tragedy 
has  long  ceased  to  be  current,  and  the  literal  sense  of  this  word  now,  is  that 
which  has  taken  the  place  of  the  original.'''' — Ernesti,  page  8. 

According  to  the  principle  presented  by  Stuart,  the  literal  meaning  of 
a  word  is  either  the  original  meaning,  or  that  which  has  usurped  the 
place  of  it.  Now  what  have  I  been,  from  the  beginning,  contending  for  ? 
Why,  that  the  Jews,  who  never  used  baptizo,  as  did  the  pagan  Greeks, 
in  reference  to  things  in  common  life,  but  always  in  relation  to  religious 
washings,  employed  it  in  the  sense  of  washing,  cleansing,  which  Stokius 
considers  a  secondary  sense — that  as  thus  used  by  the  Jews,  it  never  had 
the  sense  of  plunging,  immersing.  It  was  to  illustrate  this  principle, 
proved  by  Ernesti  and  Stuart,  that  I  gave,  as  one  example,  the  English 
word  prevent.  The  original  meaning  of  this  word,  as  I  have  repeatedly 
stated,  was  to  come  before.  The  tropical  meaning,  which  is  now  the 
proper  and  literal  meaning,  is  to  hinder.  What  would  you  think  of  a 
professed  critic  who  should  now  insist,  that  the  word  prevent  means,  lit- 
erally, to  come  before — that  to  hinder  is  z  figurative  meaning;  and 
that,  in  reading  authors  of  the  present  day,  we  must  understand  the  word 
in  its  original  sense  ?  You  see,  at  a  glance,  the  perfect  absurdity  of  such 
criticism;  and  yet,  such  precisely  is  the  criticism  of  Mr.  Campbell! 
Even  Carson,  his  own  profound  linguist,  as  I  have  repeatedly  proved,  is 
against  him ;  for  he  says,  that  these  secondary  meanings  are  as  literal  as 
the  original.  In  company  with  such  men  as  Ernesti,  Stuart,  and  Carson, 
I  have  no  fear  that  my  reputation,  as  a  scholar  or  a  man  of  candor,  will 
suffer,  before  such  an  audience  as  I  now  address.  Indeed,  Stuart  has 
given  to  ivash  as  a  literal  meaning  of  baptizo  ;  and  so  have  the  lexicons. 

That  to  wash  is  a  literal  meaning  of  this  wordj  must  be  obvious  to 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  213 

every  unprejudiced  mind.  Wliat  does  the  Latin  word  lavo,  or  the  Eng- 
lish word  wasli  mean  1  It  denotes  the  literal  application  of  water  to  a 
person  or  thing.  I  have,  once  or  twice,  given  an  example  of  the  literal 
and  of  the  figurative  use  of  the  word  sprinkle,  which  fully  illustrates  this 
point.  When  tlie  Scriptures  speak  of  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water,  the 
word  is  used  literally ;  but  when  they  speak  of  sprinkling  the  heart  from 
an  evil  conscience,  it  is  used  figuratively.  But  to  say,  that  either  wash- 
ing or  sprinkling  is  a  figure  of  immersion,  would  be  to  outrage  all  rules 
of  sound  criticism.  Stokius  gives  to  wash  as  the  secondary  meaning  of 
the  word ;  for,  in  this  sense,  the  word  tropical  is  used.  And  I  contend, 
and  expect  fully  to  prove,  that,  as  it  was  used  amongst  the  Jews  and  by 
the  inspired  writers,  wash  or  cleanse  is  the  proper  and  literal  meaning. 
He  is  welcome  to  make  the  most  of  Stokius. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  that  the  fact  that  I  have  nothing  to  do,  may 
account  for  my  doing  nothing.  I  will  only  reply,  that  I  have  done 
enough  to  make  his  friends  tremble  for  their  cause,  unless  I  greatly  mis- 
take appearances,  and  am  misinformed  concerning  remarks  made  in 
various  quarters. 

I  have  said,  that  Josephus  sought  to  imitate  the  classic  Greek  writers. 
Mr.  C.  seems  disposed  to  dispute  this,  and  to  call  for  the  evidence.  The 
evidence  depends  not  simply  on  the  declarations  of  critics,  but  is  found 
in  the  fact,  that  Josephus,  in  every  instance  but  one,  used  baptizo  in  rela- 
tion to  matters  in  common  life,  as  did  the  classics  uniformly ;  whilst  the 
Jews  and  inspired  writers  always  employed  it  in  relation  to  religious 
washings.  The  gentleman  says,  Josephus  used  the  word  Jiffy  times.  I 
presume  he  spoke  hyperbolically ;  for  I  have  seen  not  more  than  some 
twelve  or  fifteen  examples  from  his  writings ;  and  I  suppose  Gale  and 
Carson,  whose  works  I  have  examined,  have  collected  as  many,  at  least, 
as  were  favorable  to  immersiort. 

Mr.  C.  has  repeatedly  referred  to  Calvin,  as  having  claimed  for  the 
church  the  right  to  change  the  ordinances  instituted  by  our  Savior.  I 
wish  he  would  give  us  Calvin's  words.  I  am  anxious  to  see  the  quota- 
tion. I  have  examined  it,  and  I  desire  the  audience  to  hear  Calvin  speak 
for  himself.  He  tells  us,  Stuart  quotes  from  Calvin  the  passage  in  which 
he  prefers  this  claim.  [Mr.  Campbell,  without  rising,  was  understood  to 
say,  that  his  words  were,  not  that  Stuart  had  quoted  Calvin,  but  that  he 
had  given  something  like  a  quotation.]  No — Stuart  quotes  no  such  sen- 
timent from  Calvin,  nor  anything  like  it.  He  quotes  from  Calvin  noth- 
ing intimating  a  claim  to  change  the  ordinances  of  God's  house. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has,  at  last,  given  us  a  quotation  from  Ernesti,  and 
1  subscribe  to  every  M'ord  of  it  most  cordially.  Ernesti  says,  the  mean- 
ing of  words  is  to  be  determined  by  usage  ;  and  so  say  I.  And  I  am  doing 
the  precise  thing  which  he  directs — I  am  inquiring  into  the  usage  oi  bap- 
tizo by  the  very  people  amongst  whom  the  ordinance  was  instituted.  I 
am  apprehensive,  that  I  sliall  lose  confidence  in  the  learning  of  the  gen- 
tleman quite  as  fast  as  he  loses  confidence  in  my  candor. 

But  he  tells  us,  that  words  indicating  physical  action,  never  change 
their  meaning.  Can  he  produce  any  respectable  authority  to  sustain  him 
in  such  an  assertion !  Where  can  he  find  it  ?  We  cannot  any  longer 
rely  upon  his  declarations  on  these  subjects.  I  call  for  some  higher  au- 
thority. The  word  prevent,  which  I  have  so  repeatedly  mentioned,  is 
itself  a  refutation  of  his  assertion ;  for  this  word  does  express  a  physical 
action  (coming  before;)  and  yet  it  has  lost  its  original  meaning.     In  the 


214  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

commencement  of  this  discussion  he  told  us,  as  a  general  rule,  that  wher- 
ever you  find  the  syllable  bap,  as  in  bapto,  you  tind  also  the  action  of 
dipping.  But  I  showed  you  bap  where  there  was  the  dropping  of  a 
fluid,  the  dyeing  of  the  beard,  the  hair,  the  face;  the  staining  of  the  hand 
by  pressing  the  coloring  substance :  and  I  gave  examples  where  the 
expression  bapfo  apo,  (to  wet  by  means  of)  occurred ;  where  a  man  was 
wet  from  {ebaphe  apo)  the  dew,  &c.  I  find,  however,  that  the  gentleman 
possesses  great  ingenuity.  He  can  immerse  by  dropping,  \xnmerse from 
oil,  and  even  from  dew!  J  !  He  can  get  into  water  by  almost  any  of  the 
prepositions  !    He  has,  indeed,  great  difficulty  in  sustaining  his  principles. 

1  did  not  say,  that  Dr.  Scott  ever  was  a  Baptist.  I  said  he  had  diffi- 
culties on  that  subject,  which  led  him  to  a  careful  and  thorough  examina- 
tion of  it ;  and  that  it  resulted  in  the  firm  belief  of  the  correctness  of  the 
views  for  whieli  I  am  now  contending.  Of  the  hundreds  who  have  aban- 
doned these  views  and  become  immersionists,  I  am  acquainted  with  but 
few.  But  I  venture  to  say,  that  a  greater  number  have  apostatized  from 
this  gentleman's  church  to  the  world,  than  have  become  immersionists 
from  our  ranks.  So  the  world  has  as  good  reason  to  boast  as  he.  As 
to  the  increase  of  members  of  which  he  boasts,  there  are  man}''  places 
where,  a  few  years  ago,  there  were  no  Presbyterians,  in  which  now  there 
are  numbers  of  them;  and  in  many  places,  the  Methodists  have  multi- 
plied rapidly  where,  until  recently,  they  had  no  churches.  The  gentle- 
man's argument,  therefore,  (if  it  deserves  to  be  called  an  argument)  would 
prove  both  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  to  be  in  the  right !  In  regard 
to  his  prediction,  I  may  truly  say,  he  is  neither  a  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a 
prophet.  The  signs  of  the  times,  at  any  rate,  do  not  indicate  its  fulfill- 
ment. If  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  almost  the  whole  christian  world, 
as  he  says,  practiced  immersion,  there  has  certainly  been  a  wonderful 
falling  away  from  the  ranks. 

He  desires  me  to  produce  m.y  arguments  for  pouring  and  sprinkling. 
Well,  he  shall  have  a  fair  sweep  at  them.  He  sometimes  complains  oC 
me  for  going  ahead  of  him,  and,  at  other  times,  for  going  too  slowly.  I 
fear,  I  shall  not  be  able  to  please  him  in  any  way.  I  will,  however,  pro- 
ceed to  state  the  facts  and  arguments ;  and  if  he  can  refute  them,  he  shall 
be  welcome  to  do  so. 

I.  My  first  fact,  which  I  have  already  stated,  is — That  all  the  wash- 
ings of  the  Old  Testament,  the  mode  of  which  loas  prescribed,  were  re- 
quired to  be  performed  by  sprinkling.  The  only  possible  exception  was 
in  regard  to  vessels.  In  Levit.  xiv.  we  find  directions  concerning  the 
ceremonial  cleansing  of  lepers  ;  and  they  require  them  to  be  sprinkled 
seven  times,  to  wash  their  clothes,  and  wash  themselves  in  water.  But 
the  jnode  of  the  washing  is  not  prescribed — no  immersion  is  required. 
Again,  Num.  xix.  17 — 20,  "  And  for  an  unclean  person,  they  shall  take  of 
the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  from  sin,  and  running  wa- 
ter shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel  ;  and  a  clean  person  shall  take  hysop, 
and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all  the  ves- 
sels, and  upon  the  persons  that  were  there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a 
bone,  or  one  slain,  or  a  grave  :  and  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon 
the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day  :  and  on  the  seventh 
day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  (Hebrew — 
wri^h)  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even.  But  the  man  that 
shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  oflT 
from  the  congregation,  because  be  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  r 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAI^  BAPTISM.  2 IS 

the  water  of  separation  hath  not  been  .spi'inJded  upon  hhn,"  &;c.  Here, 
you  observe,  spriukHng  is  particularly  required  ;  but  immersion  is  not. 
The  unclean  person  was  to  ivash  himself;  but  ihe  moi/e  of  the  washing 
is  not  prescribed.     So  you  will  find  it  throughout  the  Old  Testament. 

Ail  those  washings  were  emblematic  Oi  spiritual  cleansing — o{  suncti- 
fication.  This  is  evident  from  the  language  of  David  in  Ps.  li,  7, 
"  Purge  me  with  hysop,  and  I  shall  be  clean :  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be 
whiter  than  snow."  Here  is  evident  reference  to  Levit.  xiv.  1,  where 
the  priest  is  directed  to  take  hysop,  and  cedar- wood,  and  scarlet,  and 
sprinkle  the  unclean  seven  times.  David  prays,  that  God  would  grant 
him  that  inward  cleansing  of  which  the  sprinkling  with  hysop  was  aa 
emblem.     Hence  he  adds — "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,''''  v.  10. 

Now,  I  presume,  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  when  God  selected  a  mode 
of  representing  emblematically  inward  purification  or  sanctification,  he 
selected  the  most  appropriate,  significant  and  ijnpresdve  mode.  But  it 
is  a  fact,  that  he  chose  sprinkling.  If,  then,  sprinkling  was  once  the 
most  appropriate,  significant  and  impressive  mode  of  representing  purifi- 
cation;  can  any  man  give  a  reason  why  it  is  not  so  still  ?  How  has  it 
come  to  pass,  that  a  mode  selected  by  God  himself,  has  become  so  ridi- 
culous as  immersionists  would  make  sprinkling  ;  whilst  a  mode  (immer- 
sion) never  selected  by  him,  has  become  so  very  appropriate  ? 

H.  My  second  fact  is — That  the  inspired  ivriters  never  in  a  solitary 
instance  represent  sanctification  by  dipping  a  person  into  ivater,  either 
literally  or  figuratively.  From  Genesis  to  Revelation  you  cannot  find 
an  example  of  the  kind.  Why  did  they  never  speak  of  immersing  a 
person  as  a  mode  of  cleansing?  The  reason,  I  presume,  was,  that  they 
did  not  regard  it  as  an  appropriate  and  impressive  mode.  And  if  it  was 
not  so  then,  how  has  it  become  so  since  ? 

HI.  The  inspired  ivriters  did  constantly  represent  sanctification  by 
sprinkling  and  pouring.  This  is  my  third  fact.  Indeed,  so  commonly 
was  spi'inkling  employed,  as  the  mode  of  purification,  that  the  lexicons 
give  to  purify  as  the  metaphorical  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  rantizo. 
I  Avill  read  the  passage  already  so  repeatedly  quoted,  in  Ezekiel  xxxvi. 
25 — "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean :  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you. 
A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you ;  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within 
you,"  &c.  Here  we  find  the  emblem  and  the  thing  signified.  The 
thing  signified  is  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit — sanctification.  The  em- 
blem is  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water.  Well,  christian  baptism  is  designed 
to  be  an  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing.  If,  then,  Ezekiel  was  right  in 
representing  sanctification  by  sprinkling ;  how  can  I  be  wrong  in  doing 
the  very  same  thing  ? 

My  friend  helped  me  to  an  argument  by  his  remarks  on  yesterday, 
concerning  the  putting  of  the  ashes  of  the  heifer  into  the  water  of  purifi- 
cation. He  told  us,  the  ashes  were  intended  to  teach,  that  blood  had 
a  permanent  virtue  to  atone  for  sin,  and  therefore  they  were  put  into  the 
water  to  be  sprinkled  on  the  unclean.  So  christian  baptism  is  designed 
to  represent  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin 
by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  blood  of  Christ  is 
called  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling;"  and  the  Spirit  is  represented  as  poured 
out,  shed  forth.  If,  then,  it  was  proper  to  sprinkle  on  the  unclean  the 
water  containing  the  ashes  of  the  heifer ;  surely  it  is  proper  to  sprinkle 
upon  the  sinner  the  water  which  represents  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of 


216  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Christ.  Did  not  Ezekiel  consider  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  a  suita- 
ble and  impressive  emblem  of  sanctification  ?  Most  assuredly  he  did.  Did 
he  not  prophecy,  that  the  Jews,  when  converted  to  God,  under  the  new 
dispensation,  should  have  clean  water  sprinkled  on  them  ?  I  think  my 
friend  understands  his  language  as  a  prediction  to  be  fulfilled  under  the 
Gospel.  When  will  it  be  fulfilled  !  But  whether  it  is  a  prophecy  to  be 
fulfilled  under  the  gospel  dispensation  or  not,  certain  it  is,  that  sprinkling 
was  then  deemed  a  suitable  mode  of  representing  sanctification.  Why  is 
it  not  equally  so  now?     Can  my  friend  give  a  reason? 

Again — Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  advent  and  work  of  our  Savior,  says, 
"So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  lii.  15.  The  meaning  of  which 
is,  so  shall  he  cleanse,  purify  from  all  sin,  many  nations.  I  know  the 
Septuagint  translates  it,  so  sliall  he  astonish  many  nations.  But  we  are 
not  to  correct  the  Hebrew,  in  which  Isaiah  wrote,  by  an  imperfect  trans- 
lation. In  every  instance  where  the  Hebrew  word  here  translated  sprin- 
kle, occurs  in  the  Bible,  itevidendy  has  this  meaning.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  room  to  doubt,  that  this  is  the  correct  translation  of  Isaiah's  language. 

Now,  did  not  Isaiah  consider  sprinkling  an  appropriate  mode  of  repre- 
senting purification  from  sin  ?  Most  assuredly.  This  is  not  all.  Here 
is  2i  prediction,  the  fulfillment  of  which  certainly  belongs  to  the  new  dis- 
pensation, for  it  relates  to  "  many  nations."  If,  then,  the  Savior  repre- 
sent the  cleansing  of  all  nations  by  sprinkling,  how  can  I  be  wrong  in 
doing  the  same  thing  ?  And  if  all  christians  should  be  immersed,  when 
will  this  prophecy  be  fulfilled? 

IV.  My  fourth  fact  is  this:  The  ivork  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  ivhich 
the  baptismal  ivater  is  an  emblem,  is  called  a  baptism.  1  Cor.  xii.  13, 
'*  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free,"  &c.  Now  what  is  the 
mode  selected  by  God  of  representing  this  spiritual  baptism  ?  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  uniformly  represented  as  poured  out,  shed  forth :  "  I  will  pour 
out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit." — "  He  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear,"  Acts  ii.  18,  33.  But  it  may  be  said,  this  language  is 
figurative.  I  admit  it;  but  God  employs  figures  correctly.  Then  why 
did  he  never  represent  men  as  immersed  into  the  Spirit?  Why  was 
such  language  never  used  even  figuratively  ?  The  obvious  and  only  con- 
clusion is — that  pouring  is  the  most  appropriate  mode.  If,  then,  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  represented  by  pouring,  why  should  not  water 
baptism,  the  emblem,  be  administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ? 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost  there  was  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  there 
was  no  immersion.  .John  had  said,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water — 
He  shall  baptize  you  v/ith  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Matt.  iii.  11. 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost  this  promise  was  fulfilled.  "  And  suddenly 
tliere  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it 
tilled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,"  Acts 
ii.  2,  3.  This  has  always  been  a  difhcult  passage  for  immersionists. 
They  have  sometimes  said,  the  Spirit  filled  the  room,  and  thus  the  peo- 
ple were  immersed.  But  the  Bible  says  no  such  thing;  and,  moreover, 
such  a  baptism  as  that  would  be,  was  not  pronused  by  John.  Others 
have  said,  the  wind  filled  the  room,  and  they  were  immersed  in  it.  But 
Luke  does  not  say  so.  He  says,  there  came  a  sound  as  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind ;  but  he  does  not  say,  there  was  a  wind.  And  if  he  had, 
the  promise  was  not  of  a  baptism  in  wind. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  217 

Our  friends  have  been  in  great  difficulty,  too,  to  find  an  iainiersion  iii 
Jire.  My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  adopted  an  opinion  advanced  by  some  of  the 
old  immersionists,  that  there  is  in  the  passage  a  promise  and  a  threat,  and 
that  so7ne  were  to  be  baptized  with  the  Spirit,  others  to  be  immersed 
into  hell,  or  into  severe  sufferings!  But  look  at  the  passage  :  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water — He  shall  baptize  you  (the  same  persons)  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Would  you  understand  by  such  lan- 
guage, that  some  were  to  receive  the  Spirit,  and  others  to  be  plunged 
into  hell  ?  No — there  was  no  immersion  into  fire.  Spiritual  baptism, 
then,  is  represented  by  pouring  ;  water  baptism,  the  emblem,  should, 
of  course,  be  performed  by  pouring. 

V.  My Jjfth  fact  is  this:  From  the  time  that  christian  baptism  was 
instituted,  no  apostle  or  christian  minister,  so  far  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment informs  us,  ever  went  one  step  out  of  his  loay  in  search  of  water 
for  the  purpose  of  baptizing.  The  case  of  Philip  and  the  eunuch  is  the 
only  possible  exception;  and  they  were  not  going  after  water,  but  came 
to  it,  as  they  were  journeying.  This  is  a  most  unaccountable  fact,  if  the 
doctrine  of  immersion  is  true.  If  Luke  was  so  careful  to  tell  us  where 
John  baptized,  is  it  not  marvellous,  that  in  all  the  accounts  he  has  record- 
ed of  christian  baptism,  he  never  dropped  one  remark  from  which  it  could 
be  inferred,  that  the  apostles  and  christian  ministers  ever  went  after 
water? 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost  three  thousand  were  baptized.  These  were 
the  first  who  ever  received  christian  baptism.  An  example  was  now  to 
be  set — a  precedent  to  be  established,  to  be  followed  by  all  future  ages. 
Is  it  not,  then,  passing  strange,  if  immersion  was  so  essential,  that  Luke 
gives  no  intimation,  not  even  the  slightest,  that  they  went  after  water? 

In  reading  the  Christian  Baptist  v.'e  find  Paul  and  Ananias  represented 
as  going  after  water ;  but  Luke  is  silent  on  that  subject.  In  recording 
the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand,  he  mentions  no  delay,  and  gives  no  in- 
timation that  the  apostles  found  any  difficulty  in  obtaining  water  enough, 
or  in  administering  baptism  to  them  all.  Luke  wrote  like  a  Pedo-baptist. 
Were  I  to  record  the  baptism  of  three  thousand  persons,  I  should  not 
think  of  telling  where  the  water  was  obtained  ;  for  it  would  not  require 
a  great  deal.  But  our  immersionist  friends  do  not  write  thus.  In  look- 
ing over  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  I  find  Mr.  Campbell  giving  an  account 
of  a  sermon  he  preached  in  Bowling  Green,  under  which  one  old  gentle- 
man was  induced  to  come  forward  and  desire  baptism.  But  he  tells  us, 
as  the  weather  was  inclement,  and  the  river  at  some  litde  distance,  his 
baptism  was  deferred  till  the  next  morning.  The  apostles  had  to  baptize 
three  thousand  persons  in  a  city  where  there  was  no  considerable  stream 
of  water,  and  no  conveniences  for  immersing.  Yet  the  inspired  historian 
does  not  intimate  that  there  was  any  delay  ;  nor  that  they  even  left  the 
temple,  where  they  were  converted,  in  search  of  water ! 

This  apparent  defect  in  inspired  history  would  not  appear  so  strange, 
if  the  necessary  information  were  given  in  any  other  part  of  it.  But  the 
defect,  if  it  be  a  defect,  runs  through  the  entire  history.  Not  long  after 
the  conversion  of  the  three  thousand,  we  read  of  a  large  number  of  conver- 
sions in  Samaria,  and  we  read  that  they  were  baptized  ;  but  not  a  word 
is  said  about  going  after  water.     How  can  this  be  accounted  for  ? 

Well,  we  come  to  the  conversion  of  the  jailor  and  his  family;  and  we 
learn,  that  they  were  baptized  at  midnight  in  a  prison.  Surely  now  we 
may  expect  to  find  something  about  going  after  water.      But,  no — not 

T 


218  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

a  word  is  said  on  the  subject.  How  shall  we  account  for  such  omis- 
sions, if  indeed  the  apostles  held  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell ? 

This  is  an  important  argument ;  for  it  is  safer  to  go  to  the  apostles  to 
learn  the  mode  of  christian  baptism.  Mr.  Campbell  agrees  with  me,  that 
John's  was  not  christian  baptism,  but  be'onged  to  the  old  dispensation. 
John  went  where  there  was  "  much  water;"  but  where  do  we  ever  find 
an  apostle  going  after  water  ? 

We  come  now  to  consider  Paul's  baptism. — [^Time  expired. 

Saturday,  ^'ov.  18—1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifteenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Little  matters  become  great  matters  when  there  is 
great  use  made  of  them,  or  when  they  involve  great  events.  I  have  said, 
during  this  discussion,  that  forty-two  thousand  men  were  slain  in  one  day, 
because  in  pronouncing  a  single  word  they  left  out  the  letter  h.  We  also 
stated  that  the  difterence  between  an  o  and  an  {,  in  the  spelling  of  a  word, 
so  changed  its  meaning,  in  the  case  o{  homoousios  and  Iiomoiousios,  as  to 
divide  the  church  for  ages,  and  to  rend  the  Roman  empire  with  internal 
wars  and  commotions.  When  any  matter,  however  minute,  involves 
principle,  or  character,  it  ceases  to  be  an  unimportant  affair.  Had  not 
the  gentleman  attempted  to  disparage  a  strong  argument,  by  an  allusion 
to  the  little  attention  Dr.  Wall  bestowed  upon  that  question,  I  should  not 
have  held  up  this  volume  in  refutation  of  his  allegations.  The  subject  of 
Dr.  Gale's  book  is  baptism — action  and  subject.  He  wrote  six  letters  on 
the  mode.  To  these  six.  Dr.  Wall  replied  in  about  the  same  number 
of  pages,  and  you  have  seen  the  space  occupied  in  the  reply.  His  not 
replying  to  Dr.  Gale,  in  this  particular,  must  have  been,  because  he 
could  not;  and  not  for  the  want  of  room.  The  gentleman  admits  he 
had  room  enough.  Why  then  does  he  not  reply  ?  I  say,  because  he 
could  not. 

As  respects  the  tropical  and  literal  use  of  baptizo,  as  defined  by  Sto- 
kius  and  Schleusner,  I  presume  it  will  have  to  be  referred.  I  am  weary 
of  continual  assertions  and  re-assertions  No  lexicon  has  ever  given  wash 
as  the  literal  ox  proper  meaning  of  baptizo.  Many  of  them  represent  it 
as  secondary,  consequential,  or  tropical ;  I  therefore  prefer  to  refer  the 
question  at  once,  whether  or  not,  as  I  have  read  it,  wash,  cleanse,  &c., 
be  given  as  the  literal,  proper,  or  grammatical  meaning  of  baptizo,  or 
only  its  tropical,  figurative,  and  accidental  meaning.  Let  the  matter  be 
decided  at  once — for  on  this  pivot  turns  the  whole  philological  contro- 
versy. I  understand  there  are  several  professors  of  the  languages  here. 
Here  is  professor  McCown,  of  the  Transylvania  University,  a  Methodist 
minister;  and  here  is  professor  Farnum,  of  the  Georgetown  College;  I 
know  not  what  his  religious  views  are.  Neither  of  these  gentlemen  are 
of  my  views.  I  am  willing  to  settle  this  question  by  a  reference  to  them. 
Is  my  respondent,  Mr.  Rice,  willing  to  refer  the  matter  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Rice.     I  will  reply  when  I  rise,  or  now. 

\_Rising~\  I  remark,  that  with  one  of  the  gentlemen  I  have  lately  had  a 
controversy  upon  one  branch  of  these  criticisms,  and  therefore  it  would 
not  be  proper  for  me  to  abide  his  decision. 

QMr.  Rice  said  to  Mr.  Campbell,  I  will  agree  to  refer  it  to  two  pro- 
fessors, if  you  will  also  refer  the  case  of  bebammenon  to  the  same.  To 
which  Mr.  Campbell  immediately  responded,  certainly.'] 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTMN  BAPTISM.  219 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  re-affirm,  then,  all  that  I  have  said  on  these  lexicons, 
and  am  willing  to  stake  my  reputation  upon  the  correctness  and  impar- 
tiality of  my  quotations,  and  translations  from  them  ;  and  solemnly  affirm 
the  conviction  that  the  gendeman  is  totally  mistaken,  and  that  he  has 
committed  a  great  error  in  so  positively  affirming  that  these  lexicons  are 
not  fully,  and  to  the  letter,  with  me. 

It  will  not  do  for  the  gendeman  to  seek  to  balance  this  unfounded  as- 
sertion, concerning  the  sacred  use  of  this  term  in  the  judgment  of  New 
Testament  lexicographers,  with  the  allegation  concerning  the  single  case 
of  bapto,  found,  as  he  assumes,  once  translated  to  sprinkle.  Let  him 
first  prove  that  bebammenon  was  there ;  let  him  first  prove  that  baplo 
was  translated  sprinkle  by  any  translator,  before  he  proposes  such  an  ad- 
justment of  this  palpable  mis-statement.  I  will  not  admit  that  I  have  either 
stated  a  false  fact,  or  made  a  false  criticism,  on  the  entire  premises  be- 
fore us  I  am  willing  to  let  all  my  statements  be  stereotyped,  and  sent 
to  the  world.  In  the  case  of  erantismenon  and  bebammenon,  on  which 
so  much  has  been  said,  he  must  first  prove,  both  in  logic  and  in  law,  that 
the  latter  was  in  the  text,  before  I  have  to  apologize  for  the  translation. 

I  again  say,  it  would  be  a  most  singular  and  unprecedented  fact,  if 
baptizo,  or  any  of  its  family,  did  truly  signify  to  pour,  sprinkle,  or  pu- 
rify ;  that  in  so  many  translations,  public  and  private,  into  so  many  lan- 
guages, made  by  so  many  hundreds  of  learned  men,  during  eighteen 
hundred  years — on  a  family  of  words  so  numerous,  occurring  more  than 
120  times,  in  no  one  single  case  it  should  be  so  translated.  As  marvel- 
lous and  mysterious  this,  as  why  the  Syriac,  Ethiopic,  and  Vulgate 
should  have  selected  bapto  in  the  same  verse,  and  have  once,  and  only 
once,  translated  it  sprinkle.  Does  it  not  amount  to  a  demonstration  that 
they  had  another  reading,  different  from  that  in  common  use;  not  a  single 
authenticated  instance  having  ever  been  proved  of  such  a  translation  ?  a 
fact  without  any  parallel  in  universal  criticism,  if,  indeed,  sprinkle,  pour, 
or  purify  be  a  true  meaning  oi  bapto.  May  I  not  then  say  that  I  am  sus- 
tained in  every  capital  point,  and  in  this  grand  result,  as  now  clearly  set 
forth  by  all  the  distinguished  lexicographers,  translators,  ancient  and  mo- 
dern, by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  most  learned  and  distinguished 
scholiasts,  reformers,  annotators,  and  critics  of  all  classes,  parties,  and 
denominations ! 

I  presume  not  to  speak  with  infallible  accuracy  of  the  number  of  times 
the  terms  bapto  and  baptizo  are  found  in  Josephus.  They  are  found 
often.  It  is  of  common  occurrence,  and  is  quoted  often  by  Carson,  Stuart, 
and  sometimes  by  Ewing.  It  always  signifies  immerse  in  the  "Hebrew- 
Greek,"  or  "  sacred  style."  Mr.  R.  cannot  shew  any  Jewish  usage  of 
the  word,  diff'erent  from  the  classic.  Indeed,  all  the  great  Bible  critics, 
and  .Tewish  doctors,  are  against  his  assumption.  His  Jewish  use  oi  bap- 
tizo, after  Josephus  and  the  New  Testament  are  subtracted,  amounts  to 
four  occurrences — two  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  two  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  they  have  never  been  translated  sprinkle,  or  pour,  in  any  work  known 
in  the  annals  of  criticism. 

Next  to  Josephus,  Hippocrates  is  good  authority,  on  account  of  his 
frequent  use  of  the  word  in  medical  prescriptions,  which,  of  course,  re- 
quire precision.  He  has  been  fully  proved,  by  Mr.  Carson,  to  be  strictly 
conformable,  in  all  instances,  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  interpretation, 
propounded  by  me  in  this  discussion.  Mr.  Rice  often  tells  us  of  a  gar- 
ment colored  with  matter  dropped  upon  it.     Now  had  it  been  the  pro- 


220  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

cess  of  dripping  that  was  said  to  be  colored  or  dyed,  there  would  have 
been  relevancy ;  but  as  it  is,  there  is  none  whatever  in  the  case.  How 
often  shall  I  have  to  respond  to  such  puerility !  It  is  not  the  dripping, 
but  the  garment,  that  is  dyed. 

The  philosophy  of  the  whole  subject  is  this:  when  any  thing  is  dyed, 
it  is  covered  with  something.  The  thing  is  not  seen.  The  covering  of 
it,  called  the  dye,  the  tint  or  the  color  only  is  seen.  Hence,  the  meta- 
phorical use  of  bapto.  I  have  sometimes  said,  whenever  I  see  the  word 
bapto  or  any  of  its  progeny,  the  first  impression  is  the  dip.  But  whether 
the  thing  dips,  or  is  dipped,  depends  upon  the  active  or  passive  voice; 
and  whether  the  thing  is  wet  or  dried,  heated  or  cooled,  colored  or  dis- 
colored, improved  or  injured,  is  a  matter  of  after  thought  and  considera- 
tion, as  well  as  the  selection  of  a  name  to  represent  it.  Whether,  then, 
it  shall  be  called  literal  or  figurative,  or  whether  it  must  be  understood 
grammatically,  or  rhetorically,  depends  entirely  upon  contextual  views 
and  circumstances — wherever  there  is  bap,  there  is  dip,  in  fact  or  in 
figure. 

The  gentleman  made  some  allusion  to  physical  action  in  the  word  louo, 
which  I  do  not  well  understand,  I  am  understood  when  I  say  that  we 
perform  both  mental  and  physical  actions.  The  latter,  especially,  are  free 
from  the  control  of  special  idiomatic  arrangements,  because  they  are  sim- 
ilar, outward,  visible,  corporeal  acts,  which  all  men  perform  in  the  same 
specific  manner.  As  to  the  specifications  so  often  submitted,  methinks 
there  can  be  no  further  controversy.  Mental  acts — or  acts  involving  theo- 
ry, principle,  moral  or  religious, — and  terms  denoting  states,  may,  in- 
deed, be  subject  to  peculiar  idioms,  because  of  the  almost  infinite  varieties 
of  them ;  often,  too,  the  effect  of  education,  national  and  state,  associa- 
tion, &c.  Hence,  the  word  faith,  or  the  word  flesh,  or  the  word  spirit, 
&c.  may  have  peculiar,  national,  or  sectarian  meanings  and  acceptations, 
which  require  the  knowledge  of  various  peculiarities  before  such  can  be 
well  defined.  But  walking,  talking,  writing,  eating,  sleeping,  rising,  &c. 
&c.  and  the  words  in  debate  are  not  governed  by  any  national  or  provin- 
cial or  sectarian  code.  So  that  it  is  all  a  mere  phantasy  to  seek  for  a 
special  meaning  of  such  terms  in  the  laws,  manners,  customs,  or  other 
peculiarities  of  nations  and  religions. 

I  concur  with  Dr.  Campbell,  McKnight,  Home,  Ernesti,  Sic.  on  all  they 
say  on  idiomatic  expressions  and  peculiarities.  And  I  agree  with  the  for- 
mer two,  and  many  such,  in  translating  baptizo  immerse,  in  the  New 
Testament.  These  great  masters  of  sacred  criticism,  are,  almost  to  a 
man,  with  me  in  translating  this  much  debated  word,  according  to  its  com- 
mon classic  usage,  wherever  they  do  translate  it.  No  man  but  a  special 
pleader  has  ever  argued  for  any  other  than  a  classic  meaning  of  it  in  the 
New  Testament. 

But  Mr.  R.  goes  for  sprinkling,  theologically,  as  a  symbol  of  sanctifica- 
tion  and  purification.  His  argument  here  is  built  on  two  assumptions: 
1st.  That  baptism  is  for  sanctification,  and  2d.  That  sanclification  was, 
in  the  law,  performed  by  sprinkling  water  alone  !  When  these  are  proved, 
and  not  till  then,  is  his  argument  entided  to  any  consideration.  No  per- 
son, as  I  have  already  shewn,  was  ever  sanctified  by  the  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling of  water,  from  any  sort  of  pollution  whatever.  My  fourth  universal 
proposition  fully  disposes  of  his  argument  for  sprinkling  water.  But  who 
believes  that  any  subject  of  sprinkling  is  thereby  sanctified  by  the  Spirit? 
Sprinkling  unholy  water  upon  unholy  persons,  in  order  to  make  them 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  221 

morally,  legally,  and  ecclesiastically  clean  ! !  When,  where,  and  by 
whose  hands  did  God  ever  so  command  Gentile,  Jew,  or  Christian? 
Romanists  make  holy  water  by  a  recipe  obtained  from  Pagan  Divinity, 
an  African  or  an  Asiatic  lustration.  Protestants  do  not  understand  th« 
manufacture,  and,  therefore,  they  sanctify  by  common  water ! 

There  is  some  radical  mistake  about  this  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  as  an 
emblem  of  spiritual  sanctification,  without  a  subsequent  immersion.  Mr. 
R.  believes  that  the  clean  water  of  Ezekiel  is  common  water  here  literally 
sprinkled,  or  to  be  sprinkled  in  baptismal  sanctification  !  Has  he  forgotten 
that  those  sprinkled  with  the  ancient  water  of  purification  had  afterwards 
to  be  immersed  in  water,  before  cleansed,  according  to  the  law  of  types? 
We  have  yet  another  passage  in  Isaiah,  relied  on,  to  prove  sprinkling — 
both  on  baptism,  and  on  sanctification.  It  would  be  both  a  curious  and 
interesting  disquisition  to  expound,  in  the  light  of  their  respective  ages, 
dispensations,  and  contextual  circumstances,  those  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  by  a  sort  of  sectarian  conscription  have  been  pressed  into  thf 
maintenance  and  support  of  the  ecclesiastical  potentates,  theories  and  shib 
boleths  of  this  our  age  of  hoary  and  venerable  traditions.  Still  theologi 
ans  will  put  passages,  side  by  side,  spoken  thousands  of  years  apart;  un 
der  different  dispensations,  by  kings,  prophets,  and  apostles,  on  subjects 
too,  as  diverse  as  their  names,  times,  employments  and  languages. 

"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  Isa.  lii.  like  the  "  pouring  out' 
and  "  baptism  of  the  Spirit,"  has  often  appeared  in  company  with,  "  I  wiL 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  to  support  an  usage  ordained  at  Ravenna, 
in  France,  by  the  pope,  in  the  year  1311,  A.  D.  It  was  then  and  there 
authority  was  given  to  sprinkle  many  nations  by  him  whose  fame  it  has 
been  to  change  times  and  laws. 

I  presume  I  may  again  open  this  venerable  volume  of  Junius  and  Tre- 
mellius,  who  in  1580  printed  this  memorable  work,  replete  with  many 
valuable  and  profound  notes  and  exegetical  dissertations.  Not  so  fond 
of  sprinkling  water,  as  we  now-a-days  seem  to  be,  it  not  being  then  so 
much  in  fashion  with  learned  Pedo-baptists,  as  in  Kentucky,  these  learned 
translators,  though  of  that  school,  give  the  following  note — 

It  is  the  beautiful  passage  which  we  have  in  Isaiah  lii.  speaking  of 
the  Messiah  :  "  Behold,  thy  servant  shall  deal  prudently,  he  shall  be  ex- 
alted and  extolled,  and  be  very  high.  As  many  were  astonished  at  thee, 
(his  visage  was  so  marred,  more  than  any  man,  and  his  form  more  than 
the  sons  of  men  ;)  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  &c.  Junius  and 
Tremellius,  in  their  Latin  versions  lying  before  me,'  (London  ed.  1581,) 
thus  render  it :  '■'■Ito  perspergat  stupore  gentes  mnltas — "  So  shall  he 
astonish  (sprinkle  with  astonishment)  many  nations."  The  Septuagint 
uses  thaumasontai — "  So  shall  he  astonish  many  nations."  Adam  Clarke 
observes,  on  this  passage — "  I  retain  the  common  rendering,  though  I  am 
by  no  means  satisfied  with  it.  Vazzeh,  frequent  in  the  law,  means  only  to 
sprinkle  :  but  \he  water  sprinkled  is  the  accusative  case,  the  thing  on  which 
has  al  or  el.  jhaiimasontai  makes  the  best  apodosis.'"  So  think  I.  The 
connection  would  be  more  consistent:  "So  shall  he  astonish  many 
nations."  But  Lowth  has  it,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  with  his  blood 
many  nations."  So  far  as  my  position  is  concerned,  either  translation  is 
equal. 

I  was  myself  a  great  admirer  of  Dr.  Scott.  I  read  his  whole  com- 
mentary through,  when  I  was  a  student  of  theology,  from  beginning  to 
end.     He  was  before  my  eyes  for  three  or  four  years.     I  also  read  his 

t2 


222  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Force  of  Truth,  his  communications  and  correspondence  with  the  cele- 
brated John  Newton. 

I  am  just  now  informed  that  Dr.  Scott's  son  states,  in  the  history  of 
his  life,  that  so  long  as  his  father  read  the  Bible,  he  came  well  nigh  to 
the  conchision  that  the  Baptists  were  right ;  but  that  when  he  studied  the 
controversies  on  tlie  subject,  he  admitted  that  baptism  came  in  the  room 
of  circumcision,  and  was  satisfied  with  this  foundation  for  his  future 
practice.  I  am  tliankful  to  the  gentleman  who  has  put  me  in  possession 
of  this  fact.     In  this  way,  then,  Scott  changed  I 

I  return  now  to  give  you  that  cluster  of  Pedo-baptist  grapes  that  I  was 
opening  upon  when  I  eat  down.  It  is  not  necessary  now  to  tell  you  the 
dimensions  of  the  pool  of  Bethesda — some  hundred  and  twenty  yards  in 
lengtli,  and  eight  feet  deep,  to  find  water  to  baptize  three  thousand  :  the 
matter  was  so  plain,  so  evident,  so  common,  the  knowledge  was  in  the 
possession  of  every  living  man.  They  all  understood  it,  insomuch  that 
it  would  have  been  ridiculous  in  this  instance  to  tell  where  they  got  water 
to  baptize,  or  how  they  performed  the  ordinance.  But  these  are  merely 
thrown  up  as  difficulties.  To  any  one  who  makes  himself  acquainted 
with  the  travels  in  Asia,  Jerusalem  and  the  Holy  Land,  it  would  be  easy 
to  refute  every  hypothesis  of  that  sort. 

I  find  a  rich  cluster  of  these  Pedo-baptist  grapes,  just  ready  to  my  hand, 
in  Booth's  reply  to  Dr.  Williams,  and  I  will  just  transfer  it,  leaves  and  all, 
to  my  page. 

"  Gurtlerus :  '  Baptism  in  the  Holy  Sprit,  is  immersion  into  the  pure  wa- 
ters of  the  Holy  Spirit;  or  a  ricli  and  abuniiant  communication  of  his 
gifts.  For  he  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  is  poured  out,  is  as  it  were  immers- 
ed into  him." 

"  Bp.  Reynolds:  'The  Spirit,  under  the  gospel,  is  compared — to  water; 
and  that  not  a  little  measure,  to  sprinkle, ov  bedew,h\xt  to  baptize  the  faith- 
ful in:  (Matth.  iii.  11,  Acts  i.  5,)  and  that  not  in  a  font,  or  vessel,  which 
grows  less  and  less,  but  in  a  spring,  or  living  river.' 

"  Ikenius  :  '  The  Greek  word,  ia^^iswos,  denotes  the  immersion  of  a  thing 
or  a  person  into  something.  Here,  also,  (Matth.  iii.  11,  compared  with 
Luke  iii.  16,)  the  baptism  of  fire,  or  that  which  is  performed  in  fire,  must 
signify,  according  to  the  same  simplicity  of  the  letter,  an  immission,  or  im- 
mersion, into  fire — and  this  the  rather,  because  here,  to  baptize  in  the  Spirit, 
and  infire,  are  not  only  connected,  but  also  opposed  to  being  baptized  in 
water.^ 

"  Le  Clerc  :  '  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  I  plunge  you  in 
water,  he  shall  plunge  you,  so  to  speak,  in  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

"  Casaubon  :  '  To  baptize,  is  to  immerse — and  in  this  sense  the  apostles 
are  truly  said  to  be  baptized  ;  for  the  house  in  which  this  was  done  was  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  the  apostles  seemed  to  be  plunged  into  it  'as 
into  a  fishpool.' 

"  Grotius  :  '  To  be  baptized  here,  is  not  to  be  slightly  sprinkled,  but  to  have 
the  Holy  Spirit  abundantly  poured  upon  them.' 

"Mr.  Leigh:  '  Baptized;  that  is,  drown  you  all  over,  din  you  into  the 
ocean  of  his  grace  ;  opposite  to  the  sprinkling  which  was  in  the  law.' 

"  Abp.  Tillotson  :  '  //  [the  sound  from  heaven,  Acts  ii.  2,]  filled  all  the 
house.  This  is  that  wliich  our  Savior  calls  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
So  that  they  who  sat  in  the  house  were,  as  it  were,  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  they  who  were  buried  with  water,  were  overwhelmed  and  covered 
all  over  with  water,  which  is  the  proper  notion  of  baptism.' 

"  Bp.  Hopkins:  '  Those  that  are  baptized  with  the  Spirit,  ore  as  it  were 
plunged  into  that  heavenly  flame,  whose  searciiing  energy  devours  all  their 
dross,  tin,  and  base  alloy,' 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  22^ 

"  Mr.  H.  Dodwell :  'The  words  of  our  Savior  were  made  good,  Ye  shall 
be  baptized  (plunged  or  covered)  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  John  baptized 
with  water,  without  it.' 

"  Thus  modern  Pedo-baptists,  who  practiced  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Let 
us  now  hear  one  of  the  ancients,  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language,  and 
practiced  immersion.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century, 
speaks  in  the  following  manner — '  As  he  who  is  plunged  in  water  and  bap- 
tized, is  encompassed  by  the  water  on  every  side  ;  so  are  they  that  are 
wholly  baptized  by  the  Spirit :  Ther-e  [under  the  Mosaic  economy]  the  ser- 
vants of  God  were  partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  here  they  were  per- 
fectly baptized,  or  immersed,  of  him.'  These  testimonies  are  quite  suffi- 
cient, one  would  imagine,  to  vindicate  our  sense  of  the  term,  baptize,  when 
used  allusively  with  reference  to  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

If,  then,  so  many  learned  Pedo-baptists  can  themselves  reconcile  this 
style  to  immersion,  why  should  any  of  them  complain  of  our  so  atiempt- 
ing!  One  question  more.  If  baptism  ha  pouring,  why  do  ihey  sprinkle? 
Are  pouring  and  sprinkling  the  same  action  I 

But  I  have  yet  another  objection  from  which  an  argument  may  be 
drawn — "Arise  and  be  baptized,  Saul,  said  Ananias  ;  and  Saul  amse  and 
was  baptized," — -a  clear  proof  that  Paul  was  baptized  standing ;  conse- 
quently, not  immersed  !  ! 

In  Luke's  writings  alone,  we  have  this  idiom  eight  times — Anastast 
with  an  imperative  immediately  following,  and  without  a  conjunction  or  a 
comma,  is  found  in  Luke  xviii.  10  ;  xxii.  46 ;  Acts  ix.  11;  x.  13,  20  ;  xi. 
7  ;  xxii.  10,  16.  In  every  instance,  it  indicates  a  divine  command  from 
the  Lord  in  person,  or  from  a  supernatural  agent  acting  for  him.  Nothing 
expressed  by  the  term  rise,  different  from  the  action  to  be  performed.  In 
no  instance  does  the  precept  arise,  terminate  the  action.  It  never  means 
two  actions  in  any  one  case.  It  is  not  arise  and  be  baptized.  It  is  an 
idiom  of  expressing  one  immediate  action. 

The  idiom  always  changes  when  an  action  different  from  rising  up  is 
intended.  Another  imperative  form  with  a  copulative  of  some  kind,  inti- 
mates two  actions — Acts  viii.  26;  ix.  6,  34;  xxvi.  16.  In  all  these  it 
is  anasleetld,  followed  by  a  copulative,  rise  and  stand  upon  thy  feet;  rise 
and  go  into  the  city,  &c.  In  these  last  cases  there  is  something  more 
than  mere  earnestness  and  authority  expressed.  There  are  two  distinct 
imperatives.  Do  this  and  do  that.  But  anastas  poreuouo  is  quite  a 
different  idiom.  In  this  case  rising  is  no  more  than  an  adjunct.  It  is 
not  a  distinct  precept;  therefore,  it  is  never  rendered  "  stand  up." 

Almost  every  orator,  indeed,  in  a  persuasive  and  exhortatory  address 
in  our  language,  uses  the  term  rise,  when  an  erect  position,  or  a  mere 
change  of  position,  is  never  thought  of.  In  this  way  it  is  used  ten  times 
for  one  in  any  other  sense,  especially  in  warm  and  ardent  appeals  :  Rise, 
citizens!  rise,  sinners  !  rise,  men  !  and  let  us  do  our  duty.  In  this  com- 
mon-sense import  of  the  term,  did  Ananias  address  Paul, 

From  the  whole  premises,  I  argue,  that  if  Ananias  intended  to  sprinkle 
Paul,  he  would  not  have  commanded  him  to  rise  and  be  baptized.  For 
immersion,  he  must  go  to  the  water  ;  for  sprinkling,  the  water  could  have 
been  brought  to  him.  The  efforts  made  by  some  Pedo-baptists  to  make 
it  appear  from  this  passage,  that  Paul  was  baptized  standing  up,  are  alike 
indicative  of  their  humble  attainments  in  Greek  literature,  as  well  as  of 
the  inveteracy  of  their  prejudices.  No  man,  so  far  as  known  to  me,  of 
any  eminence  for  Greek  literature,  has  ever  made  such  an  attempt.  When 
all  the  objections  against  immersion  are  considered,  one  by  one,  we  may 


224  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

conclude  with  professor  Stuart :  "  For  myself,  then,  I  cheerfully  admit, 
that  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism, 
does,  in  all  probability,  involve  the  idea  that  this  rite  was  usually  per- 
formed by  immersion,  but  not  always."  Not  in  the  third  century,  as 
Mr.  Rice  interprets  him,  but  in  the  first  century. 

These  three  last  words,  "  but  not  always  "  founded  on  such  passages 
as  I  have  examined,  are  built  upon  too  slender  a  basis  for  so  strong  a 
man. 

XI.  My  eleventh  argument  shall  be  drawn  from  a  fact  already  several 
times  stated,  and  which,  from  what  has  already  been  said  upon  it,  I  shall 
not  now  amplify  any  farther  than  to  state  it  fully  and  in  a  proper  form. 
If  it  receive  no  other  reply  than  the  notice  already  taken  of  it,  I  shall  go 
no  farther  into  the  proof  of  it.  It  is  this  :  Sprinkling  and  pouring  mere 
water  on  any  person  or  thing,  for  any  moral,  ceremonial,  or  religious  use, 
was  never  performed  by  the  authority  of  God,  under  any  antecedent  dis- 
pensation of  religion,  and  not  being  commanded  in  the  New,  is  without 
any  authority,  patriarchal,  Jewish,  or  christian.  Let  no  one  be  startled 
at  the  novelty  of  this  announcement.  I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  over- 
looked in  all  the  books  upon  the  subject,  and  in  all  the  discussions  that 
have  ever  fallen  under  my  observation.  It  is,  however,  on  that  account, 
no  less  true  and  no  less  important. — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
\wR.  rice's  fifteenth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — A  single  remark  in  regard  to  the  small  affair  of  Wall's 
reply  to  Gale.  A  good  brother  has  just  counted  the  pages,  and  informs 
me  that  between  a  seventh  and  an  eighth  of  the  volume  is  on  the  mode 
of  baptism.     I  guessed  pretty  well. 

I  have  adduced  the  authority  of  two  of  the  most  celebrated  critics, 
proving  that  the  tropical  often  becomes  the  proper  and  literal  meaning  of 
words.  The  gentleman  proposes  to  refer  the  question.  Have  we  here 
scholars  who  better  understand  the  rules  of  interpretation  than  they  ?~ 
Even  his  own  ancient  lexicons,  on  which  he  has  so  much  relied,  give  lavo 
and  abluo — to  wash,  to  cleanse,  as  literal  meanings  of  baptizo.  Bret- 
schneider,  as  we  have  seen,  gives  its  general  meanings — "sepius  inlingo, 
sepius  lavo — often  to  dip,  often  to  wash.  He  speaks  not  of  lavo  as  a 
tropical  meaning.  In  company  with  such  men  as  Ernesti,  Bretschneider, 
and  Stuart,  I  can  consent  to  be  represented  as  ignorant  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. To  one  of  the  gentlemen  named,  however,  I  have  no  objection  ; 
and  my  reason  for  objecting  to  the  other,  will  be  appreciated.  I  will, 
however,  as  I  have  said,  cheerfully  refer  the  matter  to  any  two  impartial 
linguists,  provided  the  gentleman  will  also  refer  the  question,  whether 
hapto  has  ever  been  translated  sprinkle. 

In  my  remarks  on  the  question,  whether  any  translator  has  rendered  the 
word  bapto,  to  sprinkle,  I  shall,  for  the  sake  of  the  audience,  be  brief. 
Gale,  as  I  have  repeatedly  stated,  admits  that  Origen  did  not  quote  the 
passage  in  Rev.  xix.  13,  verbatim,  but  almost  verbatim.  Would  there 
not,  then,  be  as  much  propriety  in  rejecting  any  other  word  in  the  text 
which  differs  from  Origen's  language,  as  the  one  in  question  ?  It  is  im- 
possible for  the  gentleman  to  escape  the  difficulty.  If  he  will  prove,  that 
bapto  is  not  the  true  reading  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  I  will 
prove  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  every  word  he  will  mention  in  the 
Bible. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  225  ' 

It  is  very  strange  indeed,  he  would  have  us  think,  that  in  this  one  in- 
stance the  word  should  be  translated  in  a  manner  so  singular.  But  singu- 
lar as  he  considers  the  translation,  Carson,  who  was  equally  interested 
■with  himself  in  defending  immersion,  could  see  no  evidence  of  another 
reading.  And,  after  all,  the  translation  is  not  so  singular ;  as  the  various 
examples  I  have  adduced  from  the  classic  and  from  the  Bible,  prove. 
The  baptism  of  Nebuchadnezzar  with  dew,  was  certainly  something  even 
less  than  sprinkling.  The  French  version  translates  the  word  in  that 
place  bedeived. 

But  my  friend  says,  I  must  prove  that  Origen  and  the  translators  of  these 
ancient  versions  had  not  another  reading  before  them  !  Really  I  had  sup- 
posed it  to  be  his  business,  since  he  maintains  that  they  had  another  read- 
ing, to  prove  it.  He  does  not  deny,  that  the  word  bapio  is  found  in  all  ex- 
isting copies  and  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament;  and  if  any  man 
call  in  question  the  reading  in  any  passage  of  Scripture,  what  more  proof 
can  be  given  or  desired,  than  the  fact,  that  all  the  copies  have  the  same 
reading  ?  Surely  no  man  could  ask  more,  unless,  like  my  friend,  he  were 
resolved  to  sustain  his  declines  by  all  means.  This  is  not  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  he  has  evinced  extraordinary  zeal  for  immersion.  I 
pointed  to  a  passage  in  the  gospel  by  Mark,  which  he  has  strangely  per- 
verted for  the  sake  of  his  cause — giving  as  a  translation  what  is  not  even 
akin  to  a  translation  of  it.  Does  immersion  require  the  word  of  God  to 
be  thus  tortured  and  wrested,  in  order  to  sustain  it? 

Whether  the  water  to  which  Ezekiel  and  Isaiah  had  reference  in  the 
passages  I  quoted,  was  simply  clean  water,  is  of  liule  importance  in  this 
discussion  ;  since  the  question  before  us  relates  exclusively  to  the  mode 
of  applying  it ;  and  that  mode  was  certainly  sprinkling.  This  point, 
however,  has  been  sufficiently  explained.  The  gentleman  says,  I  make 
baptism  nothing  more  than  an  emblem.  I  have  not  so  represented  it.  I 
have  said,  baptism  is  a  significant  ordinance — that  the  water  is  an  emblem 
of  spiritual  cleansing;  but  I  have  not  said,  that  it  answers  no  other  pur- 
poses. It  is  a  door  of  admission  into  the  church,  or  an  ordinance  for  the 
recognition  of  membership  ;  it  is  a  seal  of  God's  covenant;  and  it  is  a  sig- 
nificant ordinance.  If  tlie  gentleman  desires  proof  of  this  last  point,  I 
refer  him  to  Acts  xxii.  16,  "Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins,"  Now,  we  know  perfectly  well,  that  the  application  of  water  to 
the  body,  does  not  really  cleanse  from  sin.  It  must,  therefore,  be  an  em- 
blem of  purification. 

The  gentleman  has  just  learned  by  a  paper  handed  him,  that  Dr.  Scott, 
whilst  he  read  the  Bible,  thought  the  Baptists  were  right;  but  when  he 
read  the  commentators,  he  thought  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision !  So  far  as  the  present  discussion  is  concerned,  I  care  not  whether 
this  incredible  story  be  true  or  false.  We  are  not  now  discussing  the  ques- 
tion, whether  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  We  are  in- 
quiring whether  immersion  is  the  only  apostolic  or  christian  baptism.  I 
would  not  give  a  farthing  for  such  papers,  coming  from  we  know  not 
whom.  Give  us  facts  and  documents.  But  let  Dr.  Scott  speak  for  him- 
self. I  read  from  his  Commentary  on  Matth.  iii.  "  It  [baptizo']  seems  to 
be  a  word  borrowed  from  the  Greek  authors,  signifying  to  plunge  in,  or 
bedew  with  water,  without  any  exact  distinction;  (which,  being  a  diminu- 
tive from  bapto,  to  dip,  it  might  do  according  to  the  analogy  of  language) 
and  it  was  adopted  into  the  style  of  Scripture  in  a  peculiar  sense,  to 
signify  the  use  of  water  in  this  ordinance,  and  various  spiritual  matters, 
15 


226  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

which  have  a  relation  to  it.  *  *  *  Some,  indeed,  contend  zealously, 
that  baptism  always  signifies  immersion  ;  and  learned  men,  who  have  re- 
garded Jewish  traditions  more  than  either  the  language  of  Scripture,  or 
the  Greek  idiom,  are  very  decided  in  this  respect ;  but  the  use  of  the  words 
baptize  and  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  cannot  accord  with  this  ex- 
clusive interpretation."  Such  was  the  opinion  of  Scott,  as  he  says,  "  af- 
ter many  years  consideration  and  study." 

Isaiah,  as  I  have  proved,  speaking  of  the  work  of  Christ,  says — "So 
shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.  The  gendeman  produces  the  authority 
of  the  Septuagint  as  edited  by  Junius  and  Tremeliius,  to  prove  that  it 
should  be  translated — so  shall  he  astonish  many  nations.  That  is,  as  they 
understand  it,  so  shall  he  astonish  many  nations  by  sprinkling  them! 
Well,  I  suppose,  since  he  could  overwhelm  Nebuchadnezzar  with  deWt 
it  is  not  wonderful  that  he  should  talk  of  astonishing  the  nations  by 
sprinkling  ! 

But  the  fact  is  stated  by  the  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  after  careful  examination 
of  all  the  places  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  translated  sprinkle,  occurs  in 
the  Bible,  that  in  every  instance  it  means  to  sprinkle.  The  Septuagin* 
is  only  a  translation,  an  imperfect  translation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Some  parts  of  it  are  more  correct ;  others  less  so.  Are  we,  then,  to  cor- 
rect the  Hebrew  Scriptures  by  such  a  translation  ?  The  very  idea  is  ab- 
surd. The  passage,  then,  must  stand  as  it  is,  affording  clear  evidence 
that  the  sprinkling  of  water  is  an  appropriate  and  impressive  emblem  of 
purification. 

I  have  stated  an  important  fact,  which  the  gentleman  does  not  venture 
to  deny,  viz :  that  from  the  time  when  christian  baptism  was  instituted, 
we  never  read  of  any  apostle  going  out  of  his  way  for  water  for  the  pur- 
poses of  baptism.  But  he  tells  us,  it  was  so  universally  understood,  that 
baptism  was  immersion,  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  mention  it.  This, 
however,  is  assuming  the  question  in  debate.  Let  him  prove  that  im- 
mersion was  then  universally  practiced,  and  he  will  have  gained  his 
point. 

But,  if  it  was  universally  known,  that  immersion  only  was  christian 
baptism  ;  why  were  the  inspired  writers  careful  to  mention  the  fact,  that 
John  the  Baptist  went  to  Jordan,  and  to  Enon  near  Salim,  where  there 
was  much  water?  If  it  was  important  to  record  these  facts  in  regard  to 
John's  baptism,  was  it  not  much  more  important,  that  the  church  should 
know,  that  the  aposdes  went  after  water  to  immerse  christians  ?  Ah  !  the 
cause  of  my  friend  is  sorely  pressed. 

The  matter,  I  think,  is  easily  explained.  John  the  Baptist  needed 
much  water  for  other  purposes.  Multitudes  flocked  to  hear  him,  and  re- 
mained together  for  several  days  without  dispersing.  They  could  not 
have  been  kept  together  where  water  for  ordinary  purposes  and  for  their 
ablutions  could  not  be  obtained.  It  was  absolutely  necessary,  therefore, 
especially  in  a  dry  country,  such  as  that  inhabited  by  the  Jews,  that  John 
should  select  places  for  preaching  and  baptizing,  where  there  was  much 
water. 

The  apostles  did  not  collect  crowds  that  remained  for  days  together. 
They  had  no  need,  therefore,  to  see  that  their  hearers  were  furnished 
with  water  for  ordinary  purposes  or  for  Jewish  washings.  They,  there- 
fore, never  went  after  water.  One  of  two  things,  I  conclude  then,  is  true, 
viz :  either  John  ivanted  much  water,  not  for  administering  baptism, 
hut  for  other  purposes ;  or,  the  apostles  did  not  baptize  in  the  mode 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  227 

practiced  by  him.  From  the  fact,  that  John  went  where  there  was  much 
water,  hnmersionists  infer,  that  he  practiced  immersion.  Suppose  we 
admit  the  inference  to  be  legitimate.  Then  from  the  fact  that  the  apostles 
never  did  go  after  much  water,  I  infer  that  they  did  not  practice  immer- 
sion. And  I  think  my  inference  is  decidedly  the  stronger ;  for  certainly 
John  might  have  gone  where  there  was  much  water,  and  still  have  prac- 
ticed pouring  or  sprinkling;  but  the  apostles  could  not  have  immersed  the 
thousands  converted  under  their  ministry,  without  going  where  there  was 
much  water.  Inasmuch,  then,  as  they  could  not  have  practiced  immer- 
sion without  much  water  ;  and  inasmuch  as  we  never  find  them  going 
after  water,  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable,  that  they  did  not  immerse. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us,  that  when  John  baptized  the  multitudes  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  go  to  Jordan  ;  and  therefore,  he  concludes  he 
must  have  immersed.  Then,  how  happened  it,  that  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost water  was  so  plenty  in  Jerusalem  ?  John,  it  seems,  could  not 
find  water  to  baptize  in,  without  going  to  Jordan  ;  but  the  apostles,  des- 
pised and  persecuted  as  they  were,  could  find  water  in  great  abundance  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  and  afterwards !  Was  Jordan  brought  to  Jerusa- 
lem? Where  did  they  find  water  in  such  abundance,  that  without  delay 
or  diffieulty  they  could  immerse  three  thousand  persons  in  a  day  ?  Is  it 
not  passing  strange,  that  Luke,  the  inspired  historian,  should  have  failed 
to  throw  any  light  on  this  subject!  Error  is  generally  contradictory. 
In  one  breath,  we  are  told  that  it  was  necessary  for  John  to  go  to  Jordan 
to  baptize  ;  and  in  the  next,  we  are  informed  that  the  apostles  found  water 
plenty  in  Jerusalem  ! 

The  gentleman  again  attempts  to  sustain  himself  hy  Pedo-baptist  con- 
session.  Who  is  a  Pedo-Baptist?  One  who  believes  in  the  baptism  of 
infants.  Many  Pedo-baptists  are  immersionists  ;  and  yet  the  concessions 
of  such  are  paraded  before  the  people,  as  the  concessions  of  the  advocates 
of  sprinkling.  Amongst  those  advocates  of  sprinkling  the  gentleman  has 
quoted  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  who  was  really  an  advocate  of  trine  immer- 
sion of  persons  in  puris  naturalibus — divested  of  their  clothing  !  Gro- 
tius,  though  entirely  disposed  to  favor  immersion,  speaks  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  poured  on  the  people  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  thus  admitting 
that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  properly  represented  by  pouring.  Tillot- 
son,  if  the  gentleman  has  correctly  represented  him,  says,  they  were,  as 
it  were,  plunged  into  the  Spirit !  How  singularly  would  the  promise  read, 
if  we  were  to  supply  that  clause — "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water — 
He  shall,  as  it  were,  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit !  "  Are  these  the 
expositions  of  Scripture,  by  which  the  cause  of  immersion  is  to  be  sus- 
tained ?  Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  in  the  church  of  England,  immersion 
was,  for  a  length  of  time,  the  almost  universal  practice.  Pouring  was 
only  allowed  in  cases  of  necessity.  Gradually  immersion  fell  into  disuse  ; 
but  many  of  the  clergy  were  anxious  for  the  general  restoration  of  the 
practice.  Those  men,  decided  immersionists,  are  the  authors  of  most  of 
the  Pedo-baptist  concessions,  of  which  the  gentleman,  and  those  who 
agree  with  him,  are  in  the  habit  of  boasting  !  They  never  were  ad- 
vocates of  sprinkling. 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  baptism  of  Paul.  In  the  twenty- 
second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  read,  that  Ananias  came 
to  Paul,  and,  having  first  delivered  his  message,  said,  "  Arise,  (Greek, 
anastas ;  having  risen  to  your  feet,)  be  baptized  ;"  and  Luke,  the  Evan- 
gelist, says,  "  He  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  (anastas)  and  was 


228  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

baptized."  Compare  chapters  twenty-six  and  nine.  Here  we  find  Paul 
in  the  city  of  Damascus,  in  a  private  dwelling.  He  had  been  blind,  and 
Had  eaten  nothing  for  three  days.  Ananias  comes  to  him  and  says — what  ? 
Arise,  stand  up,  and  be  baptized  ;  and  what  did  he  do  ?  He  arose,  stood 
op,  and  was  baptized.  The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  this  language 
is,  that  Paul  immediately  stood  up  in  the  house,  and  received  baptism. 

But  some  of  our  immersionist  friends  have  fine  imaginations^  and  can 
easily  supply  what  may  be  defective  in  sacred  history  I  A  worthy 
old  Baptist  father,  in  an  article  on  this  subject,  copied  into  the  Mllenial 
Harbinger,  indulges  in  the  following  strain  : — 

"  See  what  a  heavenly  hurry  Saul  was  in,  though  weakened  down  by  a 
distressing  fast ;  behold  him,  with  great  weakness  of  body,  and  load  of  his 
guilt,  staggering  along  to  the  water.  I  almost  fancy  that  I  see  the  dear  little 
man  (he  was  afterwards  called  Paul,  which  signifies  little,)  hanging  on  the 
shoulders  of  Ananias,  and  huriying  him  up,  with  his  right  arm  around  him  ; 
and,  as  they  walked  on,  saying,  Be  of  good  cheer,  brother  Saul  ;  when  you 
are  baptized,  your  sins,  or  the  guilt  of  them,  shall  be  washed  away." 

There  it  is  to  the  life.  The  good  old  father  saw  them  on  their  way  to 
some  pond  or  stream.     The  vision  was  as  clear  as  day  ! 

[Here  Mr.  Campbell  inquired  for  the  name  of  the  writer  quoted.]  His 
name  was  Taylor ;  an  excellent  man  ;  for  I  knew  him  well. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  evidently  less  poetry  in  his  composition  than 
the  old  father;  but  he,  too,  draws  on  his  imagination  to  supply  the  facts 
that  Luke  omitted  to  state,  as  we  shall  see  by  reference  to  the  Christian 
Baptist,  p.  422. 

"  Had  any  person  met  Paul  and  Ananias,  when  on  their  way  to  the  water, 
and  asked  Paul  for  what  he  was  going  to  be  immersed  ;  what  answer  could 
he  have  given,  if  he  believed  the  words  of  Ananias,  other  than,  I  am  going 
to  be  immersed  for  the  purpose  of  washing  away  my  sins  3  Or  had  he  been 
accosted  on  his  return  from  the  water"  &c, 

Mr.  Campbell  gave  the  history,  and  farther  Taylor  made  the  poetry ! 
Both  were  enabled  to  see  Paul  and  Ananias  going  to  some  stream  or 
pond,  where  Paul  could  be  immersed  !  But,  the  misfortune  is,  we  read 
not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  Bible.  Luke  tells  us,  that  Paul  was  in  Da- 
mascus, in  a  private  house,  in  a  very  feeble  state  ;  and  he  tells  us,  that 
Ananias  came  and  baptized  him.  But,  instead  of  informing  us  that  they 
went  forth  in  search  of  water,  he  simply  relates,  that  Ananias  told  Paul 
to  arise  and  be  baptized ;  and  he  arose  and  was  baptized  !  In  such  mat- 
ters I  prefer  to  go  by  the  Book.  I  care  not  even  for  any  criticism  on  the 
language;  I  am  willing  to  take  it  as  it  stands  in  the  English  Bible  ;  for  the 
clear  and  obvious  meaning  is,  that  Paul  was  baptized  standing  up  in  the 
house.  The  Greek,  however,  makes  the  argument,  if  possible,  clearer 
than  the  translation.  I  will  quote  a  few  passages  in  which  we  find 
anastas,  the  word  employed  by  Ananias  and  Luke,  to  express  Paul's 
rising  to  his  feet.  Matth.  xxvi.  62,  "And  the  high  priest  arose  (anastas) 
and  said  unto  him,  answerest  thou  nothing?"  Did  not  the  priest  stand 
on  his  feet  and  speak  ?  Mark  xiv.  57,  "  And  there  arose  (anastantes) 
certain,  and  bare  false  witness  against  him."  Acts  i.  15,  "And  in  those 
days  Peter  stood  up  (anastas)  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,  and  said," 
&c.  Acts  xiii.  16,  "Then  Paul  stood  up,  (anastas)  and  beckoning  with 
his  hand,  said,"  &c.  Acts  xv.  7,  "  And  when  there  had  been  much  dis- 
puting, Peter  rose  up  (anastas)  and  said  unto  them,"  &c.  Ch.  xi.  28, 
"  And  there  stood  up  (anastas)  one  of  them  named  Agabas,  and  sig- 
nified," &c. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  229 

These  passages,  to  which  many  others  might  be  added,  show  the  com- 
mon usage  of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  word  anastas.  It  is 
constantly  used  to  express  the  act  of  rising  to  the  feet.  And,  you  ob- 
serve, the  language  conveys  the  idea,  that  the  baptism  was  administered 
immediately  on  his  rising  to  his  feet.  Jlnastas,  having  risen  up,  he  was 
baptized.  Not  an  intimation  is  given  that  there  was  a  moment's  delay,  or 
that  they  left  the  house.  If  Ananias  had  but  said  to  Paul,  Arise,  and  let  us 
go  to  a  pond,  or  a  stream,  that  you  may  be  baptized ;  there  would  have 
been  no  necessity  that  father  Taylor  and  Mr.  Campbell  should  have  sup- 
plied, from  their  imagination,  the  imperfect  account  of  this  interesting  oc- 
currence. But,  as  in  all  the  passages  I  have  just  read,  anastas  expresses 
the  action  of  rising  to  the  feet,  and  the  action  expressed  by  the  following 
verb,  followed  immediately  and  was  performed  in  a  standing  position ;  so, 
here,  Paul  rose  to  his  feet  and  was  immediately  baptized.  This  looks 
exceedingly  like  Pedo-baptist  practice — very  much  indeed !  And  it  is 
very  unlike  the  practice  of  our  immersionist  friends.  If  a  Pedo-baptist 
were  giving  a  particular  account  of  a  baptism,  he  would  write  just  as  Luke 
did  ;  but  our  immersionist  friends  constandy  speak  and  write  of  going  to 
ponds  and  streams. 

Let  us  now,  for  a  moment,  recur  to  the  facts  I  have  established.  I 
have  stated  it  as  an  indisputable  fact,  that  when  God  originally  selected  a 
mode  of  representing  sanctiiication,  sprinkling  was  the  mode.  This  fact 
has  not  been  denied,  and  it  cannot  be  disproved.  I  have  stated  as  a  sec- 
ond fact,  that  the  inspired  writers  never,  in  any  one  instance,  represented 
spiritual  cleansing  by  immersing  persons  into  water,  speaking  figuratively 
or  literally.  I  have  stated  as  a  third  fact,  that  they  did  constantly  repre- 
sent it  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  Neither  of  these  facts  has  been  or  can 
be  disputed.  I  have  stated  a  fourth  fact,  that  from  the  time  when  chris- 
tian baptism  was  instituted,  not  an  instance  is  recorded  of  the  apostles,  or 
any  of  them,  or  of  those  ministers  associated  with  them,  going  one  step 
out  of  their  way  after  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing.  This  fact  has 
not  been  denied,  and  it  cannot  be.  The  apostles,  as  I  have  said,  always 
baptized  persons  whenever  and  wherever  they  professed  faith  in  Christ — 
in  the  crowded  city,  in  the  country,  in  the  desert,  in  private  houses,  in 
prison,  day  or  night — there  was  no  delay  for  lack  of  conveniences  to  bap- 
tize either  many  or  few.  But  in  the  accounts  given  of  the  administration 
of  baptism  by  our  immersionist  friends  we  find  frequent  delays  mention- 
ed, either  because  they  have  not  sufficient  water,  or  from  some  other  dif- 
ficulty peculiar  to  immersion.  In  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  as  I  have  al- 
ready stated,  I  find  a  delay  in  administering  baptism  to  one  individual ; 
and  in  the  same  work  I  find  other  accounts  of  a  similar  character.  Yet 
the  country  in  which  christian  baptism  was  first  practiced,  was  by  no 
means  so  well  watered  as  ours.  How,  then,  shall  we  account  for  the 
fact,  that  the  aposdes,  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  could  ad- 
minister baptism  to  any  number  of  converts;  whilst  our  immersionist 
friends  find  it  necessary  so  often  to  delay?  We,  like  the  apostles,  can 
administer  baptism  to  any  number  of  converts,  at  any  time,  and  in  almost 
any  place.     Whose  practice,  I  ask,  most  resembles  that  of  the  apostles  ? 

I  have  stated  a  Jifth  fact — that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  a 
baptism  ;  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  represented  by  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out — shed  forth,  to 
Jail  upon  the  people.  Christian  baptism  is  designed  to  be  a  significant 
cfrdinance,  in  which  the  water  is  the  emblem  of  purification  of  heart.     If, 

U 


230  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

then,  the  Lord  has  chosen  to  represent  the  work  of  his  Spirit' — the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  by  pouring  and  shedding  forth,  water-baptism  should 
be  administered  in  that  way. 

I  might  safely  leave  the  audience  to  determine,  in  view  of  these  indis- 
putable facts,  whether  baptism  administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  is 
not  scriptural  and  valid.  I  have,  however,  another  important  argument 
to  introduce ;  but  perhaps  I  have  not  time  now  to  present  it.  I  will, 
however,  briefly  introduce  it. 

John,  the  apostle,  says — "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven," 
&c. — "  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the 
water,  and  the  blood  :  and  these  three  agree  in  one,"  1  John  v.  7,  8. 
These  three  witnesses  agree  in  their  testimony.  In  what,  then,  do  they 
agree  ?  The  blood  of  Christ,  we  know,  cleanses  from  the  guilt  of  sin. 
The  saints  in  heaven  are  represented  as  having  "  washed  their  robes,  and 
made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  Rev.  vii.  14.  The  Holy 
Spirit  cleanses  the  soul  from  the  pollution  of  sin,  Titus  iii.  5,  6.  We 
have,  then,  the  testimony  of  two  of  the  witnesses ;  and  they  agree  in  the 
cleansing  of  the  soul  from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin.  The  water,  the 
third  witness,  of  course,  points  to  the  same  thing.  The  blood  of  Christ 
is  the  procuring  cause  of  purification  from  sin ;  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  effi- 
cient agent  in  imparting  holiness  of  heart ;  and  the  water  applied  in  bap- 
tism is  the  symbol  and  seal  of  spiritual  blessings. 

But  the  blood  of  Christ  is  called  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling."  Paul 
says — "  Ye  are  come  to — the  blood  of  sprinkling,  that  speaketh  better 
things  than  the  blood  of  Abel,"  Heb.  xii.  24.  Peter  speaks  of  believers 
as  "Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,"  1  Pet.  i.  2.  The  Spirit  of  God,  as  1  have  already  remarked,  is 
constantly  represented  as  poured  out,  shed  forth.  Sic.  How,  then,  would 
you  apply  the  water?  The  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  and  immersion  in  water,  would  not  make  a  very 
striking  agreement.  But  if  the  blood  be  sprinkled,  the  Spirit  poured  out, 
and  water  poured  or  sprinkled,  is  not  the  agreement  of  the  witnesses  most 
strikingly  exhibited  ?— £7\'me  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 6  o'clock,  P.  M. 
(^MR.  Campbell's  sixteenth  address.] 
Mr.  President — As  we  have  just  heard  from  you,  sir,  the  meeting 
of  this  evening,  and  all  our  meetings  on  this  occasion,  are  solemn  mat- 
ters. In  this  sectarian  and  schismatic  age,  we  have  assembled  for  the 
purpose  of  discovering,  if  possible,  the  roots  of  discord  and  the  seeds  of 
schism  which  have  unhappily  alienated  and  estranged  us  from  each  other  ; 
that  we  may,  peradventure,  find  some  remedy  for  those  wounds  and 
grievances  which  have  so  disgraced  our  holy  faith,  marred  its  beauty,  and 
impeded  its  progress  in  the  world.  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
a  favorite  point,  of  maintaining  a  sectarian  tenet,  that  we  have  assembled  ; 
but  that  we  may  clear  away  the  rubbish  of  human  tradition,  and  then  lay 
a  deep,  a  broad,  and  an  enduring  foundation,  upon  which  christians  may 
meet  and  harmonize  their  discords  ;  shake  hands,  bury  the  tomahawk  and 
scalping  knife  of  partizan  wars,  and  unite  in  one  solid  and  fraternal 
phalanx,  for  the  civilization  of  the  world — for  the  illumination,  refor- 
mation, and  the  redemption  of  mankind.  I  humbly  hope,  sir,  that  we 
shall  all  remember  that  this  is  our  supreme  object,  and  conduct  ourselvea 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  231 

in  a  manner  worthy  of  an  occasion  so  grave,  so  responsible,  and  so  solemn 
as  the  present. 

In  opening  the  discussion  of  this  evening,  I  have  a  remark  or  two  to 
make  on  the  topics  before  us  during  the  latter  part  of  the  afternoon.  My 
friend,  Mr.  R.,  in  his  last  speech,  attempted  to  reply  to  my  remarks  on 
that  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  Paul  is  commanded  by 
Ananias,  to  "  arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  his  sins."  He  did 
not  apprehend  the  point  of  my  criticisms,  or  if  he  did,  he  forgot  it.  Con- 
sequently, his  response  was  wholly  wide  of  the  mark.  I  specified  all  the 
passages  in  which  this  idiom  of  Luke  was  preserved.  His  specifications 
were  of  a  different  character,  not  falling  under  the  idiom  adduced,  and 
consequently  were  wholly  irrelevant.  We  have  time  only  to  state  the 
fact,  and  proceed  to  weightier  matters. 

The  water  of  separation  was  ordained  for  a  specific  purpose.  It  was 
to  consummate  the  symbols  of  the  law,  and  to  give  a  full  view  of  some 
of  the  virtues  of  the  christian  atonement.  Mr.  R.  professed  to  be  pleased 
with  it,  because,  he  said  it  afforded  him  a  new  argument  for  his  favorite 
sprinkling  of  common  water  ! !  He  observed,  that  we  have  water  mixed 
with  blood,  as  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  were  mixed  with  water,  and  that 
the  water  of  sprinkling  was  a  sort  of  antitype  of  that  symbol.  The  gen- 
tleman has  forgotten  the  fact,  that  we  can  no  more  have  a  type  of  a  type 
in  theology,  than  a  shadow  of  a  shade  in  nature.  Nothing  but  substances 
make  shadows.  This  fact  reduces  his  argument,  as  it  presents  itself  to 
my  vision,  to  a  shadow.  If  he  make  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  not 
the  type  of  sprinkling  Christ's  blood,  in  sanctification,  but  the  type  of 
sprinkling  baptismal  water,  then  he  must  make  the  pouring  of  oil,  not 
the  type  of  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  of  pouring  out  water  ;  and 
then  I  ask,  of  what  was  the  immersion  of  the  whole  llesh  of  the  leper  a 
type  of?  Immersion  in  the  water  of  baptism,  of  course  ! !  Then  it  was 
aJl  water !  !  Three  things  occurred  under  the  law  in  cleansing  a  leper  : 
1st.  The  water  of  purification  was  sprinkled ;  2d.  The  oil  of  olive  was 
poured  upon  the  head  ;  and  3d.  The  whole  person  of  the  leper  or  polluted 
person,  was  bathed  in  common  water. 

If,  then,  Mr,  R.  can  find  for  the  first  and  for  the  second,  an  antitype  in  the 
New  Testament,  he  must  also  find  one  for  the  third  ;  and  that,  of  course, 
would  be  immersion  !  He  has  repeatedly  stated  the  utter  impossibility 
of  finding  any  language  in  that  book,  to  authorize  the  putting  of  a  person 
under  water.  These  identical  words,  indeed,  cannot  be  found,  because 
the  book  is  written  in  Greek  ;  but  whenever  baptizo  en  hudati  is  trans- 
lated by  a  competent  linguist  of  an  unprejudiced  mind,  we  shall  find  the 
precept  in  English  as  well  as  in  Greek. 

The  innate  force  of  eis,  he  admits,  may  bring  us  to,  and  sometimes 
into  the  water  ;  but,  alas,  when  there,  we  must  come  out  for  the  want  of 
a  word  informing  us  what  to  do.  It  has  tlien,  at  last,  been  discovered, 
in  this  enlightened  age,  that  one  capital  precept  in  the  commission  cannot 
be  understood,  consequendy,  that  it  cannot  be  obeyed ;  that  it  means 
nothing  definite  or  intelligible,  because  of  the  incompetency  of  the  Greek 
language,  or  the  unskillfulness  of  our  clergy  to  interpret  it.  But  what 
other  word  more  perspicuous  and  specific  might  have  been  selected,  neither 
he  nor  any  other  person  has,  as  yet,  informed  us. 

According  to  his  philology,  no  one  could  prove  that  the  disciples  ever 
eat  the  Lord's  supper  in  Jerusalem.  Yet  the  terms  used  in  the  institu- 
tioa,  and  in  the  report  of  it,  seem  to  be  quite  definite  and  precise.     It  is 


232  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

said  ihey  sat  down,  and  did  eat,  &c.  According  to  the  philology  of  Mr.. 
Rice,  no  ordinary  man  could  satisfactorily  prove  either  that  the  Messiah 
commanded  the  mystic  loaf  to  be  eaten,  or  that  his  apostles  eat  it  after  the 
last  passover.  To  common  minds,  the  language  appears  perspicuous  and 
satisfactory  ;  but  to  learned  men,  like  my  respondent,  it  is  peculiarly  mys- 
terious and  unintelligible.  He  would  admit  that  they  went  into  an  upper 
room — that  they  sat  down — that  there  was  a  table,  having  upon  it  a  loaf 
of  bread  and  a  flagon  of  wine.  All  that,  says  he,  is  incontrovertible. 
But  then  comes  the  precept,  after  the  benediction  of  the  loaf — Take,  eaty 
this  is  my  body.  Here,  says  he,  is  the  difficulty.  The  term  eat  is  a 
generic  term,  and  has  many  meanings.  I  own,  says  he,  it  sometimes 
means  to  take  a  substance  into  the  mouth  and  masticate  it ;  but  is  it  not 
applied  to  acids  also?  They  are  said  to  eat  up  various  substances. 
Again  ;  is  not  a  cancer  said  to  eat  up  a  person's  flesh  ?  Sometimes,  also, 
we  read  of  words  eating  as  a  cancer ;  zeal,  too,  is  said  to  have  eaten  up 
the  Savior — "  The  zeal  of  thy  house  has  eaten  me  up."  A  person, 
moreover,  who  treasures  up  revelation  in  his  mind,  is  said  to  eat  it. 
David  says,  I  found  thy  word,  and  I  did  eat  it.  And  who  has  not  heard 
of  interest  eating  up  money  as  a  moth  ?  To  go  no  farther,  here  are  seven 
meanings  of  the  word  eat.  Which  shall  we  take  ?  The  Quaker  takes 
the  sixth  ;  the  plain,  unsophisticated  man  of  common  sense,  takes  the 
first ;  but  Mr.  R.,  by  the  mere  force  of  the  word,  could  not  decide  which 
of  the  seven.  Tradition  and  the  primitive  fathers,  or  the  customs  of  the 
Church,  or  something  else,  but  the  word  itself  would  never  satisfy  his 
mind.  Now,  that  baptizo,  to  dip,  is  as  plain  as  phago,  to  eat,  every  un- 
prejudiced Jew  and  gentile  on  earth,  knows.  What  a  glorious  uncertainty 
a  person  of  a  little  ingenuity  and  learning  may  throw  around  the  christian 
law ! 

Other  matters,  in  the  afternoon  discourse,  and  in  some  other  previous 
speeches,  on  which  we  cannot  now  find  time  to  descant,  will  come  up  as 
pertinently  under  the  design  of  baptism ;  and  as  we  must  at  least  give  an 
outline  of  the  whole  argument,  I  shall  hasten  to  another  point. 

IX.  We  shall  now  state  our  ninth  argument.  For  the  special  benefit 
of  the  more  uneducated,  I  shall^deduce  an  argument  for  immersion  from 
the  first  precept  of  the  decalogue  of  philology.  That  precept,  according  to 
my  copy,  reads  thus :  The  definition  of  a  word  and  the  word  itself,  are 
always  convertible  terms.  For  example — a  law  is  a  rule  of  action — is 
equivalent  to  saying,  a  rule  of  action  is  a  law.  Philanthropy  is  the 
love  of  man — is  equivalent  to  saying,  the  love  of  man  is  philanthropy. 
Now,  if  a  definition,  or  translation,  (which  is  the  same  thing,)  be  correct, 
the  definition,  if  substituted  for  the  term  defined,  will  always  make  good 
sense,  and  be  congruous  with  all  the  words  in  construction. 

In  order,  then,  to  test  the  correctness  of  any  definition  or  translation, 
we  have  only  to  substitute  it  in  the  place  of  the  original  word  defined  or 
translated.  If  in  all  places  the  definition  makes  good  sense,  that  is,  if  it 
be  convertible  with  the  word  defined,  it  is  correct ;  if  not,  it  is  incorrect. 
Let  any  one  unacquainted  with  Greek  take  a  New  Testament,  beginning 
with  the  first  occurrence  o{  baptizo,  or  any  of  its  family,  and  always  sub- 
stitute for  it  the  definition  or  translation  given,  and  if  it  be  the  correct 
one,  it  will  make  sense ;  good,  intelligible  sense,  in  every  instance. 

We,  then,  read : — "  In  those  days,  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea 
went  out  to  John,  and  were  sprinkled  by  him  in  the  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."     To  perceive  the  impossibility  of  such  an  occurrence,  it  is 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  233 

only  necessary  to  know  that  the  word  sprinkle  is  always  followed  by 
the  substance  sprinkled,  and  next  by  the  object.  We  can  sprinkle  ashes, 
dust,  water,  or  blood,  &c.  because  the  particles  can  be  severed  with  ease  ; 
but  can  we  sprinkle  a  man !  We  may  sprinkle  something  upon  him ; 
but  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  sprinkle  another  in  a  river;  and 
it  is  equally  so  to  sprinkle  the  river  upon  him.  The  same  reason- 
inff  will  apply  to  pour.  This  verb  is  also  to  be  followed  by  the 
substance  poured.  Now,  was  it  not  impossible  to  pour  the  Jews  in 
the  Jordan,  or  any  where  else?  And  to  pour  the  Jordan  upon  them 
would  be  as  inacceptable  to  them  as  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  the  Baptist.  It  remains,  then,  that  we  try  the  word  immerse. 
That,  too,  is  followed  by  the  substance  to  be  immersed.  Now  a  man 
can  be  immersed  in  water,  in  oil,  in  sand,  in  grief,  in  debt,  or  in  the  Spi- 
rit, though  it  is  impossible  to  pour  him  into  any  one  of  these.  Having, 
then,  subjected  these  three  to  the  same  law  of  trial ;  two  are  condemned 
and  reprobate :  one  only  is  possible,  desirable,  and  reasonable. 

This  test  will  hold  to  the  end  of  the  volume ;  even  where  the  associa- 
tion may  appear  strange  and  uncouth  in  style,  it  will  always  be  not  only 
practicable  in  fact,  but  good  in  meaning.  For  example :  Jesus  was  to 
baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  poured  out  fills 
some  place ;  into  that  persons  may  be  immersed ;  as  we  are  said  to  be 
immersed  in  debt,  in  affliction,  in  any  special  trouble ;  but  a  person  can- 
not be  sprinkled  into  these.  Such  an  operation  is  always  impossible, 
under  any  view,  literal  or  figurative. 

Let  it  be  carefully  noted,  in  this  most  useful  test,  that  the  three  words 
are  all  to  be  subjected  to  the  same  laws.  1st.  The  material  is  always  to 
follow  the  verb.  2nd.  The  place,  or  thing,  or  relation  into  which  the 
action  is  to  be  performed,  is  to  follow  the  material.  In  baptism,  the  ma- 
terial is  a  man ;  the  element,  water.  Now,  as  John  cannot  pour  the 
material  James,  neither  can  he  sprinkle  him ;  but  he  can  immerse  him  in 
a  river,  in  debt,  in  grief,  &c.  It  is  highly  improper  and  ungrammatical 
to  use  such  a  phrase,  unless  by  special  agreement  of  the  parties  present. 

Some  persons,  accustomed  to  a  very  loose  style,  see  no  impropriety  in 
the  phrase,  "sprinkle  him — pour  him,"  because  of  the  supplement  in 
their  own  minds.  They  think  of  the  material  which  is  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon  him,  and,  for  brevity's  sake,  say,  sprinkle  him;  that  is, 
sprinkle  dust  or  water  upon  him.  But  in  testing  the  propriety  of  such 
phrases,  the  ellipsis  must  be  supplied.  There  is  no  ellipsis  in  "  immerse 
^im;"  but  there  is  always  in  sprinkle  ox  pour  him.  The  material  is 
suppressed,  because  it  is  supposed  to  be  understood,  as  in  the  case — < 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  him.  Now,  while  the  abbreviation  may  be 
tolerated,  so  far  as  time  is  concerned,  it  is  intolerable  in  physical  and 
grammatical  propriety ;  because  it  is  physically  impossible  to  scatter  a  man 
into  particles  like  dust,  or  to  pour  him  out  like  water ;  and  it  is  grammat- 
ically improper  to  suppress  the  proper  object  of  the  verb,  and  to  place 
after  it  a  word  not  governed  by  it. 

Others,  again,  with  Mr.  Williams  and  Dr.  Beecher,  become  so  capti- 
vated with  a  peculiar  theory,  that  they  neither  see  nor  feel  any  thing 
repulsive  in  such  sayings  as — "  Jesus  made  and  purified  more  disciples 
than  John  ;  though  Jesus  purified  not  himself,  but  his  disciples."  "  I  have 
a  purification  to  be  purified  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be 
accomplished."  "He  that  believeth  and  is  purified  shall  be  saved." 
"  We  are  buried  with  him  by  purification  into  death."     "  Christ  sent  me 

u2 


234  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

not  to  purify,  says  Paul,  but  to  preach!!"  What  further 'witness  need 
we,  that  when  a  man  is  captivated  with  nis  own  inventions,  he  may  be 
reconciled  to  any  thing,  however  incongruous  and  absurd  in  the  eye  of 
reason,  and  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  that  learned  doctor.  Common 
Sense.  To  cap  the  climax,  Dr.  Beecher  ends  his  quotations  with  "  The 
like  figure  whereunto  purification  doth  also  now  save  us." 

As  Mr.  Rice  has  elaborated  wash  with  persevering  assiduity,  as  his 
great  favorite,  it  is  due  to  him,  as  complimentary  to  his  good  taste,  and  as 
a  reward  for  his  labor,  that  I  should  fairly,  if  not  fully,  test  the  propriety 
and  pertinency  of  his  definition  by  a  few  select  examples.  He  contends  that 
it  is  a  proper  meaning  of  baptizo.  It  will,  therefore,  be  convertible  with 
baptizo,  and  always  make  good  sense,  substituted  for  it,  in  every  passage 
in  ■which  it  is  found,  according  to  the  law  and  argument  now  before  us. 
To  proceed — we  shall  give  a  few  specimens  and  try  it  in  a  few  cases. 
Jesus  says,  Matth.  xx.  33,  I  have  a  washing  to  undergo,  and  how  am 
I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished !  Again,  Rom.  vi.  We  are  buried 
with  him  by  a  washing  into  death.  Acts  i.  and  v.,  John  verily  washed  in 
water,  but  you  shall  be  washed  in  the  Holy  Spirit  not  many  days  hence. 
1  Cor.  xii.  13,  For  by  one  Spirit  we  have  all  been  washed,  poured,  or 
sprinkled  into  one  body,  &c.  To  cap  the  climax,  John  said,  Matth.  iiL 
and  xi.,  I  indeed  wash  you  in  water  unto  repentance — but  he  shall  wash 
you  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  shall  wash  you  in  fire  ! !  Needs  any  one  a 
clearer  refutation  of  the  assumption  that  washing  is  the  proper  represen- 
tation of  baptizo,  in  our  language !  When  ever  men  can  be  washed  in 
fire,  then,  and  not  till  then,  can  I  believe  that  baptizo  properly,  or  literally 
means  to  wash. 

As  before  said,  in  every  passage  in  the  Bible,  where  baptizo  is  found 
dip  or  immerse  will  make  good  sense,  but  not  so  sprinkle,  pour,  wash, 
purify.  In  this  way  persons,  not  acquainted  with  the  original  tongues, 
may  always  arrive  at  the  most  satisfactory  certainty  of  the  proper  inter- 
pretation of  a  word. 

XII.  I  hasten  to  my  twelfth  argument.  It  is  one  that  I  hoped  to  have 
had  an  hour  to  develop  and  illustrate.  It  is  drawn  from  the  apostolic 
allusions  to  baptism,  such  as  Rom.  vi.  4.,  where  it  is  compared  to  a  &m- 
rial  and  resurrection;  also  to  a  planting  of  seeds  in  the  earth.  This 
occurs,  also,  in  the  second  chapter  of  Colossians,  and  again,  by  Peter,  it 
is  compared  to  Noah's  salvation  by  water  in  the  ark,  &c.  The  first  pas- 
sage quoted,  Romans  vi.  4,  is  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Again, 
Col.  ii.  15,  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  you  are  risen  with 
him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead." 

Baptism,  as  administered  by  the  primitive  church,  was  a  monumental 
evidence  of  the  three  great  facts  of  man's  redemption  from  sin,  death,  and 
the  grave,  by  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  On  pre- 
senting himself,  the  candidate  confessed  judgment  against  himself  by  ad- 
mitting his  desert  of  death  for  sin,  and  promising  to  die  unto  it ;  whUe 
confessing  that  Jesus  died  for  our  sins,  was  buried,  and  rose  again  for  our 
justification.  His  immersion  in  water,  and  emersion  out  of  it,  was  a 
beautiful  commemorative  institution  indicative  of  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Messiah.  ,  All  the  world  comprehends  this  definition  of  bap- 
tizo.    It  has  done  more  than  a  thousand  volumes  to  break  down  the  Pa- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  235 

pal  institution  of  sprinkling.  It  is  only  recently,  sorely  pressed  by  its  im- 
mense weight,  that  any  one  presumed  to  spiritualize  it  away.  As  I  shall 
not  have  time  to  argue  it  at  length,  I  shall  let  a  few  of  the  great  and  learn- 
ed of  the  infant  sprinklers  be  heard  on  the  occasion.  They  will  accom- 
plish two  point,  viz:  1.  Establish  the  fact  of  the  resemblance;  and  2. 
Somewhat  illustrate  the  meaning  of  these  passages.  We  shall,  as  usual, 
begin  with  Calvin. 

Calvin:  "Are  you  ignorant! — The  apostle  proves  that  Christ  destroys 
sin  in  his  people  from  the  elFect  of  baptism,  by  which  we  are  initiated  into 
the  faith  of  the  Messiah.  For  we,  without  controversy,  put  on  Christ  in 
baptism,  and  are  baptized  on  this  condition,  that  we  may  be  one  with  him. 
Paul  thus  assumes  another  principle,  that  we  may  then  truly  grow  into  the 
body  of  Christ  when  his  death  produces  its  own  fruit  in  us  who  believe. 
Nay,  he  teaches  us  that  this  fellowship  of  his  death  is  chiefly  to  be  regarded 
in  baptism,  for  washing  alone  is  not  proposed  in  this  initiatory  ordinance, 
but  mortification,  and  the  death  of  the  old  man ;  whence  the  efficacy  of 
Christ's  death  shows  itself  from  the  moment  we  are  received  into  his  grace." 

Barnes:  "  Therefore,  we  are  buried,  S/^c.  It  is  altogether  probable  that 
the  apostle  in  this  place  had  allusion  to  the  custom  of  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion. This  cannot,  indeed,  be  proved,  so  as  to  be  liable  to  no  objection ; 
but  I  presume  that  this  is  the  idea  that  would  strike  the  great  mass  of 
unprejudiced  readers." 

Locke :  "  We  did  own  some  kind  of  death  by  being  buried  under  the 
water,  which,  being  buried  with  him,  i.  e.  in  conformity  to  his  burial,  as 
a  confession  of  our  being  dead,  was  to  signify,  that  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  into  a  glorious  life  with  his  Father,  even  so  we,  being  raised 
from  our  typical  death  and  burial  in  baptism,  should  lead  a  new  sort  of  life, 
wholly  different  from  our  former,  in  some  approaches  towards  that  heavenly 
life  that  Christ  is  risen  to." 

Wall:  "  As  to  the  manner  of  baptism  then  generally  used,  tbe  texts  pro- 
duced by  every  one  that  speaks  of  these  matters,  John  iii.  23,  Mark  i.  5, 
Acts  viii.  38,  are  undeniable  proofs  that  the  baptized  person  went  ordinarily 
into  the  water,  and  sometimes  the  baptist  too.  We  should  not  know  from 
these  accounts,  wliether  the  whole  body  of  the  baptized  was  put  under 
water,  head  and  all,  were  it  not  for  two  later  proofs,  which  seem  to  me  to 
PUT  IT  OUT  OF  QUESTION  :  0716,  that  St.  Paul  does  twice,  in  an  allusive  way 
of  speaking,  call  baptism  a  burial ;  the  other,  the  customs  of  the  christians, 
in  the  near  succeeding  times,  which,  being  more  largely  and  particularly 
delivered  in  books,  is  known  to  have  been  generally,  or  ordinarily,  a  total 
immersion." 

Archbishop  7\llotson :  "Anciently,  those  who  were  baptized,  were  im- 
mersed and  buried  in  the  water,  to  represent  their  death  to  sin  ;  and  then 
did  rise  up  out  of  the  water,  to  signify  their  entrance  upon  a  new  life. 
And  to  these  customs  the  apostle  alludes,  Rom.  vi.  2 — 5." 

Archbishop  Seeker:  "Burying,  as  it  were,  the  person  baptized  in  the 
water,  and  raising  him  out  again,  without  question,  was  anciently  the  more 
usual  method  ;  on  account  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  baptism  as  represent- 
ing both  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  what  is  grounded 
on  them, — our  being  dead  and  buried  to  sin,  and  our  rising  again  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life." 

iSa?;i.  Clarke  :  "  We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  6^c.  In  primitive 
times,  the  manner  of  baptizing  was  by  immersion,  or  dipping  tbe  whole 
body  into  tbe  water.  And  this  manner  of  doing  it  was  a  very  significant 
emblem  of  the  dying  and  rising  again,  referred  to  by  St.  Paul,  in  the  above 
mentioned  similitude." 

Wells:  "  St.  Paul  here  alludes  to  immersion,  or  dipping  the  whole  body 
tinder  water  in  baptism  ;  which,  he  intimates,  did  typify  the  death  and 
burial  (of  the  person  baptized)  to  sin,  and  his  rising  up  out  of  the  water  did 
typify  his  resurrection  to  newness  of  life." 


236  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Bishop  JVicholson:  "In  the  grave  with  Christ  we  went  not;  for  our 
bodies  were  not,  could  not  be  buried  with  his  ;  but  iii  baptism,  by  a  kind  of 
analogy  or  resemblance,  while  our  bodies  are  under  the  water,  we  may  be 
said  to  be  buried  with  him." 

Doddridge  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism.     It  seems  the  part  of  candor 
to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immer 
sion." 

George  Wliitejield :  "  It  is  certain  that  in  the  words  of  our  text,  Rom.  vu 
3,  4,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptism,  which  was  by  immer- 
sion, which  is  what  our  own  church  allows,"  &c. 

John  Wesley:  ^'^  Buried  with  him — alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of 
baptizing  by  immersion." 

Whitby:  "It  being  so  expressly  declared  here,  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii. 
12,  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water  ■ 
and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity  to  his  death,  by  dying  to  sin, 
being  taken  hence ;  and  this  immersion  being  religiously  observed  by  all 
christians  for  thirteen  centuries,  and  approved  by  our  church,  and  the  change 
of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the  author  of  this 
institution,  or  any  licence  from  any  council  of  the  church,  being  that  which 
the  Romanist  still  urges  to  justify  his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  ;  it 
were  to  be  wished  that  this  custom  might  be  again  of  general  use,  and 
aspersion  only  permitted,  as  of  old,  in  case  of  the  Clinici,  or  in  present 
danger  of  death." 

Assembly  of  Divines  :  "  If  we  have  been  planted  together,  S^c.  By  this 
elegant  similitude  the  apostle  represents  to  us,  that  as  a  plant  that  is  set  in 
the  earth  lieth  as  dead  and  immoveable  for  a  time,  but  after  springs  up  and 
flourishes,  so  Christ's  body  lay  dead  for  a  while  in  the  grave,  but  sprung  up 
and  flourished  in  his  resurrection  ;  and  we  also,  when  we  are  baptized,  are 
buried,  as  it  were,  in  the  water  for  a  time,  but  after  are  raised  up  to  new- 
ness of  life." 

I  cannot  find  room  for  the  witnesses  I  could  accumulate  on  this  point- 
Concurrent  with  these  are  Grotius,  Beza,  Bloomfield,  Koppe,  Rosenmul- 
ler,  McKnight,  &c.  &c.  I  will  conclude  this  venerable,  learned,  and 
highly  authoritative  list,  with  the  most  distinguished  Presbyterian  preacher 
now  living.  In  his  recent  "  Lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,"  the 
justly  honored  Thomas  Chalmers,  D.  D.  and  LL.  D.,  boldly  and  inde- 
pendently thus  expresses  himself. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18— 6d,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixteenth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  happy  to  discover,  that  my  friend  is  getting 
along.  Three  days  was  the  length  of  time  we  expected  to  spend  on  this 
subject ;  but  I  have  given  him  seven  hours  more,  because  he  had  fallen 
almost  two  days  behind  in  his  argument.  I  intend  that  all  shall  see,  that 
the  clergy  are  not  so  much  afraid  of  the  light  as  he  has  represented  them. 

Baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  the  gentleman  has  represented  as  a 
very  ridiculous  afl'air — a  thing  which  will  not  bear  investigation,  even  for 
an  hour ;  and  yet,  he  has  been  four  days  laboring  most  faithfully  to  sus- 
tain the  claims  of  immersion,  and  is  yet  calling  for  more  time ! ! !  One 
good  argument,  he  says,  is  sufficient  to  prove  any  point;  but  he  has  not 
yet  found  even  one ;  and  I  presume,  he  will  not. 

I  think  it  would  have  been  wise  in  him  to  have  passed  in  silence  Paul's 
baptism  :  it  is  so  obviously  unfavorable  to  immersion.  He  talks  about  a 
peculiar  idiom  in  the  expressions  used  on  that  occasion.  But  what  is 
there  peculiar  about  it  ?  Ananias  said  to  him,  "  Arise  (stand  up)  and  be 
baptized;  and  he  arose  and  was  baptized."     I  see  nothing  peculiar  in  the 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  237 

expression.  Are  they  not  precisely  like  those  quoted  to  show  the  mean- 
ing o[  anastas?  "In  those  days  Peter  stood  up  [anastas)  in  the  midst 
of  the  brethren,  and  said,"  &c.  "  Then  Paul  stood  up  \anastas)  and 
beckoning  with  his  hand,  said,"  &c.  I  am  unable  to  discover  the  slight- 
est peculiarity  of  idiom.  The  plain,  unsophisticated  meaning  is,  that 
Paul  stood  up  in  the  house,  and  was  (not  immersed,  but)  baptized — • 
a  very  diflerent  operation.  A  person  may  indeed  be  baptized  by  immer- 
sion ;  yet  immersion  and  baptism  are  by  no  means  identical. 

I  expressed  myself  as  well  pleased  with  the  gentleman's  dissertation  on 
the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer,  put  into  water  to  show  that  blood  had  a  per- 
manent virtue  to  atone  for  sin ;  because,  since  the  water  in  baptism  is  a 
symbol  of  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  should  be  sprinkled  upon  the  morally  unclean,  as  the 
ashes  of  the  heifer  were  sprinkled  upon  those  ceremonially  unclean.  But 
he  now  represents  me  as  making  the  sprinkling  under  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion a  type  of  baptism.  I  said  nothing  about  types :  I  did  not  use  the 
word  type  at  all.  I  said,  that  when  the  Lord  chose  a  mode  of  represent- 
ing purification,  sprinkling  was  the  mode  selected;  and  I  argued,  that  if  it 
was  once  an  impressive  and  significant  mode,  it  must  be  so  yet.  I  had 
no  occasion  to  speak  of  types ;  I  spoke  only  of  the  mode  of  applying  wa- 
ter as  an  emblem  of  purification.  Formerly  sprinkling  was  certainly  the 
best  mode,  or  God  would  not  have  selected  it ;  but  now,  if  we  are  to  be- 
lieve the  gentleman,  it  will  not  answer  at  all !  Why  not?  Can  any  one 
give  a  reason  why  it  is  not  now  as  appropriate  an  emblem  of  spiritual 
cleansing  as  formerly  ?     I  presume,  it  would  be  difficult  to  do. 

Mr.  Campbell  says,  I  admit,  that  eis  will  take  a  man  to  or  into  the  wa- 
ter; but  maintain,  that  baptizo  will  not  put  him  under ;  and  he  asks,  what 
Greek  word  will  express  the  action  of  putting  under.  I  have  already 
given  the  word  which  would  definitely  express  the  idea  of  putting  under ; 
and  it  is  not  a  word  of  my  selection.  It  was  selected  by  the  Greek 
fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries.  When  immersion  became  the 
general  practice  among  them,  they  employed  baptizo  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nance ;  but  when  they  wished  definitely  to  express  the  mode  of  adminiis- 
tering  it  by  immersion,  they  used  kataduo.  Thus  Photius  speaks  of  the 
three  immersions  and  emersions  [treis  katadiiseis  kai  anaduseis)  of  bap- 
tism. Now  to  translate  the  word  baptisma,  immersion,  in  this  passage, 
as  Mr.  C.  does,  would  make  perfect  nonsense.  It  would  read  thus :  the 
three  immersions  and  emersions  of  immersion  [baptismatos .')  AVhat 
sense  would  this  make?  It  is  evident,  that  the  Greeks  employed  baptizo 
and  baptisma  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  kataduo,  to  express 
the  mode  of  administering  it  by  immersion ;  for  when  a  person  was  bap- 
tized on  a  sick  bed  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  they  spoke  of  him  as  bap- 
tized. Dr.  Gale,  as  I  have  already  proved,  quotes  the  Greek  fathers, 
using  kataduo,  and  represents  it  as  properly  expressing  immersion. 
"  Kataduson  me — plunge  me  into  Jordan."  I  ask  again,  how  came  it  to 
pass,  that  when  immersion  prevailed  among  the  Greeks,  they  selected 
another  word  instead  of  baptizo,  to  express  the  mode  of  administering 
baptism  ?  I^'hy  did  they  drop  the  luord  uniformly  used  in  the  Bible, 
and  take  another,  if,  as  Mr.  C.  insists,  baptizo  is  precisely  the  word  to 
express  the  specific  action  of  immersing? 

Again,  when  immersion  prevailed  amongst  the  Latins,  they,  too,  found 
other  words  by  which  to  express  that  mode.  Baptizo  and  baptismus, 
transferred  as  in  our  Bible,  expressed  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  but  intin- 


238  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

go,  mergo,  mergito,  &c.  expressed  the  mode  of  administering  it  by  im- 
mersion. The  Latin  fathers,  I  presume,  understood  the  Greek  better  than 
I  or  my  friend.  Why,  then,  did  they  select  other  words  instead  of  hapti- 
zo,  to  denote  immersion  ?  The  only  possible  reason  was,  that  baptizo 
did  not  definitely  express  immersion. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  that  according  to  my  logic,  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  men  to  ascertain  their  duty.  For  example,  we  could  not 
know  whether  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  supper  the  apostles  did  really 
eat  bread ;  for  acids  are  said  to  eat  divers  things  !  Why,  I  presume, 
there  would  be  no  great  difficulty  about  it,  if  we  could  only  ascertain 
whether  the  apostles  were  acids  !  !  !  Men,  I  believe,  are  not  in  the  habit 
of  consuming  things  by  means  of  acidity.  The  gentleman,  however, 
contends  for  the  original  meaning  of  words ;  and  he  tells  us,  eat  means  to 
chew.  Of  course,  he  should  contend  that  acids  chew  !  It  is  amusing  to 
see  him  running  to  objections  so  perfectly  flimsy,  in  order  to  sustain 
immersion. 

We  have  now  come  to  my  friend's  eleventh  argument,  designed  for  his 
unlearned  hearers.  His  method  of  reading  his  arguments,  I  think,  is 
not  adapted  to  please  either  the  learned  or  unlearned — certainly  not  the 
latter.  But  he  proposes  to  substitute  the  definition  for  the  word  defined  ; 
and  he  tries  sprinkle  and  pour  instead  of  baptism — thus:  they  were 
sprinkled  in  Jordan,  or  poured  in  Jordan,  Sic.  If  it  be  true,  that  baptizo 
definitely  expresses  immersing,  it  is  easy  to  show  the  absurdity  of  sub- 
stituting for  it  words  expressing  ditferent  modes  ;  but  this  is  precisely  the 
point  to  be  established.  I  can  travel  by  walking  or  riding  ;  but  it  would 
not  do  to  substitute  walking  or  riding  for  the  word  travel.  For  this  word 
expresses  the  thing  done;  but  walking  or  riding  denotes  the  mode  of 
doing  it.  If  I  were  to  say,  I  saw  a  man  laboring  to-day;  would  you 
deem  it  correct  to  snhsixiwie ploughing  for  the  word  laboring?  Certainly 
not ;  for  the  word  labor  expresses  more  than  ploughing.  There  are 
many  ways  in  which  a  man  may  labor.  I  can  ivash  my  hands  either  by 
pouring  water  on  them,  or  by  dipping  them  into  water;  but  you  would 
not  consider  it  correct  to  say  to  your  child,  go,  pour  your  hands,  or,  go, 
dip  your  hands  ;  though  if  he  should  either  have  water  poured  on  them, 
or  dip  them,  he  might  obey  your  command  to  laash  them.  So  baptizo 
expresses  the  thing  done,  the  application  of  water  to  a  person  or  thing; 
but  it  does  not  express  the  7node  of  doing  it. 

The  gentleman,  however,  tries  the  word  tvash,  and  the  word  purify ; 
and  he  thinks  baptizo  cannot  mean  either  the  one  or  the  other.  The 
Lord's  supper  is  taken  by  eating  and  drinking ;  but  if  you  would  sub- 
stitute eat  or  drink  for  deipnon,  the  word  sometimes  used  to  denote  that 
ordinance,  it  would  make  nonsense  ;  and  Mr.  Campbell  might  thus  prove, 
according  to  his  logic,  that  the  supper  is  not  to  be  taken  by  eating  and 
drinking !  I  think  it  probable,  if  he  had  lived  in  Paul's  day,  he  would 
have  ridiculed  the  apostle ;  for  he  calls  baptism  a  ivashing.  He  says, 
God  saves  us  "  by  the  ivashing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  Tit.  iii.  5.  Agahi,  speaking  of  the  wicked,  he  says  "And 
such  were  some  of  you ;  but  ye  are  ivashed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,"  &c. 
1  Cor.  vi.  11.  In  these  and  similar  passages  the  gentleman  admits,  that 
Paul  spoke  of  baptism.  He,  therefore,  is  forced  to  admit,  that  baptism  is 
a  washing.  And  if  it  is  not,  Paul  was  evidendy  in  an  error;  but  if  bap- 
tism is  a  washing,  then  it  means  washing. 

I  should  be  happy  to  hear  from  my  friend,  a  dissertation  on  the  word 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  239 

deipnon,  showing,  from  the  primary  or  original  meaning  of  the  word,  the 
manner  in  which  the  Lord's  supper  should  be  administered  and  received. 
Could  he  determine  from  the  word  alone  what  elements  should  be  used, 
and  in  what  quantity?  Could  he  learn  from  it  any  thing  more  than  that 
something  was  to  be  eaten  ?  He  could  not.  We  must  go  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  ordinance,  and  learn  its  nature  and  design,  before  we  can  de- 
termine the  manner  of  receiving  it.  And  so  we  must  go  to  the  institution 
of  baptism,  and  learn  its  nature  and  design,  in  order  to  understand  how 
it  should  be  administered. 

But  the  gentleman  Avould  put  immerse  in  place  of  baptize;  and  this, 
he  supposes,  would  make  excellent  sense.  But  in  strictness  of  language 
immerse  does  not  express  all  for  which  he  is  contending.  A  man  may 
be  immersed,  without  being  submersed.  He  is  contending  for  the  entire 
submersion  of  the  body  in  water.  Some  have  thought  the  word  plunge 
a  fair  definition  of  baptizo.  Let  us  try  it.  "John  the  plunger  did  plunge 
in  the  wilderness,  and  preached  the  plunging  of  repentance  !"'  Some  pre- 
fer the  word  dip.  Let  us  try  it.  "John  the  dipper  did  dip  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  preached  the  dipping  of  repentance,"  &c.  Such  language 
sounds  very  curiously.     []A  laugh. 3 

Mr.  Campbell  told  you,  that  circumcision  signifies  cutting  round.  Now 
put  the  definition  in  place  of  the  word,  as  applied  to  a  religious  rite.  Let 
us  now  read  in  Gen.  xvii.  "  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep 
between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee :  every  man  child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised  (cut  around.)  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old 
shall  be  circumcised  (cut  around.)  And  the  uncircumcised  (uncut  around) 
man  child."  My  friends,  you  see  it  wont  do.  My  friend  does  not  like 
the  expression  ;  but  I  must  say,  it  ivont  do  !     [A  laugh.] 

The  truth  is,  baptism  is  the  word  appropriated  to  denote  a  religious  or- 
dinance ;  and  it  will  not  do  to  substitute  in  its  place  any  word  which  ex- 
presses merely  the  mode  of  its  administration.  The  ordinance  is  one 
thing;  the  mode  of  administering  it  is  another.  The  principle,  therefore, 
on  which  the  gentleman  reasons,  is  wholly  unsound,  and  will  prove  quite 
fatal  to  plunging  or  submersion,  as  to  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Mr.  Campbell  has,  at  length,  reached  his  argument  founded  on  the 
burial  spoken  of  in  Rom.  vi.  1.  I  discover,  however,  that  instead  of 
making  an  argument  from  the  passage,  he  contents  himself  with  reading 
the  opinions  of  others.  Almost  any  one  could  do  as  much.  These  opin- 
ions have  been  published  and  republished  for  the  thousandth  time,  and 
are  found  in  almost  every  little  book  that  has  been  published  in  favor  of 
immersion. 

Calvin  is  brought  forward  as  one  of  his  authorities ;  but  I  am  disposed 
to  think,  the  gentleman  has  done  Calvin  injustice.  For  in  looking  over 
his  commentary  on  Rom.  vi.,  I  saw  no  allusion  to  immersion. 

Rev.  A.  Barnes  is  another  whose  opinion  is  adduced.  Mr.  Barnes  is  a 
man,  doubtless,  of  considerable  learning;  but  I  will  bring  against  him  the 
authority  of  Prof.  Stuart,  an  older  and  abler  critic,  who  has  proved  with 
great  clearness,  that  tliere  is  in  the  passage  no  allusion  to  immersion.  I 
will  also  present  the  authority  of  Dr.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  who  is  one  of 
the  ablest  critical  writers. 

Dr.  Wall  was  quoted ;  he  was  notoriously  an  immersionist  of  the  old 
school.  He  was  for  allowing  pouring  only  in  cases  of  necessity.  Dr. 
Clarke  was  also  quoted ;  but  I  apprehend,  that  he  was  not  treated  quite 
fairly.     In  his  comment  on  the  6th  of  Romans,  be  distinctly  says,  it  can- 


i40  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

not  be  certainly  proved,  that  the  apostle  alluded  to  immersion,  and  in  his 
remarks  on  Matth.  iii.  6,  he  says,  it  is  certain  that  baptizo  means  both  to 
dip  and  to  sprinkle.  John  Wesley  was  a  man  of  learning ;  but  he  was 
not  on  the  side  of  my  friend.     As  already  quoted,  he  says: 

"  The  matter  of  this  sacrament  is  water,  which,  as  it  has  a  natural  power 
of  cleansing,  is  the  more  fit  for  this  symbolical  use.  Baptism  is  performed 
by  washing,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the  person  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  hereby  devoted  to  the  ever  blessed  Trinity.  I 
bslj,  hy  washing,  sprinkling,  or  dipping;  because  it  is  not  determined  in 
Scripture  in  which  of  these  ways  it  shall  be  done,  neither  by  any  express 
precept,  nor  by  any  such  example  as  clearly  proves  it ;  nor  by  the  force  or 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism." — Wesley,  p.  144. 

Whitefield  is  another  of  the  gentleman's  authorities.  He  was  a  great 
preacher;  but  I  never  heard  that  he  was  considered  a  learned  critic.  He 
spent  a  considerable  part  of  his  life  in  going  from  place  to  place,  and  frora 
country  to  country,  preaching  the  Gospel  to  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands. It  is  not  to  be  presumed,  therefore,  that  his  critical  knowledge 
was  very  extensive. 

Dr.  Whitby  was  one  of  the  clergy  of  the  church  of  England  who  lived 
not  long  after  immersion  had  generally  ceased  to  be  practiced  in  that 
church,  and  who  were  very  solicitous  to  have  it  restored,  except  in  cases 
of  necessity.  Like  Wall,  he  was  a  decided  immersionist.  McKnight  be- 
longed to  the  same  general  class. 

The  gentleman  quoted  the  Assembly  of  Divines.  I  presume,  he  is 
aware  that  the  Notes  which  bear  their  name,  were  not  really  the  work  of 
that  body,  but  only  of  a  few  individuals.  He  has,  however,  repeatedly 
published  the  statement,  that  in  that  Assembly  the  resolution  in  favor  of 
sprinkling  was  carried  by  only  one  of  a  majority — that  there  were  twenty- 
four  for  immersion,  and  twenty-four  for  sprinkling,  and  Dr.  Lightfoot  gave 
the  casting  vote.  I  happen  to  have  the  account  of  that  matter,  as  given 
by  Lightfoot  himself,  from  which  I  will  read  an  extractor  two  :  Dr.  Light- 
foot  says  : 

"  Then  fell  we  upon  the  work  of  the  day,  which  was  about  baptizing  of 
the  child,  whether  to  dip  him  or  sprinkle.  And  this  proposition:  "It  is 
lawful  and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the  child,"  had  been  canvassed  before  our 
adjourning,  and  was  ready  now  to  vote  ;  but  I  spake  against  it  as  being 
very  unfit  to  vote — that  it  was  lawful  to  sprinkle  when  every  one  grants  it. 
Whereupon,  it  was  fallen  upon,  sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping 
should  be  tolerated  with  it,"  &c.  "  After  a  long  dispute  it  was  at  last  put 
to  the  question,  whether  the  Directory  should  run  thus :  '  The  minister  shall 
take  water  and  sprinkle,  or  pour  it  with  his  hand,  upon  the  face  or  forehead 
of  the  child  ;  and  it  was  voted  so  indifferently,  that  we  were  glad  to  count 
names  twice,  for  so  many  were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  excluded,  that  the 
■votes  came  to  an  equality  within  one — for  the  one  side  was  twenty-four,  and 
the  other  twenty-five  ;  the  twenty-four  for  the  reserving  of  dipping,  and  the 
twenty-five  against  it ;  and  there  grew  a  great  heat  upon  it ;  and  when  we 
had  done  all,  we  concluded  nothing  in  it,  but  the  business  was  recommitted.' 
*  *  *  *  But  \i  was  first  thought  fit  to  go  through  the  business  by  degrees, 
and  so  it  was  first  put  to  the  vote,  and  voted  thus  affirmatively  :  '  That  pour- 
ing on  of  water,  or  sprinkling  of  it  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  is 
lawful  and  sufficient.'  But  I  excepted  at  the  word  '  lawful,'  as  too  poor,  for 
that  it  was  as  if  we  should  put  this  query — whether  it  be  lawful  to  adminis- 
ter the  Lord's  supper  in  bread  and  wine?  And  I  moved  that  it  might  be 
expressed  thus:  '  It  is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  sufficient ;'  and  it  was  done 
eo  accordingly.  But  as  for  the  dispute  itself  about  dipping,  it  was  thought 
fit  and  most  safe  to  let  it  alone,  and  to  express  it  thus  in  our  Directory — 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  241 

♦  He  is  to  baptize  the  child  with  water,  which  for  the  manner  of  doincr  is 
not  only  lawful,  but  also  sutScicnt  and  most  expedient  to  be  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  water  on  the  face  of  the  child,  without  any  other  ceremony.' 
But  this  cost  a  great  deal  of  time  about  the  wording  it." — P'utman  &,-  Ligiit- 
fooVs  Works,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  300-1. 

Tliis  is  the  account  given  by  Pitlman  and  Lightfoot,  and  the  gentle- 
man is  welcome  to  their  testimony.  It  shows  how  impartially  he  has 
recorded  historical  facts  ! 

Dr.  Chalmers  is  a  learned  and  great  man.  But  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  Campbell  he  says,  that  he  regards 
the  mode  of  baptism  as  a  matter  of  entire  indifference  ;  and,  as  I  have 
repeatedly  remarked,  no  man  is  likely  to  go  through  a  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  a  subject  in  regard  to  whicli  he  is  perfectly  indifferent.  If  a  man 
express  himself  as  perfectly  indifferent  concerning  any  political  question 
which  agitates  the  public  mind,  you  at  once  conclude  that  he  has  not 
given  himself  much  trouble  to  investigate  it ;  and  so  it  is  on  religious 
subjects.  But,  as  before  remarked,  I  will  balance  his  great  names  with 
others  equally  great ;  for  it  appears  that  the  controversy  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  celebrated  names,  not  by  argument.  I  have  already  given  you 
the  concessions  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  christians,  who  practiced  gene- 
rally trine  immersion,  and  who,  with  one  voice,  pronounce  pouring  and 
sprinkling  valid  and  scriptural  baptism. 

But  let  us  examine  the  passage  in  question  ;  and  this,  I  believe,  is  the 
last  strong-hold  of  immersion.  I  will  read  the  passage  :  "  What  shall  we 
say  then  ?  shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  forbid. 
How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know  ye 
not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ; 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  resurrection :  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we 
should  not  serve  sin,"  Rom.  vi.  1 — 6. 

The  first  question  that  naturally  presents  itself  in  view  of  this  pas- 
sage, is  this:  what  is  the  subject  on  which  the  apostle  is  writing?  what 
is  he  aiming  to  prove?  He  had,  in  the  previous  part  of  the  epistle, 
proved  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 
He  now  anticipates  and  answers  an  objection  urged  by  some  against  this 
doctrine,  viz  :  that  its  tendency  is  to  induce  men  to  commit  sin  ;  and  he 
proves  that,  so  far  from  having  any  such  tendency,  this  doctrine  necessa- 
rily results  in  a  holy  life  in  the  case  of  all  who  sincerely  embrace  it.  He 
is  not  at  all  speaking  of  the  mode  of  baptism ;  his  single  aim  is  to  expose 
this  Jewish  cavil,  and  to  prove  that  Christianity,  from  its  very  nature, 
leads  those  who  embrace  it  to  a  holy  life.  Having  now  learned  the  main 
object  of  his  argument,  we  are  prepared  to  understand  his  language. 

We  find  in  the  passage  before  us,  some  five  expressions  figuratively 
employed,  viz  :  death,  burial,  resurrection,  planting,  crucifixion.  These 
figurative  expressions  must,  of  course,  be  interpreted  consistently  with 
each  other.  If,  then,  we  can  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  death  and  the 
resurrection  of  which  he  speaks,  we  shall  easily  understand  the  burial. 
The  death  is  certainly  spiritual — a  death  to  sin.  "  How  shall  we  that  are 
dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?"  verse  2.  The  resurrection  is  also 
16  X 


242  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

spiritual — a  resurrection  to  a  new  life.  "  Therefore  "\ve  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  ive  also  should  walk  in  neivness  of 
life^''  verse  4.  The  death  is  spiritual,  the  resurrection  is  spiritual,  and 
the  burial,  must  it  not  also  be  spiritual?  Would  you  so  interpret  the  pas- 
sage as  to  have  a  spiritual  death,  a  spiritual  resurrection,  and  a  physical 
burial  of  the  body  under  water  ?  !  Would  these  three  things  be  consist- 
ent ?  The  simple  meaning  is,  that  the  old  man  (our  corrupt  nature)  is 
dead  and  liuried ;  and  the  new  man  (our  renewed  nature)  is  risen  to  live 
a  new  life.  Christ  diedyb?"  sin,  that  is,  to  deliver  us  from  sin ;  so  they 
who  are  baptized  into  his  death,  profess  their  desire  and  purpose  to  die 
unto  sin — to  enjoy  the  benefits  arising  from  his  death.  Christ  arose  liter- 
ally for  our  justification  ;  so  they  who  are  baptized  into  Christ,  rise  spirit- 
ually and  live  a  new,  a  holy  life.  Baptism,  therefore,  is  that  ordinance 
by  M'hich  we  become  publicly  and  visibly  identified  with  Christ  in  his 
death  and  resurrection.  The  same  idea  is  presented  in  the  planting  and 
the  crucifixion  of  the  old  man,  verses  5,  6,  If  the  burial  is  immersion, 
Avhat  is  the  planting,  (or  engrafung,  as  some  render  it)  ?  Are  we  accus- 
tomed to  plant  seed  in  water?  The  meaning  (^W  planted  is  the  correct 
rendering  of  the  word)  is  this :  The  seed  is  put  into  the  earth,  and  it  dies  ; 
but  a  new  stalk  springs  up  from  it.  So  the  old  man  is  put,  as  it  were, 
into  the  earth  ;  and  the  new  man  rises  up,  like  a  new  stalk,  to  live  a  new 
life.  But  if  both  burial  and  planting  express  the  mode  of  baptism ;  what 
mode  is  indicated  by  crucifxion,  which  we  find  used  in  the  same  connec- 
tion to  express  the  same  idea  ?  It  will  not  answer  to  select  one  of  the 
figures  to  express  mode,  and  exclude  the  others. 

What,  then,  are  we  to  understand  by  the  death,  burial,  resurrection  and 
crucifixion  ?  The  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  a  newness  of  life, 
certainly  signify  the  change  of  heart  and  life  from  sin  to  holiness,  that  is, 
sanctification.  The  planting  and  the  crucifixion  of  the  old  man,  "  that 
the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,"  evidently  express  precisely  the 
same  idea.  Whether,  therefore,  we  look  at  the  design  of  the  apostle's 
argument,  or  at  the  language  employed,  we  cannot  but  see  that  he  spoke 
of  sanctification,  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  as  secured  by  Christianity.  We 
then  inquire,  in  M'hat  way  does  God  generally  represent  sanctification  or 
purification  from  sin?  Does  he  represent  it  by  immersing  into  water? 
He  never  does.  Does  he  not  uniformly  represent  it  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling?  He  does,  both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
what  way,  then,  should  christian  baptism,  the  emblem  of  spiritual  cleans- 
ing, be  administered  ?  Evidently  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  AVhilst, 
tlierefore,  this  passage  contains  not  a  word  about  the  mode  of  baptism, 
but  speaks  only  of  its  design  ;  when  correctly  understood,  it  is  decidedly 
favorable  to  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  the  proper  mode. 

That  I  have  given  the  true  exposition  of  tliis  passage,  will  be  still 
more  manifest  by  comparing  with  it  Colossians  ii.  11,  12:  "In  whom 
[^Christ]  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putung  ofl'  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ:  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead."  Here  we  find  distinctly  presented  the  spiritual  nature 
of  this  burial  and  resurrection. — [_Time  expired. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  243 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 7  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[]mr.  Campbell's  seventeenth  address.] 

^Ir.  President — Can  you,  sir,  or  can  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  with- 
hold your  admiration  of  tlie  liberality  and  benevolence  of  Mr.  Rice,  in 
allowing  me  so  much  more  time  than  stipulated,  for  the  affirmation  of  the 
first  proposition  !  Would  you  believe  it  ?  he  has  vouchsafed  me  just  07ie 
half  hour  over  the  stipulated  time.  It  was  propounded,  and  solemnly 
agreed  upon,  that  I  should  have  the  establishment  of  the  number  of  hours 
per  diem.  The  minimum  was  set  down  at  four  hours — the  extension 
beyond  that  was  left  to  me.  On  Wednesday,  I  informed  Mr.  Rice  that  I 
found  myself  in  such  health  as  to  justify  six  hour  sessions.  Some  of  the 
moderators,  however,  preferring  four  hour  sessions,  I  consented,  upon  the 
assurance  from  Mr.  Rice,  that  I  sliould  have  the  time  made  up  in  number 
of  days  equal  to  three  days  of  six  hours  each.  At  nine  o'clock  this  eve- 
ning, I  shall  have  had  nine  hours  and  one-half  for  the  affirmative,  that  is 
one  half  hour  more  than  our  stipulation.  I  asked,  but  could  not  obtain, 
another  day,  to  be  refunded  by  the  subtraction  of  a  day  irom  some  other 
proposition,  not  extending  over  so  large  a  field  of  investigation.  I  have 
asked  a  day,  and  obtained  half  an  hour  !  My  friend  claims  other  honors 
besides  that  of  a  magnanimous  generosity,  on  grounds  quite  as  slender  as 
those  on  which  he  would  now  claim  your  admiration. 

Another  proof  of  the  exemplary  generosity  of  Mr.  Rice,  you  have  in  the 
fact,  that  I  have  had  two  affirmative  propositions  assigned  me  for  his  one. 
I  always  asked,  from  the  beginning,  an  equal  number  of  affirmatives  and 
negatives.  My  friend,  as  I  begin  to  see,  knew  on  which  side  his  strength 
lay,  and  therefore  refused  me  any  better  terms  than  two  to  one.  It  was 
this,  or  no  debate  at  all.  He  is  good  in  denying.  He  admirably  suits 
the  negative  side.  Besides,  he  has  secured  to  himself  two  closing  speech- 
es for  my  one.  With  some,  the  last  word  and  the  last  speech  is  a  great 
matter,  and  therefore  he  wisely  secured  that  also  ;  for,  even  when  the  four 
affirmatives  were  given  me,  he  would  not  change  the  position  of  them,  so 
as  to  allow  me  the  final  closing  speech.  This  may  be  good  generalship, 
but  who  will  call  it  generosity,  equality,  or  equity  !!  Slill,  I  i'eared  not 
to  give  the  Presbyterian  church  these  fearful  odds  ;  especially,  as  without 
them,  we  should  never  have  met  here.  'I'he  affirmative,  according  to  the 
usages  of  our  courts  of  law,  and  of  the  civilized  world,  has  the  opening 
and  the  closing  speech.  But  in  this  case  I  would  not  have  asked  it,  if 
the  number  of  affirmatives  had  been  equal. 

I  regret,  my  fellow-citizens,  exceedingly  regret,  that  while  discussing  a 
question  of  this  magnitude,  a  question  more  or  less  involving  the  world's 
destiny,  a  question  of  the  utmost  gravity  and  solemnity,  there  should 
have  been  any  indications  of  levity,  especially  such  as  occurred  during 
the  last  speech.  While  thus  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  Messiah's  com- 
mission;  that  commission  which  contains  the  gospel  of  an  eternal  salva- 
tion ;  a  commission  embracing  in  its  sublime  philanthropy,  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  and  all  the  ages  of  time  ;  I  say,  while  thus  arguing  the  cause 
of  eternal  truth  and  righteousness  before  heaven  and  earth,  I  feel  myself 
not  only  standing  in  the  midst  of  you,  in  the  midst  of  this  great  assem- 
bly, but  in  the  midst  of  a  mighty  host,  an  innumerable  multitude  of  high 
intellectual  and  spiritual  beings,  who,  though  they  are  unseen  by  us,  I  am 
not,  nor  are  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  unseen  by  them.  I  hope,  then,  to  feel 
my  responsibilities,  both  to  God  and  man,  and  to  act  faithfully  in  accor- 
dance with  them,  while  I  retain  your  attention  to  the  point  before  us. 


244  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

In  the  even  tenor  of  my  way,  without  turning  aside  to  vain  jangling,  or 
to  respond  to  matters  designed  to  provoke  a  laugh  rather  than  conviction, 
I  shall  proceed  in  tlie  exhibition  of  documents  and  arguments  addressed 
to  your  understanding  and  your  consciences,  before  the  searcher  of  all 
hearts,  and  in  reference  to  your  eternal  destiny.  The  ordinances  of 
Christianity  are  its  greatest  solemnities.  They  are  a  divine  embodiment 
of  its  salutary,  life-giving,  and  sanctifying  power,  and  should,  therefore, 
be  examined  in  a  frame  of  mind,  and  with  a  devotional  spirit,  consenta- 
neous with  their  transcendent  importance. 

I  have  been  contemplating  christian  baptism  in  its  sublime  allusions  to 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  Messiah,  as  a  public,  living, 
standing,  convincing  monument,  erected  by  the  great  benefactor  of  our 
race,  to  be  repeated  upon  every  occasion  of  the  nativity  of  a  new  member 
of  his  redeemed  family,  for  his  grand  purposes — one  peculiar  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  one  extending  to  all  the  spectators.  To  him,  it  is  a  solemn 
pledge  of  his  interests  in  a  crucified  and  living  Redeemer  ;  a  significant, 
memorable,  and  honorable  commencement  of  his  christian  race  ;  while 
to  the  world  around,  it  proclaims  that  Messiah  died,  shed  his  blood  as  aa 
expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  went  down  into  the  dark  and  desolate 
mansions  of  the  dead,  and  triumphantly  rose  again,  opening  the  gates  of 
life  and  immortality  to  a  benighted,  condemned,  and  ruined  world.  An 
ordinance  of  such  significance,  solemnity,  and  grandeur,  ought  to  be  dis- 
cussed with  the  most  profound  devotion  and  solemn  reverence  for  its 
great  author.  This  discussion,  on  my  part,  was  not  undertaken  for  any 
momentary  effect.  It  was  not  undertaken  for  the  citizens  of  this  city  or 
of  this  commonwealth,  especially  or  exclusively.  It  was  undertaken  for 
the  whole  community  ;  for  tlie  honor  of  God,  the  glory  of  the  Messiah, 
and  the  good  of  suffering  humanity.  It  was,  therefore,  to  be  stereotyped 
and  sent  on  a  glorious  mission  all  round  the  land.  lis  object  is  to  collect, 
combine,  arrange  and  exhibit,  facts,  documents  and  arguments,  for  all  sorts 
of  readers,  for  all  classes  of  men.  Such  were,  and  such  are  my  vie\v.s, 
intentions,  and  aims  in  the  whole  aflair.  I  desire  to  remember,  to  feel, 
and  to  rejoice,  that  whatever  of  truth,  of  fact,  of  argument,  I  may  offer, 
is  taken  down  by  competent  stenographers,  and  to  be  engraved  upon  metal. 
But  still,  I  am  more  influenced,  and  cheered,  and  awed,  by  the  reflection 
that  there  is  another  recording  angel  of  an  ethereal  constitution,  of  a  ce- 
lestial temper,  and  of  more  than  earthly  competency,  dignity,  and  gran- 
deur, from  whose  pen  not  one  iota  escapes,  and  who  writes  what  is 
spoken  here,  not  to  be  read  on  earth,  but  in  heaven — not  for  a  few  days, 
but  through  a  vast,  a  boundless  eternity.  I  have  no  use  at  all,  then,  for 
any  of  those  violent  gesticulations,  those  theatrical  attitudes,  to  catch 
your  attention,  to  provoke  your  smiles,  or  to  hide  from  your  observance 
the  inapplicability  or  impertinences  of  my  arguments. 

The  occasion  of  these  remarks,  I  doubt  not,  you  all  comprehend,  and, 
therefore,  I  shall  only  briefly  respond  to  one  or  two  of  those  ad  captandiim 
efibrts,  adapted  more  to  the  facetiousness  of  boys  than  to  the  gravity  and 
dignity  of  men.  I  propounded,  in  my  last  speech,  a  useful  law  of  inter- 
pretation, of  more  use  to  the  uneducated  and  unlearned  of  the  community, 
than  to  those  acquainted  with  the  etymology  of  those  languages  through 
which  we  have  received  the  revelation  of  God.  Every  sound  gram- 
matical and  logical  definition  or  translation  of  a  word  is  convertible 
with  the  loord  defined,  and  therefore,  we  sometimes  test  a  definition  by 
placing  it  in  all  places  in  which  we  find  the  word  it  defines.     If  it  always 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  245 

make  good  sense,  it  is  a  correct  definition ;  if  it  does  not,  it  is  incorrect 
and  to  be  reprobated. 

To  turn  away  your  attention  from  this  most  useful  and  incontrovertible 
law,  the  gentleman  made  an  effort  to  create  a  laugh,  for  an  argument,  made 
more  ridiculous  by  his  pantomimic  gesticulation  and  pronunciation  than  by 
the  word  adduced.  "In  those  days  came  John  the  plunger,  plunging 
in  the  wilderness  and  preaching  the  plunging  of  repentance  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  Well,  now  the  Messiah  himself  was  laughed  at  under  an 
old  scarlet  cloak  !  Still  there  was  nothing  ridiculous  in  the  cloak,  in  it- 
self, nor  in  him.  It  was  the  association,  and  the  laugh  was  in  the  minds 
of  the  spectators. 

There  is  not  any  thing  grammatically^  logically,  scripturally,  or  reli- 
giously amiss  in  the  word  plunge.  It  was  in  the  ridiculous  association 
and  manner.  It  is  good  sense;  while  washing  in  fire  is  nonsense. 
John,  the  dipper,  or  John,  the  immerser,  or  John,  the  plunger,  or  John 
the  Baptist,  are  all  good  sense,  good  language,  good  definition  and  beyond 
censure.  The  principle  is  sound,  and  the  sense  is  good :  and  the  laugh  is 
only  in  the  vacuity  or  folly  of  those  who  are  tickled  by  it. 

So  nigh  the  close  of  this  proposition,  I  should  not  occupy  a  moment 
unnecessarily  with  such  a  matter ;  for,  perhaps,  this  was  the  intention  of 
the  affair;  but  for  the  sake  of  all  public  discussions  of  religious  questions, 
I  am  constrained  to  say  that  there  is  a  very  bad,  irreligious,  and  pernicious 
taste  of  this  sort  to  which  disputants,  too  generally,  cater.  All  christian 
men,  and  especially  ministers,  should  set  tlieir  faces  against  it. 

By  the  way,  while  on  this  unworthy  theme,  I  shall  request  m}'-  friend, 
Mr.  Rice,  when  next  he  assumes  the  mountebank  or  pantomimic  style,  to 
take  a  little  more  room  for  it — to  keep  his  arms  a  little  farther  from  my 
face,  and  figure  more  within  the  bounds  of  the  stage  allotted  him.  Thus 
my  speculations  and  meditations  will  not  be  quite  so  much  incommoded. 
I  shall  demand  this  not  so  much  as  a  favor,  as  a  right  due  to  me. 

I  shall  now  resume  my  reading  of  documentary  proofs  under  my  12th 
argument.  I  promised  to  add  only  a  single  quotation  from  a  most  distin- 
guished Presbyterian  minister,  now  living.  I  wish  you  to  place  him  in 
the  scale  against  Mr.  Rice,  as  they  likely  are  quite  antipodal  on  the  sub- 
ject. In  his  recent  lecture  on  the  Romans  and  on  the  passage  before  us, 
Dr.  Chalmers  says — 

"  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  baptisma,  is  immersion,  and  though 
we  regard  it  as  a  point  of  indiiferency,  whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be 
performed  in  this  way,  or  by  sprinl^ling ;  yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  preva- 
lent style  of  the  administration,  in  the  apostles'  days,  was  by  an  actual  sub- 
merging of  the  whole  body  under  water.  We  advert  to  this  for  the  purpose 
of  throwing  light  on  the  analogy  that  is  instituted  in  these  verses.  Jesus 
Christ,  by  death,  underwent  this  sort  of  baptism,  by  an  immersion  under  the 
ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged  again  by  his  resurrection." 

Am  I  not,  then,  in  the  very  best  of  company,  when  I  reprobate  Mr. 
R's.  use  of  kataduo — when  I  say  that  no  word  could  be  more  inappro- 
priate ?     The  Dr.  continues  : 

"  We,  being  baptized  into  his  death,  are  conceived  to  have  made  a  similar 
translation.  In  the  act  of  descending  under  the  water  of  baptism,  to  have 
resigned  an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascending,  to  emerge  into  the  second 
or  new  life,  along  the  course  of  v^hich  it  is  our  part  to  maintain  a  strenuous 
avoidance  of  that  sin,  which  as  good  as  expunged  the  being  whicli  we  had 
formerly,  and  a  strenuous  prosecution  of  tliat  holiness  which  should  begin 
with  the  first  moments  that  we  are  ushered  into  our  present  being,  and  be 
perpetuated  and  made  progress  toward  the  perfection  of  full  and  ripened 
immortality."  s  2 


246  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

It  is  exceedingly  painful  for  me  to  read  on  such  an  occasion,  I  have 
had  so  much  to  do  with  facts,  that  I  have  been  compelled  to  it:  and  I  pre- 
fer to  read  from  those  not  with  us,  rather  than  from  those  on  our  own 
side.  This,  indeed,  is  not  so  much  a  question  of  reason,  as  a  question  of 
fact,  I  averred  at  the  commencement,  that  the  whole  matter  and  burthen 
of  this  proposition  is  a  question  of  fact  and  to  be  decided  as  all  such  ques- 
tions are.  Our  witnesses  are  lexicographers,  translators,  annotators,  crit- 
ics, commentators,  historians,  &c.  We  concluded  this  last  class  v/ith  Chal- 
mers. He  candidly,  truthfully,  and  independently,  affirms  that  immer- 
sion is  the  meaning  of  the  term  in  sacred  usage,  tliat  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  apostolic  age,  and  what  more  do  we  ask  ?  He  thinks  sprinkling  will 
do,  in  Scodand,  and  in  the  19th  century.  Regarding  it,  however,  as  a 
matter  of  indilferency,  he  affirms,  like  a  full  grown  man,  as  he  is,  that  the 
Greek  and  the  apostolic  practice  are  both  against  him  ;  but,  then,  Mr, 
Rice  says  "  it  wont  do."  Chalmers  is  wrong  and  he  is  right.  Well  then, 
I  leave  it  for  Presbyterians  to  prefer  their  man — their  leader,  Dr.  Chalmers, 
or  Mr.  Rice.  But  were  Mr.  R.  to  make  himself  as  facetious  as  any  com- 
edian that  ever  walked  the  stage,  he  can  neither  talk  down  nor  laugh  down 
Dr.  Chalmers  and  that  mightv  host,  the  glory  of  Episcopalianism  and 
Presbyterianism,  that  have  candidly  declared  for  us,  while  taking  it  upon 
themselves  to  act  upon  their  own  responsibility, 

I  neither  need  special  witnesses,  nor  special  pleading  on  my  side  of  the 
question.  Therefore  I  have  given  you  more  witnesses,  more  facts  than 
reasonings,  and  thrown  upon  my  audience  the  responsibility  of  acting  for 
themselves.  When  the  case  is  a  clear  one,  it  is  frequently  given  to  the 
jury  without  much  argument.  The  more  special  pleading,  always  the 
more  doubtful  the  case,  and  the  more  precarious  the  testimony.  My  wit- 
nesses are  all  borrowed  from  the  party  that  opposes  me.  You  are  all  wit- 
nesses that  I  have  not  quoted  from  Dr.  Gill,  down  to  any  living  doctor  of 
the  Baptist  church,  one  single  sentence  as  argument  or  authority.  You 
have  now  a  mighty  host  of  v.'itnesses  before  you,  and  yet  they  are  not  the 
half;  I  might  say  not  more  than  a  tithe  of  all  that  might  be  adduced.  F 
have  chosen  names  well  known  to  fame,  and  of  unquestionable  learning 
and  authority  in  the  several  Pedo-baptist  parties.  It  is  then  for  you  to- 
decide  whetlier  the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  my  respondent,  or  a  thousand  like 
him,  ought  to  outweigh  the  facts,  concessions,  and  affirmations  which  I 
have  given  you. 

Need  I  ask  whether  special  pleadings,  opinions,  and  mere  reasonings, 
without  the  proper  data  of  appropriate  facts,  Vv'ill  be  an  offset,  or  rather  a 
counterbalance  against  such  authorities  ?  If  a  person  possessed  the  high- 
est powers  of  ratiocination,  could  he,  think  you,  fellow-citizens,  annihilate 
such  an  array  of  facts  and  authorities  !  I  should  have  much  less  respect 
for  the  good  sense  and  mental  character  of  this  community  ;  of  the  whole 
American  family,  indeed,  than  what  I  do  entertain,  if  I  could  think  it 
behooved  me,  on  the  present  occasion,,  to  show  eause  and  reason  why  you 
should  prefer  the  hosts  of  witnesses,  (many  of  them  indeed,  individually, 
like  Chalmers,  a  host  himself)  to  the  opinions  or  dogmatic  assertions  of 
any  special  pleader,  living  or  dead. 

As  usual,  the  gentleman  introduces  matters,  and  makes  reference  to. 
others  to  which,  according  to  the  laws  of  discussion,  I  am  not  obliged  t& 
respond.  Whatever  is  advanced  in  reply  to  my  arguments  offered,  or  to 
my  facts  and  documents  submitted,  I  am  bound  to  notice.  Other  matters, 
iutroduced  by  him,  are  only  entided  to  a  mere  complimentary  notice.     It 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  247 

is  optional,  with  the  affirmant,  how  much  of  sucli  matters,  or  whether  any 
of  them,  sliall  be  at  all  noticed.  Several  matters  of  this  sort  have  re- 
ceived no  formal  attention.  Some  of  them  have,  and  one  or  two  of  tliem 
will  come  up  more  in  my  way  on  the  third  proposition.  If  a  person 
were  to  be  obliged  to  advert  to  every  thing  wliich  his  respondent  may 
please  to  throw  in  his  way,  he  woidd  travel  very  slowly  indeed.  One 
person  may  throw  out  as  many  facts  and  assertions  in  one  period,  as 
might  occupy  another  a  week,  or  a  month,  to  refute. 

A  fallacy  to  which  Mr.  Rice  is  frequently  addicted,  and  to  which  the 
author  of  the  Essay  on  Purification  is  no  less  so,  is  that  of  assuming 
that,  if  one  thing  be  represented  by  two  names,  or  two  words,  these 
words  are  synonymous  from  the  circumstance  of  their  being  thus  appled. 
For  instance,  suppose  icashing  be  applied  to  baptism  in  one  case,  and 
conversion  in  another — will  that  make  washing  and  conversion  synony- 
mous !  Baptism  anciently,  in  the  second  century,  was  called  illumina- 
tion, regeneration,  the  gift,  sanctijicalion,  conversion,  &c.  Now,  be- 
cause all  these  terms  were  applied  to  baptism,  does  that  make  baptism  and 
any  one  of  them  synonymous;  or  will  that  make  any  two  of  them  sy- 
nonymous! Because  baptism  is  called,  as  he  alledges,  the  loutron  pha- 
lingenesias,  the  washing  of  regeneration,  therefore,  washing  and  baptism 
are  the  same  thing  ! 

Before  dismissing  the  ai'gument,  found  in  these  allusions,  to  a  burial, 
allow  me  to  remark,  that,  of  all  the  comments  in  the  world  upon  baptism, 
this  is  the  best.  Few  men  know  much  about  philology,  about  criticism 
and  the  etymology  of  words.  But  all  men  understand  the  meaning  of 
the  word  burial.  When  a  person  is  covered  in  the  earth  he  is  buried, 
and  not  till  then.  Now  as  respects  baptism,  being  so  compared,  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  And  that  fact  established,  as  all  the  learned, 
Roman  Catliolics  and  Protestants,  of  every  name  and  of  every  party, 
agree,  there  is  a  burial  of  all  doubt  on  this  subject.  Even  the  commen- 
tary of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  so  gives  it.  This  is  truly  a  common 
sense  argument,  as  some  of  our  greatest  critics  have  called  it.  For  if 
seeds  planted  in  the  earth,  if  Noah  in  his  ark,  and  a  man  buried  in  the 
earth,  are  compared  to  baptism,  or  rather  if  baptism  be  compared  to  them, 
then  all  doubts  must  cease  in  all  minds  who  admit  the  mere  fact  of  the 
analogy  having  the  sanction  of  the  aposdes.  Like  Calvin,  or  Stuart,  or 
Chalmers,  they  may,  indeed,  suppose  it  a  matter  of  indiflereney,  and  rest 
satisfied  that  the  church  has  a  right  to  motlify  and  change  these  institu- 
tions. But  few  men,  comparatively,  not  long  hackneyed  in  the  way  of 
clerical  accommodation,  will  be  satisfied  with  such  a  decision. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  all  denominations  of  chi'istians,  Romanists  and 
Protestants,  orthodox  and  heterodox,  admit  that  baptism  is  called  a 
burial,  it  is  at  once,  and  as  if  by  acclamation,  confirming  all  our  philolo- 
gical dissert;itions  on  the  subject.  The  discussion  properly  ends,  and  is 
sanctioned  here.  If  Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  was  covered  with  the 
earth,  then  were  the  first  christians  all  buried  in  baptism,  or  by  an  im- 
mersion  into  water- 

Xiri.  Next  to  this,  in  plainness  and  strength,  is  the  argument  drawn 
Irom  history.  History  is  a  very  authoritative  commentator  on  lan- 
guage, as  well  as  on  men  and  manners.  It  sometimes  enters  into  the 
philosophy  and  the  philology  of  language,  and  decides  the  proper  inter- 
pretation of  words,  by  shewing,  in  matter  of  fact  details,  how  these  words 
were  understood  in  days  of  yore.     The  historians  tell  us  what  the  an- 


248  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

cients  did  under  the  name,  baptism.  They  record  certain  acts  and  then 
call  them  by  this  word.  They  are,  then,  stronger  proof,  to  the  great 
mass  of  society,  than  dictionaries,  grammars,  classics,  translators,  or  any 
thing  in  the  form  of  mere  language.  History  is  now  the  favorite,  the 
growing  favorite  in  all  departments  of  philosophy.  The  history  of 
nature  is  philosophy,  the  history  of  plants  is  botany,  the  history  of  ani- 
mals is  zoology,  the  history  of  man  is  anthropography,  and  the  history  of 
the  church  is  Christianity.  I  mean  the  whole  church,  primitive,  ancient, 
and  modern.  The  history  of  baptism  is,  therefore,  the  philology  of  the 
word.  It  is  the  history  of  the  human  mind  on  that  subject — of  all  men, 
of  all  nations,  and  of  all  ages  of  the  church.  Whenever  the  history  of 
baptism  is  fully  read,  and  by  whomsoever,  thei-e  wilt  not  remain  one 
doubt  on  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  I  aihrm,  without  fear  of  successful 
contradiction,  that  all  Christendom,  Hebrew,  Greek,  Roman,  and  modern, 
down  to  quite  a  comparatively  recent  period,  practiced  immersion.  I 
have  given  you,  already,  the  testimony  of  the  justly  celebrated  Dr.  Whit- 
by, of  the  church  of  England,  afhrming  that  immersion  was  religiously 
observed  from  the  beginning,  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  without  any 
exception  by  authority,  except  in  the  case  of  sick  and  dying  persons. 
That  it  was  changed  into  sprinkling  without  any  allowance  by  Jesus 
Christ,  without  any  license  from  any  council  of  the  church — and  that  the 
Romanists  refuse  the  sacramental  cup  to  the  laity,  on  the  ground  of  the 
indulgence  claimed  in  changing  immersion  into  sprinkling.  This  being 
an  indisputable  iact,  what  need  have  we  of  all  this  controversy  about  the 
meaning  of  words  ?  This  fact  is  worth  all  the  languages,  dictionaries, 
commentators,  and  critics,  of  two  thousand  years. 

The  gendeman  tells  you  of  the  trine  immersion  of  Tertullian,  and  of 
their  baptizing  persons,  not  only  once  into  each  of  the  names  of  the  Di- 
vinity, but  also  undressed !  And  what  have  we  to  do  with  these  excen- 
tricities  !  It  only  makes  the  argument  stronger ;  for,  if  they  thus  sub- 
mitted to  three  immersions  instead  of  one,  how  strong  their  faith  in  im- 
mersion. The  gospel  commands  one  immersion,  but,  it  seems,  they  got 
to  three. 

I  again  ask,  if  the  whole  world,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  as  Cal- 
vin, Chalmers,  and  Whitby  admit,  and  as  all  the  ancient  historians  de- 
clare, practiced  immersion — none  excepted  but  the  sick  and  dying,  (and 
their  baptism  was  not  for  ages  regarded  valid)  why  presumes  any  man  to 
imrovate  and  adopt  another !  I  have  here  ancient  copies  of  Eusebius,  and 
of  Scholasticus,  Evagrius,  and  other  ecclesiastical  historians ;  Du  Pin, 
Mosheim,  Milner,  Waddington,  down  to  the  last,  the  living  Neander,  and, 
with  one  consent,  they  confirm  the  afhrmation  of  Whitby.  Indeed,  we 
can  give  the  name  of  the  person  who  first  had  water  poured  all  over  him 
in  a  bed.  Eusebius  tells  the  story,  p.  120.  This  memorable  case  occur- 
red in  252  or  253 — and,  when  told  by  Eusebius,  he  adds,  "if  that  can 
be  called  baptism."  Novatian,  from  this  copious  affusion,  however, 
recovered ;  but  when  candidate  for  the  see  of  Rome,  for  the  episcopate 
of  the  imperial  city,  he  lost  it — as  some  say,  because  of  the  invalidity  of 
his  baptism.  The  presumption  is,  he  might  have  been  pope  of  Rome, 
because  of  his  distinguished  parts  and  great  learning,  but  for  this  unfor- 
tunate allusion  instead  of  immersion.  Certain  it  is,  it  did  not  satisfy  the 
church,  and  was  a  cause  of  his  reprobation. — [Time  expired. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  249 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 7  o'clock,  P  M. 
[mr.  rice's  seventeenth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — Before  entering  upon  the  question  before  us,  I  wish 
to  read  an  extract  of  a  letter  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  Rev.  J.  H.  Brown. 
I  am  astonished  to  hear  the  gentleman  state,  that  he  had  been  forced  to 
take  yb?«-  affirmative  propositions,  or  have  no  debate.  I  wish  to  prove 
by  his  own  letter,  that,  so  far  from  his  statement  being  correct,  he  him- 
self refused  to  debate,  unless  we  would  allow  him  a  fourth  affirmative. 
The  truth  is,  we  had  agreed  to  discuss  the  six  propositions,  each  party 
having  three  affirmatives  and  three  negatives  ;  but  when  he  came  to  Lex- 
ington in  August  last,  to  make  final  arrangements  as  to  other  prelimina- 
ries, he  positively  refused  to  go  into  a  discussion,  unless  we  would  give 
him  another  affirmative  proposition  on  baptism.  His  language  is  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"  I  never  can  yield  to  demands  so  arbitrary  and  unequal  If  then  I  have 
given  opportunity  and  latitude  to  ascertain  what  advantages  would  be 
sought,  and  how  promptly  you  and  your  brethren  would  assume  the  de- 
fence of  your  own  tenets  and  assail  mine,  /  am  not  to  be  understood  as  agree- 
ing to  place  myself  three  timesin  the  mere  negative  of  your  tenets  on  baptism-. 
Since  I  have  been  summoned  by  you  to  stand  up  to  the  defence  of  my  own 
teaching,  I  must  affirm  my  views  on,  at  least,  the  two  main  points  in 
which  I  have  been  most  assailed  by  Presbyterians.  This  is  not  only  just 
and  equal,  but  it  is  my  special  right,  coming  into  this  discussion  as  I  do." 

The  gendeman,  you  perceive,  here  complains,  that  he  is  thrice  in  the 
negative  on  baptism,  and  demands,  as  a  right,  to  have  another  affirmative. 
"  Since  I  have  been  summoned  by  you  to  stand  up  in  defence  of  my  own 
teaching,  I  must  affirm  my  views  on,  at  least,  the  two  main  points  in 
which  I  have  been  most  assailed,"  &c.  Before  we  received  this  letter, 
the  proposition  we  are  now  discussing  stood  thus  :  "  Sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing water  on  a  suitable  subject  is  scriptural  baptism."  In  this  form  we 
had  agreed  to  debate  it ;  but  the  gentleman  insisted  that  he  was  in  the 
negative  too  often,  and  demanded  to  have  the  proposition  so  worded,  as 
to  place  him  in  the  affirmative.  We  accommodated  him  ;  and  now,  after 
refusing  positively  to  debate,  unless  we  would  give  him  the  affirmative, 
he  tells  the  audience  that  four  affirmatives  were  forced  on  him,  and  that 
we  would  not  enter  into  the  discussion  on  any  other  terms ! ! !  We  urged 
the  immediate  publication  of  the  correspondence,  inasmuch  as  the  debate 
was  so  long  deferred,  that  the  public  might  correcdy  understand  our  rela- 
tive positions,  but  the  gentleman  positively  refused  to  permit  it ! 

I  am  unable  to  determine  whether  he  compliments  me  or  the  audience, 
when  he  represents  me  as  "  a  pantomime,"  making  antique  gesticulations 
and  playing  off  fantastic  tricks  for  their  amusement,  and  reproves  them 
for  allowing  themselves  to  be  thus  amused.  My  gestures,  it  seems,  dis- 
turb his  reflections  very  much ;  and  he  desires  that  I  should  turn  away 
from  him  in  future.  Aye,  it  is  the  argument  that  so  much  disconcerts 
him.  I  am  quite  willing  that  he  shall  gesticulate  as  much  as  he  pleases, 
and  in  his  own  way;  and  he  must  allow  me  to  make  gestures  as  I  may 
feel  inclined.  But  I  wont  look  at  him,  since  I  thus  disturb  his  reflec- 
tions !  Oh,  no.  If  the  gendeman  had  not  attempted  to  brow-beat  and 
confuse  me  this  morning,  I  should  probably  not  have  disturbed  him  by 
exciting  the  risibles  of  the  audience  at  his  expense. 

But  he  has  repeatedly  told  you,  that  he  is  not  speaking  for  present  ef- 
fect; he  is  making  a  book,  which,  when  read  by  the  intelligent  and 
learned,  is  to  have  a  tremendous  effect.     Does  he  intend  to  intimate,  that 


250  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

this  intelligent  audience  cannot  comprehend  his  profound  investigations? 
I  have  never  learned  that  a  speech  which,  when  spoken,  produces  little 
effect,  will,  when  read,  become  overwhelming.  I  go  for  present  effect 
and  for  future  effect.  I  am  not  afraid,  that  that  which  now  produces  a 
powerful  effect,  will,  when  printed,  become  perfectly  powerless. 

I  will  make  a  few  remarks  in  reference  to  the  burial  by  baptism.  Dr. 
Chalmers,  I  have  said,  is  a  learned  man  and  a  great  man  :  but  agsiinst 
his  opinion  I  will  place  the  authority  of  Scott,  Clarke,  Calvin,  Stuart 
and  Hodge.  Perhaps  these  men,  thrown  into  the  opposite  scale,  will 
outweigh  Dr.  C. 

By  the  way,  I  was  amused  to  hear  the  gentleman  so  confidently  ex- 
press his  opinion,  that  the  audience  could  not  resist  the  authorities — the 
opinions  of  learned  men,  he  has  adduced  in  support  of  immersion.  Such 
remarks  appear  most  singular,  coming  from  a  man  who  has  discarded  all 
human  authority,  and  made  war  upon  the  whole  christian  world.  He 
claims  to  think  for  himself,  to  reject  all  authority  ;  but  he  seems  to  think 
his  hearers  will  not  venture  to  do  so  !  Of  all  men,  it  would  seem,  he 
is  one  of  the  last  who  ought  to  make  such  an  appeal.  Why,  he  has 
started  a  reformation  de  novo!  I  am  quite  willing  to  give  to  the  opinions 
of  the  learned  due  weight;  but  I  must  then  be  permitted  to  make  ray 
final  appeal  to  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  passsge  under  consideration,  (Rom.  vi.  1 — 6)  Paul,  as  I  have 
shown,  was  not  speaking  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  was  proving  that 
the  Gospel,  whilst  it  teaches  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace,  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  law,  necessarily  leads  to  holiness,  and  not  to  sin. 
The  death  of  which  he  speaks,  I  proved  to  be  a  death  to  sin,  and  the  re- 
surrection, a  resurrection  to  a  new  and  holy  life.  If,  then,  the  death  is 
spiritual,  and  the  resurrection  spiritual,  is  not  the  burial  also  spiritual  ? 
According  to  my  interpretation,  the  passage  is  expounded  consistently; 
for  there  is  spiritual  death,  spiritual  burial,  and  spiritual  resurrection. 
But  if  the  burial  is  immersion,  as  Mr.  C.  contends,  we  have  spiritual 
death,  spiritual  resurrection,  and  physical  burial!  Does  not  every  one  see 
the  inconsistency  of  such  an  interpretation  ? 

But,  I  again  ask,  if  the  burial  expresses  the  mode  of  baptism,  what 
mean  the  planting  and  the  cnici/ixio)i?  These  figures  are  all  used  in 
the  same  connection,  to  illustrate  the  same  great  truth.  The  seed  planted 
dies,  and  a  new  stalk  springs  up;  the  man  crucified  is  dead,  and  so  our 
old  sinful  nature  is  by  the  grace  of  God  ovei^come,  and  we  cease  to  sin, 
and  live  a  holy  life.  Christ  was  crucified,  died  for  sin,  was  buried,  and 
rose  again  for  the  justification  of  his  people.  They  who  are  baptized  into 
Christ  profess  and,  if  sincere,  feel  an  ardent  desire  to  be  identified  with 
him  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection — to  die  to  sin  as  he  died  for  it ; 
to  have  "  the  old  man,"  the  sinful  nature,  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  as 
Christ  was  buried;  to  rise  to  a  new  and  holy  life,  as  he  rose  from  the 
grave  to  die  no  more.  Christian  baptism  is  the  ordinance  by  which  we 
become  visibly  identified  with  Christ,  receive  the  benefits  of  his  death, 
and  are  bound  more  strongly  to  a  life  of  holiness.  Such  appears  to  me 
to  be  the  clear  meaning  of  the  passage ;  and,  as  before  remarked,  since 
the  apostle  is  speaking  of  holiness  of  heart  and  of  life  secured  by  the  gos- 
pel, and  since  sanctification  is  in  the  Bible  constantly  represented  by 
pouring  and  sprinkling ;  this  portion  of  Scripture,  correctly  understood, 
is  decidedly  favorable  to  this  mode  of  administering  baptism. 

The  gentleman  is  disposed  to  make  an  argument  for  immersion  from 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  251 

the  fact  of  the  burial  of  our  Savior  in  the  earth.  But  I  ask,  was  he  put 
under  ground?  Never,  never.  A  place  was  cut  in  a  rock,  in  which  he 
was  laid,  and  a  stone  rolled  against  the  entrance.  When  persons  in  our 
country  and  in  our  day  read  of  a  burial,  they  at  once  think  of  a  place  dug 
in  the  earth,  into  which  the  dead  are  put  and  covered  with  earth.  But 
this  was  not  the  mode  of  burial  among  the  .lews.  And  the  Romans,  to 
whom  the  epistle  was  directed,  did  not  thus  bury  their  dead.  They  were 
accustomed  to  burn  the  bodies  of  the  dead,  and  to  gather  the  ashes  into 
an  urn.  Hence,  every  one  accustomed  to  read  Latin  writers,  is  familiar 
with  the  expression,  ashes  of  the  dead.  Indeed,  this  mode  of  expression 
has  been  transferred,  in  a  figurative  sense,  to  our  own  language. 

What  idea,  then,  I  ask,  would  be  conveyed  to  the  Roman  christians  by 
the  language  in  the  passage  under  consideration  ?  The  expression, 
"buried  by  baptism,"  certainly  never  would  have  suggested  to  their 
minds  the  idea  of  plunging  persons  under  water.  And  this  is  the  correct 
method  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  language.  If  we  would  correcdy 
interpret  an  ancient  book,  we  must  go  to  those  by  whom,  and  those  for 
whom  it  was  written,  and  inquire  into  their  manners,  customs,  and  opin- 
ions. Many  are  led  into  error,  by  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  manners 
sind  customs  of  ancient  nations  were  similar  to  ours. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  burial  of  our  Sa- 
/ior  is  never  mentioned  in  the  Bil)le  as  a  matter  of  primary  importance. 
His  death,  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  and  his  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
are  presented  to  our  minds  as  laying  the  Ibundation  of  our  hopes ;  but  the 
mere  fact,  that  his  friends  laid  him  in  a  tomb,  is  not  so  presented.  It  is 
not  probable,  therefore,  inasmuch  as  the  supper  commemorates  his  death, 
that  the  other  sacrament,  baptism,  is  designed  to  commemorate  his  resur- 
rection out  of  a  tomb. 

I  must  proceed  without  much  system,  until  I  get  through  my  reply  to 
the  gentleman's  speech.  He  has  brought  forward  what  he  considers  an 
irresistible  weight  of  authority  to  prove  the  proposition  he  is  affirming. 
He  has  quoted  amongst  the  Pedo-baptists  who  have  made  concessions, 
old  Cyril,  who  believed  in  trine  immersion ;  and  Wall,  who  Avas  very 
solicitous  to  have  immersion  practiced,  except  in  cases  where  it  was  im- 
practicable ;  and  Whitby,  who  was  of  the  same  mind !  But  the  misfor- 
tune is,  not  one  of  those  Pedo-baptists  immersionists  (for  many  of  those 
quoted  were  such)  sustains  his  proposition.  He  may  appeal  to  the  old 
Greek  and  Latin  immersionists  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and  to 
all  those  of  a  later  day ;  but  of  all  the  learned  authors  he  has  quoted,  or 
can  quote,  he  can  find  not  one,  save  the  Anabaptists,  who  believed  the 
the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending  to  be  true  !  Tiieir  knowledge  of 
the  Greek,  and  the  strong  prejudices  of  multitudes  of  them  in  favor  of 
immersion,  even  of  trine  immersion,  did  not  enable  them  to  see  in  the 
Scriptures,  what  he  sees  with  the  clearness  of  light  itself! !  !  If  the  gen- 
tleman, and  those  who  on  this  subject  agree  with  him,  had  only  occupied 
the  ground  of  the  old  immersionists,  or  of  those  more  modern  writers, 
whose  learning  he  extols,  and  of  whose  authority  he  boasts  ;  there  need 
not  have  been  any  controversy  on  the  subject.  They  might  quietly  have 
enjoyed  their  preferences  for  immersion;  and  we  would  have  enjoyed 
ours  for  pouring  or  sprinkling,  witliout  exciting  controversy  and  divisions 
of  the  church  of  Christ.  But  when  they  assume  to  know  more  about 
the  Greek  than  the  Greeks  themselves,  more  than  all  antiquity  and  the 
great  body  of  the  learned  of  modern  times  ;  and  when  on  this  assump- 


252  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

tion  of  superior  knowledge,  they  undertake  to  excommunicate  all  who 
cannot  see  with  their  eyes ;  Ave  are  constrained  to  demur. 

We  are  not  discussing  the  question,  whether  the  church,  in  any  period 
of  her  history,  has  generally  practiced  immersion ;  nor  even  whether  it  was 
sometimes  practiced  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  ;  but  ivhether  the  submer- 
sion of  the  pei'son  in  water  is  essential  to  christian  baptism.  And  let 
it  be  remarked,  not  one  of  the  gentleman's  learned  authorities  has  sus- 
tained him  in  affirming  this  proposition.  Not  an  individual  of  them  be- 
lieved submersion  in  water  to  be  the  only  apostolic  or  christian  baptism. 
Yet,  whilst  himself  difl'ering  from  almost  the  whole  world,  he  seems  to 
suppose  that  the  audience  cannot  resist  these  multiplied  authorities,  every 
one  of  whom  falls  far  short  of  sustaining  him  ;  every  one  of  whom  lived 
and  died  in  the  firm  persuasion,  that  baptism,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling, 
is  valid  and  scriptural !  I  cannot  help  thinking  he  had  better  try  to 
prove  his  doctrine  by  argument,  for  his  authorities  fail  him  essentially. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  suppose  it  is  true  that  baptism  is  called  a 
washing;  does  this  prove  that  haptizo  means  to  wash?  Certainly,  I 
should  think',  if  baptism  is  a  washing,  as  the  Scriptures  so  repeatedly 
teach,  baptize  must  mean  to  wash,  and  bapiisma,  a  washing.  So  thought 
the  lexicographers ;  for  they  all  define  baptizo  to  wash,  cleanse,  purify. 
This  they  give  as  a  literal  meaning  of  the  word;  and  I  have  no  doubt 
tliey  are  in  the  right.  That  the  word,  as  appropriated  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  is  employed  in  the  general  sense  of  washing,  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  baptism  is  so  frequendy  spoken  of  as  a  washing,  not  as  a 
dipping  or  plunging. 

We  are  informed,  however,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  the  concurrent  voice 
of  all  Christendom  says,  that  baptism  is  a  burial.  This  is  a  wide  mis- 
take. Many  of  the  ablest  commentators  and  writers  have  denied  that  bap- 
tism is  a  burial,  that  is,  that  it  is  a  putting  the  body  under  water.  Indeed, 
the  concurrent  voice  of  Christendom  denies  that  it  is  a  burial  in  this  sense ; 
for  the  great  majority,  at  this  day,  do  not  practice  immersion  ;  and  yet 
they  regard  themselves  as  truly  baptized ;  and  since  the  ancients  admitted 
baptism  to  be  valid,  when  performed  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  they  could 
not  have  considered  it  necessarily  a  burial. 

All  Christendom,  the  gentleman  repeats,  practiced  immersion  for  thir- 
teen hundred  years.  This,  too,  is  a  mistake ;  or,  at  least,  it  cannot  be 
proved  true.  For,  as  I  have  already  proved,  we  find  not  a  word  about 
immersion  from  any  respectable  writer  for  the  first  two  hundred  years  of 
the  christian  era.  The  first  writer  of  any  standing  who  speaks  of  immer- 
sion is  TertuUian,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century ;  and  he  says, 
the  practice  then  was  trine  immersion,  with  sign  of  the  cross,  oil,  spittle, 
&c.  Will  Mr.  Campbell  practice  baptizing  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  church  at  that  period?  No — he  rejects  two  of  the  immersions,  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  the  oil,  &c. ;  and  yet  he  appeals  to  the  authority  of  the 
ancient  church  !  In  those  days  they  objected  to  one  immersion  as  deci- 
dedly as  to  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Indeed,  they  considered  it  a  matter 
of  such  importance,  that  in  one  of  the  early  councils,  as  Dr.  Gale  informs 
us,  it  was  decreed,  that  a  bishop  should  be  deposed  if  he  ventured  to  bap- 
tize a  person  by  one  immersion  only !  The  ancient  church  considered 
his  practice  quite  as  heretical  as  ours  and  even  more  so,  for  they  univer- 
sally admitted  the  validity  of  our  mode.  If,  then,  the  gentleman  claims 
the  ancient  church  in  support  of  immersion,  I  insist,  that  he  ought  to  im- 
merse three  times,  having  the  persons  entirely  disrobed.     It  will  not  an- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  253 

swer  to  call  in  witnesses,  and  then  reject  four-fifths  of  their  testimony. 
But,  in  the  fourth  century,  as  I  have  proved,  immersion  was,  by  no 
means,  universally  practiced ;  and  from  that  period  the  practice  of  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling  became  more  and  more  common.  And  let  it  be  re- 
membered, I  have  found  pouring  or  sprinkling  universally  admitted  to  be 
valid  and  scriptural,  even  earlier  than  the  gentleman  can  find  immersion. 
Such  was  the  decision  of  the  bishop  concerning  the  Jew  taken  ill  in  the 
desert,  and  sprinkled  with  sand — and  such  the  decision  of  Cyprian,  and 
sixty-six  bishops,  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century.  Where  the 
gentleman  finds  immersion,  he  finds  it  connected  with  much  that  he  is 
not  willing  to  practice.  He  rejects  so  much  of  the  testimony  of  the  old 
immersionists  as  he  dislikes.  I  hope,  then,  he  will  allow  me  the  same 
right,  unless  he  is  disposed  to  claim  peculiar  privileges  for  the  cause  of 
immersion. 

In  the  fifth  century  baptism  was,  in  many  parts  of  the  church,  very 
commonly  administered  by  pourmg  or  sprinkling ;  and  this  practice  be- 
came more  and  more  common  till  the  period  of  the  glorious  Reformation, 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  And  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  since  the 
Reformation  restored  the  Bible  to  the  people,  and  since  it  has  been  made 
the  study  of  so  many  of  the  wise  and  the  good,  the  overwhelming  mass 
of  the  christian  church — the  Bible  reading  people — have  entirely  aban- 
doned the  practice  of  immersion,  and  now  baptize  by  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling. Those  who  contend  for  immersion  alone  are  a  mere  handfull; 
making,  perhaps,  one  in  fifty  of  protestant  Christendom.  Moreover,  in 
the  ranks  of  those  who  practice  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  to  be  found 
the  great  majority  of  eminently  learned  expounders  of  the  Scriptures  ! 
History  can  afford  little  aid  to  sustain  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion. 
The  Greeks  and  Latins,  the  ancients  and  the  moderns,  however  prejudiced 
multitudes  of  them  were  in  favor  of  immersion,  have,  with  wonderful 
unanimity,  proclaimed  our  baptism  valid  and  scriptural,  and  the  doctrine 
of  Mr.  C.  untrue  !  If,  then,  this  controversy  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
authority  of  the  learned,  of  those  who  best  understood  the  Greek  lan- 
guage ;  he  must  yield  the  question.  For  all  his  Pedo-baptist  concessions 
I  will  give  him,  in  return,  the  concessions  of  immersionists,  whose  ver- 
nacular tongue  was  the  Greek,  or  who  lived  when  it  was  a  living  language. 

I  wish  now  to  review  the  argument  on  the  whole  question  before  us. 
Let  us,  then,  have  distinctly  before  our  minds  the  proposition  he  has  un- 
dertaken to  establish:  viz.  that  immersion  of  the  person  in  water  is  the 
one  only  apostolic  or  christian  baptism  ;  and  consequendy  all  who  have 
received  the  ordinance  in  any  other  mode  are  unbaptized,  and  are  "aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel!"  This  sweeping  proposition  he  has 
sought  to  prove,  mainly  by  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  The  whole 
controversy,  as  he  admits,  turns  chiefly  on  the  meaning  of  these  words. 
To  prove  that  they  are  specific  terms,  expressing  definitely  the  action  of 
immersing,  he  appealed — 

1st.  To  the  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern,  of  which  he  quoted  a  large 
number.  But  mark  the  fact :  I  appealed  to  the  same  lexicons,  and  proved, 
that  with  almost  entire  unanimity,  they  define  these  words  to  ivash, 
cleanse,  purify,  as  well  as  to  plunge,  sink,  &c.  Some  of  them,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  defined  them  to  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle.  Now  all 
admit  tliat  these  words — ivash,  cleanse.  Sic.  are  generic  terms,  expressing 
the  thing  done,  but  not  the  7node  of  doing  it.  If  then,  it  be  true,  as  all 
the  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern,  declare,  that  these  words  mean  to  wash, 

Y 


251  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

cleanse,  &;c,,  how  is  it  possible  for  the  gentleman,  by  them,  to  prove  im- 
mersion ?  Every  one  knows  that  washing,  cleansing,  purifying,  may  be 
performed  in  different  modes.  So  tiie  lexicons,  instead  of  proving  these 
words  to  be  specific  in  their  meaning,  definitely  expressing  the  action  of 
immersing,  prove  just  the  opposite — that  ihey  are  often  used  as  generic 
terms,  expressing  washing,  cleansing,  purifying  in  any  mode. 

But  the  gentleman  told  us,  bapto  and  baptizo  meant  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  &c.,  not  in  a  proper  or  literal,  but  only  in  s.  figurative  sense  ; 
and  he  labored  faithfully  to  find  one  lexicon  to  sustain  him  in  this  posi- 
tion. He  brought  forward  Stokius,  who  says,  baptizo  means  to  wash 
tropically ;  but  unfortunately  for  him  I  immediately  proved,  by  Ernesti 
and  Stuart,  that  the  tropical  or  secondary  meaning  of  words  is,  in  a  great 
many  instances,  their  proper  and  literal  meaning ;  that  very  few  words 
in  any  language  retain  their  original  meaning,  much  the  larger  number  of 
them  acquiring  tropical  or  secondary  meanings,  which  become  proper 
and  literal.  Carson,  whom  the  gentleman  admits  to  be  a  profound  lin- 
guist, also  asserts,  that  the  secondary  meaning  of  bajdo,  [to  dye  by  sprink- 
ling,) is  as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning.  And  the  lexicons,  en  masse, 
give  to  wash,  cleanse,  as  literal  meanings  of  baptizo. 

Mr.  Campbell  has  insisted,  that  immerse  is  the  primary,  original,  and 
/)ro;9er  meaning  oi' baptizo.  But  unfortunately  again  I  proved,  that  the 
meaning  of  words  is  constantly  changing — that  few  words  retain  their 
primary  or  original  meanings.  Moreover,  the  lexicons  do  give  to  wash, 
to  cleanse,  as  ihe  first,  i\\e  primary  meaning  of  baptizo,  as  used  by  the 
Jews  and  inspired  writers.  The  lexicons,  therefore,  though  he  so  much 
relied  on  them,  have  all  failed  him.  But,  he  says,  they  were  all  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  were  often  in  error!  Right  or  wrong,  they  give  to  these 
words  precisely  the  definition  for  which  I  contend.      They  are  tvith  me  I 

2nd.  His  second  appeal  was  to  the  classics.  He  had  very  learnedly 
taught  us,  that  all  specific  words,  having  a  leading  syllable,  retain  their 
original  idea,  and  therefore  wherever  we  should  find  bap,  as  in  bapto, 
we  would  also  find  the  idea  of  dipping.  He  was  again  unfortunate.  I 
turned  to  a  few  passages  in  the  classics,  and  found  bapto  used  to  express 
the  dyeing  of  a  garment  by  the  dropping  of  the  coloring  fluid,  the  dyeing 
of  the  beard,  the  hair,  the  coloring  of  the  face,  the  staining  of  the  hands, 
the  coloring  of  a  lake,  &;c.,  all  by  the  application  of  the  fluid  to  the  per- 
son or  thing,  not  by  dipping.  In  all  these  instances,  and  others,  we 
found  the  syllable  bap,  and  even  bapto  itself,  where  there  was  no  dip- 
ping, no  immersing. 

But,  said  the  genfleman,  bapto,  in  these  instances,  expresses  not  the 
dropping,  smearing,  &c.,  but  the  effect.  The  effect!  The  effect  of  what? 
The  effect  of  dipping,  immersing?  No;  for  there  was  no  dipping,  no 
immersing  in  the  case.  It  must,  then,  express  the  effect  of  dropping, 
wetting,  smearing.  Then  where  is  the  immersing  ?  And  if  bapto  will 
express  the  effect  of  the  dropping  of  a  coloring  ffuid,  why  not  also  the 
effect  of  a  colorless  fluid — wetting  ?  Mr.  C.  responds  again,  these  are^^w- 
rative  meanings  of  the  word.  No,  says  Mr.  Carson,  his  profound  linguist ; 
they  are  as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning.  So  that  the  classical  usage 
o(  bapto  cannot  help  the  cause  of  immersion  ;  and  since  bapto  and  bap- 
tizo are  admitted  to  have  the  same  meaning,  at  least  so  far  as  mode  is 
concerned,  baptizo  must  also  be  given  up. 

I,  however,  went  with  my  friend  to  the  classics  to  ascertain  their  usage 
in  regard  to  baptizo.     I  found  it,  in  four-fifths  of  the  instances  supposed 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  255 

to  favor  immersion,  meaning  to  sink,  and  so  translated  by  Mr.  Carson, 
Dr.  Gale,  and  by  the  gentleman  himself!  I  found  it  constantly  used  to 
signify  the  sinking  of  ships,  the  sinking  of  animals  and  men  under  water, 
the  flowing  of  water  over  land;  and  I  proved  that  Dr.  Gale,  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  zealous  immersionists,  whilst  commenting  on  one  of 
these  difllcult  passages  in  the  classics,  admitted  that  baptizo  did  not 
necessarily  express  the  wtion  of  putting  under  water — the  very  thing 
and  the  only  thing  Mr.  Campbell,  rvas  laboring  to  prove  by  it!!!  The 
Doctor  had  found  a  place  in  which  baptizo  was  employed,  where  it  was 
perfectly  certain  there  could  be  no  action  of  dipping,  or  of  any  other 
kind.  I  produced  a  passage  from  Plutarch,  in  which  lie  spoke  of  a  Ro- 
man general  who,  when  dying  of  his  wounds,  baptized  [baptisas)  his 
hand  with  his  blood,  and  wrote  on  a  trophy.  In  this  instance  every  one 
sees,  at  once,  there  could  be  no  immersion — nothing  more  than  a  wetting 
of  a  finger  or  writing  instrument.  Yet  the  hand  was  baptized.  I  produced 
also  a  quotation  from  Hippocrates,  where  he  directed,  concerning  a  blis- 
ter-plaster, that  it  should  be  baptized  (baptizein)  with  breast-milk  and 
Egyptian  ointment.  The  gendeman  did  not  attempt  to  remove  the  blis- 
ter-plaster. It  has  been  on  him  now  some  two  days,  and  I  have  serious 
apprehensions  that  it  has  drawn  too  much  I  He  could  not  immerse  it  in 
breast-milk,  as  the  doctor  directed,  so  I  fear  it  has  drawn  very  severely. 
j^A  laugh. 3     The  classics  will  not  sustain  him  ;  they  must  be  given  up. 

3d.  The  gendeman's  third  appeal  was  to  the  translations  ;  and  he  in- 
formed us,  they  were  almost,  if  not  quite  all,  in  favor  of  immersion.  If  I 
am  not  mistaken,  he  relied  for  his  proof  exclusively  on  a  litUe  essay  of  a 
few  pages,  written  by  a  Mr.  Gotch,  of  Dublin,  whose  fame  hss  never 
crossed  the  waters,  except  amongst  immersionists  !  I  was  not  a  little 
surprised  to  see  Mr.  Campbell  relying  for  the  support  of  his  cause  on  evi- 
dence so  slender ! 

He  commenced  with  the  venerable  old  Peshito  Syriac,  the  oldest  and 
one  of  the  best  translations  in  the  world,  made,  if  our  immersionist  friends 
are  to  be  believed,  before  pouring  and  sprinkling  were  known.  I  hap- 
pened to  have  the  Syriac  Testament  and  Schaafs  lexicon.  I  proved,  that 
Schaaf  defined  aniad,  (the  Syriac  word  by  which  baptizo  is  translated,) 
by  the  Latin  phrase  abhdt  se — he  washed  himself;  and  all  admit,  that  abluo 
is  a  generic  term,  signifying  to  wash,  to  cleanse  in  any  mode.  I  further 
proved,  that  Schaaf,  Castel,  Michaelis  and  Buxtorf  could  find  not  one  in- 
stance in  the  New  Testament,  where  amad  means  to  immerse,  and  but 
one  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  even  in  that  neither  the  Hebrew  word  nor 
the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  has  that  meaning.  I  proved  by  Mr.  Gotch 
himself,  the  gendeman's  own  witness,  that  amad  is  used  in  the  Bible  in 
the  general  sense  of  washing — abluit  se.  I  also  stated,  (and  it  has  not 
been,  and  will  not  be  denied)  that  the  Syriac  language  has  a  word  [tzeva) 
which  properly  means  to  dip,  but  which  is  never  \ised  with  reference  to 
christian  baptism.  The  old  Syriac  is  ivith  us,  translating  baptizo,  not 
to  immerse,  but  to  wash,  cleanse  ivithout  regard  to  m.ode. 

I  then  turned  your  attention  to  the  old  Italic  version,  and  the  Vulgate, 
translated  by  the  learned  Jerom  ;  and  in  both  these  venerable  versions  we 
found  the  word  baptizo  not  translated  by  the  Latin  words  mergo,  immer- 
go,  (fcc,  but  transferred,  just  as  in  our  English  version.  In  the  only  in- 
stance where  Jerom  translated  Uie  word,  he  translated  it  by  lavo,  to  wash 
— a  generic  term.  Mr.  Campbell  told  us,  that  baptizo  was  understood  by 
the  Latms  to  mean  immerse,  and  therefore  was  not  translated.     This  was 


256  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

immediately  disproved  by  showing,  that  they  frequently  baptized  by  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling,  and  with  entire  unanimity  regarded  baptism  thus  per- 
formed as  valid  and  scriptural — nay,  that  many  really  believed,  that  John 
the  Baptist  administered  baptism  by  pouring.  The  old  Italic  and  VuU 
gate,  therefore,  must  be  abandoned. 

I  then  turned  your  attention  to  the  Arabic  version,  of  highest  authority, 
and  stated,  (and  it  has  not  been  denied)  that  it  employs  in  translating  bap- 
tizo,  the  same  word  in  form  and  signification  as  the  Syriac.  I  appealed 
to  the  Persic  version,  which  is  admitted  to  have  translated  baptizo  by  a 
word  meaning  to  wash.  I  further  appealed  to  the  Ethiopic,  the  Sahidic, 
the  Basmuric,  the  Arminian,  the  German,  the  Swedish,  the  Danish,  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  Arias  Montanus,  the  Geneva  Bible,  the  French,  the  Span- 
ish, Tyndale's  translation,  proving  by  Mr.  Gotch,  the  gentleman's  own 
witness,  that  a  number  of  them  translated  baptizo  by  generic  terms,  signi- 
fying washing,  ablution,  and  declaring  myself  prepared  to  produce  the 
others,  and  to  prove  that  they  do  not  countenance  the  idea,  that  it  means 
definitely  to  immerse.  And  now  I  ask,  has  the  gentleman  given  evi- 
dence that  any  one  respectable  translation,  ancient  or  modern,  translates 
this  word  to  immerse  ?  No,  and  I  venture  to  say,  he  cannot.  The 
TRANSLATIONS  MUST  BE  GIVEN  UP.     His  third  strong-hold  has  been  taken ! 

4th.  He  was  very  slow,  indeed,  in  getting  into  the  Bible,  and  thus  far, 
has  passed  over  it  very  superficially.  In  regard  to  bapto,  I  stated  the  fact, 
that  although  it  occurs  in  the  Bible  more  than  twenty  times,  it  does  not 
express  an  immersion  in  more  than  four  or  five  instances.  This  fact  Mr. 
C.  has  not  denied.  I  have  produced  examples  in  which  it  means  a  partial 
dipping,  wetting,  smearing; — examples  also  in  which  it  is  used  in  con- 
nection with  apo  {from,)  and  of  necessity  signifies  to  wet  or  moisten  by 
means  of.  I  turned  to  the  passage  in  Dan.  iv.  33,  where  Nebuchadnez- 
zar was  said  to  have  been  ivetfrom  [ebaphe  apo)  the  dew  of  heaven.  The 
gentleman,  however,  will  have  it,  that  by  some  strange  figure  of  speech 
he  was  immersed  from  the  dew  ! ! !  I  turned  to  Rev.  xix.  13,  and 
proved,  in  the  face  of  the  repeated  assertions  of  my  friend,  that  bapto  was 
here  translated  to  sprinkle  by  the  old  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic  and  the  Vul- 
gate versions,  and  that  the  learned  Origen,  in  giving  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage, substituted  rantizo  for  bapto.  But  the  gentleman  guessed,  that 
there  was  another  reading.  What  evidence  does  he  furnish  ?  Is  there 
any  copy  of  the  New  Testament  having  another  reading  ?  No.  Does 
Origen  give  another  ?  No — he  only  gives  the  meaning  of  the  passage. 
There  is  absolutely  no  evidence.  Still  the  Bible  itself  must  be  altered 
to  sustain  immersion !  This  same  Origen,  moreover,  used  baptizo  in  the 
sense  of  pouinng.  The  altar,  he  said,  was  baptized  when  water  was 
poured  upon  it  by  the  order  of  Elisha.  This  is  high  authority. — [Tims 
expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  18 — 7  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[yiK.  Campbell's  closing  address.] 

Mr.  President — This  is  the  last  time  that  I  am  to  address  you,  sir,  on 
this  proposition.  Numerous  topics  yet  demand  attention,  and  therefore, 
we  must  notice  the  most  important  of  them  with  despatch.  The  version 
of  the  previous  correspondence  which  you  have  heard  is  not  correct.  This 
shall  be  shewn  at  a  proper  time.  Indeed  it  will  appear  with  the  debate 
in  extenso,  and  will  then  speak  for  itself.  I  am  glad  that  it  is  all  written, 
and  to  be  published  without  note  or  comment. 

It  is  not  a  fact  that  the  proposition  which  I  sustain  differs  from  every 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  ■  257 

other  proposition  on  the  action  of  baptism.  In  one  or  two  words  it  may 
difler,  but  all  Baptists  maintain  it  as  I'ully  as  I  do.  It  is  not  true,  that  no 
former  writers  on  this  same  subject  have  taken  the  same  view  of  it.  Mul- 
titudes in  all  ages  have  believed  that  immersion  is  the  only  christian  bap- 
tism. All  Pedo-baptist  writers  do  indeed  dissent  from  it,  for  they  believe 
in  a  plurality  of  modes  of  baptism.  I  believe  there  are  not  two  Lords, 
two  faiths,  nor  two  baptisms.  When  I  prove  that  immersion  is  baptism, 
there  being  but  one  baptism,  I  have  then  proved  that  immersion  is  the 
only  christian  baptism. 

This  is  the  ground  on  which  I  stand.  Before  heaven  and  earth  I  affirm 
the  full  conviction  that  there  is  but  one  true  Lord,  one  true  faith,  one  true 
baptism;  and  that  baptism  is  immersion.  I  care  not,  so  far  as  my  popu- 
larity is  concerned,  how  unpopular  the  affirmation  may  be.  I  most  benev- 
olently, honestly,  and  conscientiously  avow  my  conviction,  that  he  who 
has  not  been  immersed  in  water,  into  the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  has  never  received  christian  baptism.     All  Baptists  believe  thus. 

There  is  a  true  and  a  false  charity ;  the  former  is  a  virtue,  the  latter  a 
vice.  I  care  not  if  it  were  written  over  the  whole  earth  and  through  all 
the  heavens,  that  I  have  said  so.  I  declare  this  conviction,  not  from  the 
impulse  of  the  moment;  but  after  many  years  calm,  devout,  and  concen- 
trated attention  to  the  subject.  Many  are  the  treatises  examined,  many 
the  authors  read  on  the  opposite  side  of  this  question ;  but  after  full  thirty 
years  reflection  on  the  subject,  I  am  the  more  deeply  penetrated  with  the 
solemn  and  important  truth  of  the  proposition  which  I  have  been  sustain- 
ing. The  renunciation  of  my  traditional  belief  cost  me  many  a  severe 
trial,  and  subjected  me  to  a  life  of  labors  equal,  I  presume,  to  those  of  any 
other  man  of  my  age  in  this  community.  But  for  that  change  of  views, 
and  a  concomitant  desire  in  all  other  things  to  follow  the  consecrated  and 
divinely  approbated  model  of  the  primitive  faith,  worship,  and  manners, 
I  might  have  led  as  easy  a  life,  as  pertains  to  the  present,  as  any  of  my 
preaching  brethren,  whose  sails  are  filled  with  the  popular  breeze  of  ad- 
miring multitudes,  and  who,  upon  a  smooth  sea,  are  gently  sailing  to  a  bet- 
ter country.  Before  attempting  to  enumerate  the  arguments  offered  on 
the  present  occasion,  I  must  again  recur  to  the  only  proper  issue  formed, 
and  the  only  real  discussion  had,  between  myself  and  my  respondent  on 
the  present  proposition.  Assertions  are  cheap  commodities,  but  argu- 
ments based  on  facts,  are  stubborn  things.  The  gist  of  the  whole  debate 
has,  so  far  as  language  is  concerned,  turned  upon  the  proper,  grammatical, 
or  literal  meaning  of  baptizo.  Various  words,  such  as  dip,  immerse, 
merge,  immerge,  plunge — all  indicative  of  one  and  the  same  action,  have 
been  submitted  by  me,  as  its  one,  only,  proper  meaning.  Mr.  Rice  has 
offered  wash,  cleanse,  sink,  wet,  as  other  meanings  equaWy  proper — both 
agreeing  that  the  proper  meanings  is  the  true  meaning  here.  These 
meanings  resolved  ultimately  into  wash.  He  has  all  along  sought  to  make 
it  the  primitive,  proper,  and  literal  meaning  of  the  word.  That  question 
■was  fully  decided  to-day  in  the  final  verdict  of  the  New  Testament  Pedo- 
baptist  lexicons.  I  have  never  witnessed  greater  confusion  in  any  con- 
troversy in  which  I  have  been  engaged,  or  indeed,  at  which  I  have  been 
present,  than  displayed  by  Mr.  Rice,  on  the  occasion  of  taking  from  him 
this  grand  and  fallacious  assumption.  Wash  was  demonstrated  to  be 
merely  a  circumstantial,  accidental,  or  casual  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
not  at  all  its  proper  meaning.  His  confusion  was  such,  after  a  refusal  to 
refer  the  matter,  that  he  threw  himself  headlong  into  Ernesti ;  forgot,  or 
17  y2 


258  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

lost  the  point  of  discussion,  and  went  on  to  read  that  in  some  cases  words 
wholly  lose  their  proper  meaning,  and  that  a  tropical  meaning  becomes 
the  proper  one  ;  at  the  same  moment  denying  with  all  his  energy,  that 
wash  was  a  tropical  meaning  ! !  He  opened  Ernesti  to  prove  that  tropical 
meanings  became  proper,  while  denying  that  wash  was  a  tropical  mean- 
ing; and  finally,  again  attempted  to  prove  that  tropes  were  not  figures,  and 
that  a  figurative  and  a  tropical  meaning  are  quite  different  matters  !  !  A 
victory  more  complete  in  a  question  of  philology  could  neither  be  wished 
nor  expected  by  any  one  conversant  with  all  the  difficulties  attendant  on 
Greek  philology  and  criticism,  in  the  presence  of  an  ordinary  English 
assembly.  The  gentleman's  assertions  upon  these  subjects,  I  am  sorry  to 
say,  appear  to  me  throughout  superlatively  reckless  ;  but  they  are  now 
matters  of  record  and  1  must  commend  them  to  the  cautious  acceptance 
of  those  into  whose  hands  they  may  fall. 

To  resume  the  argument  from  history,  the  gentleman  will  have  Tertul- 
lian  to  be  a  sort  of  cotemporary  with  the  origin  of  immersion.  Trine 
immersion  he  ought  to  have  said ;  for  trine  immersion  and  katadtisis,  as 
a  favorite  word  with  one  or  two  Greek  fathers,  were  indeed  cotempora- 
ries  ;  but  Tertullian  denies  that  three  immersions  (not  one  immersion)  had 
an  ancient  origin.  Sprinkling  was  never  heard  of  till  A.  D.  251.  I  am 
truly  astonished  at  such  assertions,  in  the  face  of  all  our  ecclesiastical 
■writers.  I  cannot,  however,  regret  to  hear  them  from  Mr.  Rice,  just  at 
this  moment.  They  will  serve  as  cautions  to  all,  touching  that  confidence 
due  to  all  his  assertions  on  such  matters.  The  gentleman  has  even  as- 
serted that  I  have  admitted  that  bapto  in  the  Old  Testament,  does  not 
always  mean  to  dip  ! 

And  I  have  said,  according  to  him,  that  the  lexicons  are  all  wrong! 
And  what  have  I  not  said  that  suited  his  purpose  to  make  me  say  !  ! 
One  thing,  however,  I  now  say,  that  I  have  neither  now,  nor  at  any  for- 
mer period,  heard  one  objection  to  my  views  on  this  question,  or  an 
argument  in  favor  of  anything  different  from  immersion,  that,  in  my 
candid  judgment,  weighed  as  much  as  one  atom  in  counterpoise  with  a 
mountain.  Much  more  than  we  have  now  heard,  lies  spread  over  the 
pages  of  Pedo-baptism,  and  is  often  received  by  Baptists  without  any 
other  emotion  than  sympathy  for  the  prejudices  of  its  authors. 

But  I  could  read  from  Barnabas,  the  shepherd  of  Hermas  ;  and  Justin 
Martyr,  who,  next  to  the  apostles,  stand  on  the  page  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory. I  can  now  only  read  a  sentence,  however,  from  Barnabas  :  "  Consid- 
ering," says  Barnabas,  "  how  he  has  joined  both  the  cross  and  the  water 
together  ;  for  this  he  saith :  Blessed  are  they  who,  putting  their  trust  in 
the  cross,  (/escmrf  into  the  water."  Again:  " /f  e  go  down  into  the 
tvater  full  of  sin  and  pollutions,  but  come  up  again,  bringing  forth  fruit, 
having  in  our  hearts  the  fear  and  the  hope  which  is  in  Jesus."  This  is 
plain  enough  immersion  and  emersion.  I  could  read  you  several  such 
passages,  from  the  highest  authority,  to  the  same  effect.  Not  only  Mo- 
sheim,  Neander,  but  all  the  historians,  as  well  as  professor  Stuart,  trace 
immersion  back  to  the  times  of  the  apostles.  Stuart,  indeed,  in  com- 
menting on  Justin  Martyr's  Apology,  admits  that  it  is  decidedly  in  favor 
of  immersion  ;  and  concerning  the  Oriental  church,  he  avows  a  full 
conviction  that  it  has  ahoays  immersed.  To  quote  only  one  passage 
from  him  on  this  subject,  lie  says  : 

Stuart:  "The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental  church  has 
always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down  to  the  present  time :  see  Allatii  de 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  259 

Eccles.  Orient,  et  Occident,  lib.  iii.  cb.  12.  sec.  4;  Acta  et  Script.  Theol. 
Wirtemb.  et  Patriarch.  Constant.  Jer.  p.  63,  p.  2.'^8  sq.  Christ.  Angeli 
Enchirid.de  Statu  hodierno  Groecor.  ch.  24;  Augusti,  Denkwurd.  vii.  p. 
226.  sq.  The  members  of  tliis  church  are  accustomed  to  call  the  members 
of  the  western  churches  sprinkled  christians,  by  way  of  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt:  Walch's  Einleit.  in  die  relig.  Streitigkeiten,  Th.  V.  pp.  476 — 481 
They  maintain  that  baptizo  can  mean  nothing  but  immerge  ;  and  that  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling'  is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immersion  by  aspersion  ;  and  they 
claim  to  themselves  the  honor  of  having  preserved  the  ancient  sacred  rite  of 
the  church  free  from  change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  destroy  its 
signilicancy  :  see  Alex,  de  Stourdza,  Considerations  sur  la  Doctrine  el  I'Es- 
prit  de  I'Eglise  Orthodoxe,  Stutt.  1816,  pp.  83—89. 

F.  Brenner,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  has  recently  published  a  learned 
work,  which  contains  a  copious  history  of  usages  in  respect  to  the  baptismal 
rite  :  viz.  Geschichtliche  Darstellung  der  Verrichtung  der  Taufe,etc.  1818. 
I  have  not  seen  the  work  ;  but  it  is  spoken  of  highly,  on  account  of  the  dil- 
igence and  learning  which  the  author  has  exhibited  in  his  historical  details. 
The  result  of  them  respecting  the  point  before  us,  I  present,  as  given  by 
Augusti,  Denkwurd.  vii.  p.  68. 

"  Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism  generally  and  ordinarily  performed 
by  the  immersion  of  a  man  under  water ;  and  only  in  extraordinary  cases, 
was  sprinkling  or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods  of  baptism 
were  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited."  Brenner  adds,  "  For  fifteen 
hundred  years  was  tlie  person  to  be  baptized,  either  by  immersion,  or  affu- 
sion, entirely  divested  of  his  garments." 

These  results  will  serve  to  show,  what  a  Roman  Catholic  writer  feels 
himself  forced  by  historical  facts  to  allow,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the 
present  practice  of  his  own  church;  which  no  where  pratices  immersion, 
except  in  the  churches  of  Milan  ;  it  being  every  where  else  even  for- 
bidden. 

In  the  work  of  John  Floyer  on  cold  bathing,  page  50,  it  is  mentioned 
that  the  English  church  practiced  immersion  down  to  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  ;  when  a  change  to  the  method  of  sprinkling  gradually 
took  place.  As  a  confirmation  of  this,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  the  first 
liturgy  in  1547  enjoins  a  trine  immersion,  in  case  the  child  is  not  sickly  : 
Augusti,  ut  sup,  page  229." 

My  readings  from  Whitby  give  the  same  representations.  Out  of 
documents  that  would  require  a  day's  discussion,  I  can  read  but  a  short 
extract  from  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopoedia  : 

''  The  first  law  for  sprinkling  was  obtained  in  the  following  manner  : 
Pope  Stephen  II.  being  driven  from  Rome  by  Adolphus,  king  of  the  Lom- 
bards in  753,  fled  to  Pepin,  who,  a  short  time  before,  had  usurped  the  crown 
of  France.  Whilst  he  remained  there,  the  monks  of  Cressy,  in  Brittany, 
consulted  him  whether  in  case  of  necessity,  baptism  poured  on  the  head  of 
the  infant  would  be  lawful.  Stephen  replied  that  it  would.  But  though 
the  truth  of  this  fact  be  allowed — which,  however,  some  Catholics  deny — 
yet  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  was  admitted  only  in  cases  of  necessity.  It  was 
not  till  the  year  1311  that  the  legislature,  in  a  council  held  at  Ravenna, 
declared  immersion  or  sprinkling  to  be  indifferent.  In  Scotland,  however, 
sprinkling  was  never  practiced  in  ordinary  cases,  till  after  the  reformation 
(about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.)  From  Scotland,  it  made  its 
way  into  England,  in  the  reiga  of  Elizabeth,  but  was  not  authorized  in  the 
established  church." — Art.  Baptism. 

So  the  more  intelligent  and  candid  Pedo-baptists  concur  in  fixing  the 
origin  of  sprinkling  according  to  law,  in  the  council  of  Ravenna,  and  in 
the  year  I31I.  Sprinkling  is,  indeed,  traced  to  one  of  the  darkest  peri- 
ods in  church  history  ;  yet,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  Mr.  Rice  asserts 
that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  primitive  church,  till  about  the  time  of 


260  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

TertulUan,  and  that  the  church  degenerated  from  sprinkling  to  immer- 
sion !  !  Such  was  the  antiquity  and  universality  of  immersion,  and  such 
was  the  origin  and  authority  of  sprinkling.  The  fads  are,  therefore,  as 
before  stated.  The  whole  church,  oriental  and  occidental,  practiced  im- 
mersion for  1300  years.  The  eastern  half  still  continues  the  practice — 
the  western  half  took  the  benefit  of  the  Pope's  indulgence  only  gradually. 
England,  as  Erasmus  sportively  said,  not  so  tractable  as  the  Dutch,  still 
holds  on  to  immersion.  The  English  Protestant  church  was  a  Baptist 
church  for  a  considerable  time.  The  first  Protestant  king,  Edward  the 
sixth,  was  immersed.  The  first  Protestant  queen,  Elizabeth,  was  im- 
mersed. It  was,  through  Calvin's  influence,  introduced  into  Scodand; 
and  in  the  course  of  half  a  century,  generally  prevailed.  All  the  adults 
brought,  by  conquest,  into  the  Roman  empire,  and  others  migratory  into 
it,  on  profession  of  the  faith,  were  immersed,  as  well  as  infants  ;  so  that 
there  has  been  always  an  immense  majority  of  immersionists  or  Baptists. 
Affusion,  never,  till  the  last  two  or  three  hundred  years,  fully  satisfied  any 
portion  of  Christendom.  Clinics,  or  unimmersed  persons,  were  inhibit- 
ed holy  orders,  by  the  twelfth  canon  of  the  council  of  Neocesarea, 
and  consequently,  were  ineligible  to  sacerdotal  functions.  With  regard  to 
the  relative  proportions  of  immersed  and  sprinkled  persons,  in  all  time, 
I  will  read  another  short  extract  from  my  book  on  baptism  : 

"  Now,  allow  an  average  of  one  hundred  millions  every  third  of  a  century 
to  have  been  baptized,  which  is  certainly  within  the  limits  of  the  actual 
number,  (but  it  will  show  the  ratios  just  as  well  as  the  true  number,)  then 
we  have  for  eighteen  centuries,  in  all,  five  thousand  five  hundred  millions  ; 
of  this  number,  four  thousand  millions  were  immersed  during  the  first  thir- 
teen centuries.  Then  we  have  the  one-half  of  five  centuries,  which  is 
seven  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  added  to  four  thousand  millions, — giving 
an  aggregate  of  four  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty  millions  immersed, 
for  seven  hundred  and  fifty  millions  sprinkled,  during  all  the  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  that  is  in  the  ratio  of  seven  immersed  to  one  sprinkled.  In  making 
this  estimate,  we  have  given  all  that  have  been  immersed  in  the  western 
half  of  Christendom  for  the  last  five  hundred  years,  to  compensate  for  all  the 
clinics  that  were  sprinkled  during  the  first  thirteen  centuries.  After 
making  the  most  reasonable  deductions  which  can  be  demanded,  we  have  an 
immense  majority  of  immersed  professors,  compared  with  the  sprinkled. 
This  argument  is  not  urged  in  proof  of  the  truth  of  our  position,  but  as  a 
refutation  of  those  who  would  represent  immersion  as  a  small  affair,  in  the 
esteem  of  all  ages,  compared  with  sprinkling." 

This  estimate,  or  any  other  based  on  any  aggregate  population,  distri- 
buted as  above,  will  give,  in  all  time,  seven  to  one.  So  that  the  question 
is  not,  where  shall  we  find  a  Baptist  church  in  every  century  ?  but,  where 
shall  we  find  a  church  of  sprinkled  christians  ? 

I  shall  now  attempt  a  very  rapid  and  brief  recapitulation.  I  have  not 
time,  however,  more  than  to  name  the  items.  I  could,  in  imitation  of 
my  boastful  friend,  assert  in  wholesale  style,  and  tell  of  all  that  I  have 
proved,  and  all  that  he  has  not  proved  ;  as  from  what  is  past,  I  will  prog- 
nosticate he  will  do.  But,  fellow-citizens,  you  must  judge  for  your- 
selves, at  last,  and  not  from  our  imaginations  or  assertions  of  what  we 
have  proved. 

If,  then,  I  have  not  miscounted,  I  have  offered  in  all  thirteen  distinct 
arguments  in  proof  of  the  first  proposition. 

I.  I  argued  from  the  law  of  specific  words,  to  which  class  bapto  and 
baptizo  belongs — showing  from  the  philosophy  of  words  indicative  of 
specific  action  and  from  usage,  that  while  such  words  retain  their  radical 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  261 

form,  they  retain  the  i-adical  idea.  Thus  in  the  case  of  baptizo,  while 
ever  we  retain  the  bap  we  have  the  dip  in  fact  or  in  figure.  No  proper 
exception  was  found  to  this  rule. 

II.  Baptizo,  according  to  all  the  lexicons  of  eighteen  hundred  years, 
signifies  to  dip,  immerse,  plunge,  as  its  literal,  proper,  original  meaning; 
and  is  never  found  translated  by  sprinkle  or  pour  in  any  dictionary  from 
the  christian  era  down  to  die  present  century.  No  example  was  given 
contrary  to  this  fact.  The  gentleman  labored  to  construct  exceptions 
from  casual  meanings,  but  found  not  one  such  rendering  in  all  those 
lexicons. 

III.  The  classics  were  copiously  alledged  in  proof  of  all  that  argued 
from  the  lexicons.  No  instance  was  adduced  from  them  subversive  of 
the  facts  alledged  from  the  dictionaries. 

IV.  All  the  translations,  ancient  and  modern,  were  appealed  to  in  con- 
firmation of  the  above  facts.  From  a  very  liberal  induction  of  the  ancient 
and  modern  versions,  it  did  not  appear  that  in  any  one  case  any  translator 
had  ever  translated  baptizo  by  the  words  sprinkle  or  pour ;  but  that  it 
had  been  frequently  translated  dip,  immerse,  &c.  Of  modern  translations, 
I  have  examined  many,  and  though  this  word  occurs  one  hundred  and 
twenty  times,  it  is  7i€ver  translated  by  the  words  preferred  by  the  Pedo- 
baptists. 

V.  My  fifth  class  of  evidence  offered,  consisted  of  the  testimonies  of 
reformers,  annotators,  paraphrasts,  and  critics,  respecting  the  meaning  of 
baptizo  ;  selected,  too,  as  under  every  branch  of  evidence,  from  the  ranks 
of  those  whose  practice  was  contrary  to  ours.  This  whole  class,  amongst 
whom  were  Luther,  Calvin,  Grotius,  Witsius,  Vossius,  Vitringeo,  &;c., 
declare  that  in  the  New  Testament  use  of  the  word,  it  means  to  immerse, 
and  some  of  them  say,  in  so  many  words,  "  tiever  to  sprinkle.''^ 

VI.  Our  sixth  argument  consisted  of  the  testimony  of  English  lexico- 
graphers, encycloposdias  and  reviews,  whose  testimony  sustains  that  of 
the  reformers,  annotators,  and  critics. 

VII.  Our  seventh  argument  was  an  exhibit  of  the  words  in  construc- 
tion with  baptizo — raino  and  cheo — showing  a  very  peculiar  uniformity 
never  lost  sight  of  in  a  single  instance ;  shewing  that  to  sprinkle  and  pour 
have  necessarily  upon  and  never  in  after  them  :  while  baptizo  has  in  or 
into  after  it,  and  never  upon ;  an  argument  to  which  Mr,  Rice  made  no 
reply  whatever,  and,  indeed,  no  response  to  it  could  be  given.  It  is,  indeed, 
as  I  conceive,  the  clearest  and  most  convincing  argument  in  the  depart- 
ment of  philology,  because  it  groups  in  one  view  the  whole  controversy 
on  all  the  prepositions  and  verbs  in  debate.  I  believe  it  to  be  unan- 
swerable. 

VIII.  Our  eighth  argument  was  deduced  from  tlie  places  mentioned  in 
the  Bible,  intimating  that  much  water  was  necessary.  There  is  not  one 
intimation  in  the  Bible  of  ever  bringing  water  to  the  candidates  ;  but  there 
are  intimations  of  taking  them  out  to  rivers,  and  places  of  much  water. 
Mr.  R.  could  give  no  reason  for  going  to  the  Jordan  to  wet  one's  fingers, 
or  out  of  doors  to  baptize  any  one,  if  sprinkling  had  been  the  practice. 

IX.  The  ninth  argument  was  deduced  from  tiie  first  law  of  the  deca- 
logue of  philology — which  makes  all  true  definitions  and  translations  of 
terms  convertible.  Which,  when  applied  to  baptizo,  clearly  proves  that 
in  the  New  Testament  it  cannot  possibly  signify  to  sprinkle,  pour,  wash, 
or  purify. 

X.  Our  tenth  argument  was  drawn  from  the  principal  objections  of  Pe- 


262  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

do-baptists,  showing  that  in  these  very  objections  there  is  farther  evidence 
in  demonsti'ation  of  immersion. 

XI.  The  eleventh  argument  asserted  the  overwhelming  fact,  that  sprink- 
ling common  water,  or  pouring  it  on  any  person  or  thing,  was  never  com- 
manded by  God  under  any  dispensation  of  religion,  for  any  purpose 
whatever.  This  unanswered  argument  is  fatal  to  the  whole  plan  of 
sprinkling  advanced  by  Mr.  Rice. 

XII.  Our  twelfth  evidence  consisted  of  the  allusions  used  by  inspired 
men  in  reference  to  baptism ;  their  comparing  it  to  a  burial  and  resur- 
rection, to  a  planting  of  seed,  and  in  making  it  a  sort  of  antitype  of  water 
and  the  ark  during  the  deluge.  To  this  last  argument,  admitted  by  all  the 
great  founders  and  luminaries  of  Protestant  parties,  Mr,  Rice  has  institu- 
ted a  recent  discovery,  made,  I  think,  at  Andover,  New  England  ;  which  in 
effect  says,  that  baptism  is  not  compared  to  a  burial.  The  gentleman,  if  I 
understand  him,  denies  the  proper  burial  of  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Jews, 
and  even  of  the  Messiah,  to  get  rid  of  this  figure.  It  exceedingly  annoys 
him.  I  do  not  wonder  at  it ;  though  I  wonder  at  his  temerity  in  speaking 
of  the  Messiah's  burial  as  a  thing  of  "  no  consequence  any  how."  I  say 
I  do  not  wonder  at  his  opposition  to  the  fact  of  a  real  common  sense 
burial ;  for  that  admitted,  and  he  must  say,  with  Chalmers  and  all  en- 
lightened men,  that  certainly,  in  the  apostolic  age,  they  immersed,  they 
buried  men  in  water.  Cannot  a  person  be  buried  in  a  rock  ?  Is  a  rock 
not  earth  ?  Is  not  a  grave  cut  into  a  rock,  a  grave  as  much  as  if  dug  out 
of  sand  or  earth  ?  If  a  grave  of  one  or  two  rooms,  such  as  the  sepul- 
chres of  the  rich,  be  cut  into  a  rock  on  the  side,  or  even  summit  of  a 
hill,  and  a  corpse  laid  in  it,  and  the  door  closed;  is  not  the  person  cov- 
ered in  the  earth  ?  Jesus,  according  to  him,  lay  not  like  Jonah  three 
days  and  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  If  there  was  no  burial,  there 
may  be  a  revival,  but  no  resurrection.  I  wonder  no  more  at  his  freedom 
with  Greek  philology — Greek  verbs,  and  translations,  and  declensions — 
if  the  facts  of  the  literal  and  proper  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  Mes- 
siah must  be  set  at  nought,  to  find  for  him  an  escape  from  christian  im- 
mersion. Fellow-citizens — my  Presbyterian  friends,  are  you  prepared 
for  this?  Do  you  reject  the  burial  of  Jesus,  to  get  rid  of  being  "buried 
with  him  by  an  immersion  into  death;"  as  many  of  your  own  doctors 
translate,  and  you  should  read  it.  Are  you  prepared  to  say,  that  the 
ancient  Jcm's,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  Moses,  and  David,  were 
not  buried ?  or  that  Jesus  did  not  rise  and  come  forth  from  the  earth? 
Ah  me  !  methinks  it  mattei-s  not  what  have  been  the  forms  of  graves,  the 
rites  of  sepulture,  the  formalities  of  interment,  at  any  time  or  in  any 
country.  The  earth  has  opened  its  mouth  and  devoured  all.  All  came 
from  the  dust,  and  all  return  to  it  again ;  youth  and  old  age,  beauty  and 
deformity,  rich  and  poor,  noble  and  ignoble,  all  go  down  into  the  earth. 
Jesus,  who  is  the  resurrection  and  the  life,  went  down  with  them  into 
the  bosom  of  the  earth,  that  he  might  open  for  them  a  way  out  of  it 
What  more  fitting,  then,  in  making  the  christian  profession,  than  that  we 
should  die  to  sin  and  earth ;  and  being  burietl  with  our  Lord  in  water, 
rising  out  of  it  in  token  of  our  being  born  again,  to  live  a  new  and  holy 
life;  that  being  raised  with  Christ,  we  may  place  our  affections  on 
things  above! 

XIII.  My  thirteenth,  or  last  argument,  the  history  of  baptism  and  of 
sprinkling,  you  have  just  now  heard.  You  have  heard  that  all  the  Greek 
and  Latin  fathers  from  the  very  earliest  antiquity — from  the  very  age  of  the 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  263 

apostles,  according  to  our  historians ; — and  indeed  the  oriental  church  al- 
ways— and  the  western  church,  for  thirteen  centuries,  practiced  immersion- 
What  further  evidence  can  any  one  desire '.  Now,  as  I  have  already  slated, 
if  only  one  of  these  thirteen  arguments  be  true  and  valid,  immersion,  and 
immersion  only,  is  established  forever  beyond  a  rational  doubt  or  contra- 
diction. Any  one  of  them  is  enough  !  How  irresistible,  then,  to  the  can- 
did mind,  the  accumulated  evidence  of  them  all !  In  addition  to  tlie  main- 
tenance of  these  positions,  I  believe  I  have  noted  and  replied  to  every  ar- 
gument, (if  not  to  notice  every  specification,)  advanced  by  ray  opponent. 

In  view  of  all  those  learned  Rabbis,  lexicographers,  translators,  reform- 
ers, annotators,  critics,  historians,  theologians,  and  scholars,  do  I  not 
stand  in  the  midst  of  a  respectable  and  honorable  band,  when  I  plead  for 
immersion  merely  in  a  literary  and  philological  point  of  view  !  But 
when  we  contemplate  it  as  a  solemn  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  great 
Law-giver  and  King  of  Zion,  and  think  of  the  multitude  of  ancient  wor- 
thies, those  martyred  hosts  of  ancient  confessors,  those  mighty  spirits  that 
loved  not  their  lives  even  unto  death,  but  gave  tliem  up  a  voluntary  sacri- 
fice at  the  shrine  of  eternal  truth  and  everlasting  love,  who  washed  their 
robes  and  made  them  while  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb;  who  went  down 
into  the  water  and  were  buried  with  the  Lord  in  holy  immersion ; — feel- 
ing ourselves  surrounded  with  such  a  pure,  elevated,  venerable,  sacramen- 
tal host  of  elect  spirits  ;  may  we  not  feel  strong,  courageous,  joyful,  tri- 
umphant;— able  to  endure  all  the  reproaches,  scofis,  derisions,  contume- 
lies, anathemas,  and  persecutions  of  earth  and  hell,  should  they  all  con- 
spire against  us,  and  seek  our  destruction,  because  of  our  loyalty  and  alle- 
giance to  heaven's  rightful  sovereign,  our  great  and  glorious  Lord  Mes- 
siah !  Could  we  not  suffer  an  immersion  in  the  dark,  deep  waters  of 
earth's  most  bitter  trials,  for  the  sake  of  being  enrolled  and  classed  with 
such  a  noble  band  of  illustrious  men  and  women  !  Methinks,  one  could 
almost  wish  for  persecution  in  the  maintenance  of  this  creed — for  the 
sake  of  the  honor  of  standing,  as  in  some  humble  degree  I  feel  myself,  in 
the  midst  of  Hebrew  saints,  Greek  worthies,  Latin  fathers,  (not  of  the  pa- 
pacy,) illustrious  advocates  of  the  christian  faith ;  pillars  of  the  church, 
both  in  the  oriental  and  western  sections  of  the  christian  profession. 

When  I  see  such  a  crowd  of  earth's  great  ones — the  philanthropists, 
public  benefactors,  men  of  high  intellectual  and  moral  eminence,  standing 
on  the  banks  of  rivers,  in  the  midst  of  pools — around  the  ancient  baptiste- 
ries, bowing  their  heads  and  their  hearts  to  immersion — cheerfully  going 
down  into  the  mystic  waters,  and  there  covered  with  the  glories  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit — immersed  into  the  faith 
and  hope  of  eternal  life,  methinks  there  is  no  trial  too  grievous  to  be 
borne,  no  opposition  too  great  to  endure,  for  the  sake  of  participating  with 
them  in  these  high  honors  and  heaverdy  ecstacies.  Thus  they  showed  their 
faith  in  him,  and  gratitude  to  him  who  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do 
his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  him,  and  to  offer  up  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many.  So  must  we,  so  would  we  partake  of  their  joys  on  earth, 
their  triumphs  in  death,  and  their  eternal  honors  in  the  world  to  come. 

Pure,  primitive,  Bible  Christianity  has  had  to  fight  its  way  down  to  us 
through  hosts  of  opponents.  We  are  indebted  to  the  zeal,  and  courage, 
to  the  firm,  unyielding  integrity,  and  persevering  devotion  of  myriads  of 
choice  spirits,  for  all  that  we  know,  and  all  that  we  enjoy,  of  the  hope  of 
eternal  life.  It  is  our  duty  to  imitate  our  benefactors  and  to  transmit  the 
same  blessings  to  posterity.     But  our  time  is  almost  expended. 


564  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  Rice,  as  his  manner  is,  will  no  doubt  tell  yon  I  have  proved 
nothing;  that  he  has  proved  everything;  that  we  have  converted  no  one; 
that  parties  remain  as  they  were.  Were  this  indeed  the  fact,  we  should 
then  be  no  more  unfortunate  than  thousands,  who  confirmed  their  testi- 
mony at  the  stake  without  converting  any  one.  We  are  not  to  judge  of 
the  force  of  argument,  nor  of  the  weight  of  evidence,  by  its  immediate 
effect  upon  a  partizan  and  super-excited  population.  The  blood  of  the 
martyrs  ultimately  became  the  seed  of  the  church.  We  sow  now  and 
reap  again. 

But  as  the  soundness,  or  plainness,  or  importance  of  a  doctrine  is  not 
always  a  passport  to  immediate,  or  to  general  favor ;  neither  is  the  ab- 
surdity of  any  tenet,  or  practice,  a  guarantee  that  it  is  speedily  to  be  de- 
molished and  driven  from  society.  Were  that  so,  transubstantiation  would 
long  since  have  been  exploded.  It  has,  however,  survived  Luther  and 
Calvin  almost  three  centuries.  Echius,  the  celebrated  antagonist  of  Lu- 
ther, laughed  and  manoeuvred  down  all  the  logic  and  rhetoric  of  Luther 
and  his  companions,  on  auricular  confessions,  transubstantiation,  and  pur- 
gatory. Like  my  worthy  antagonist,  he  always  proved  his  theses — 
demolished  his  antagonist,  and  proclaimed  victory  for  the  ancient,  ven- 
erable, apostolic  doctrine  of  the  pope,  and  the  holy  see  of  Rome. 

Lutheranism,  however,  had  many  lives.  It  was  often  killed,  but  soon 
revived  again  ;  gained  a  triumph  in  every  defeat,  while  Eckius.  and 
popery  were  prostrated  by  their  triumphs. 

Protestantism  could  not  be  put  down  by  such  a  policy,  nor  by  such 
opponents.  Its  principles,  so  far  as  they  deserved  to  triumph,  have 
triumphed  amidst  all  opposition.  So  do  the  principles  for  which  we  con- 
tend. During  some  five  and  twenty  years  they  have  been  publicly  op- 
posed in  every  form,  and  what  has  been  the  result !  Often  defeated, 
as  our  opponents  say,  while  they  always  prove  their  positions,  still  they 
spread  continually.  They  triumph  every  where,  amongst  all  who  give 
them  a  candid  hearing — and  they  will  continue  to  triumph  till  all  partyism 
cease — till  the  whole  christian  world  shall  bow  together  in  one  spacious 
temple ;  till,  in  one  grand  concert,  they  shall  raise  tlieir  grateful  hosannas 
and  joyful  hallelujahs  to  the  King  of  Zion ;  till  the  redeemed,  of  all  na- 
tions, and  languages,  and  people,  shall  meet  and  worship  around  one 
altar;  confessing  one  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  immersion. — [Time  eX' 
pired. 

Saturday  evening,  Nov.  18 — 8  o^ clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  closing  REPLY.3 

Mr.  President — From  the  remarks  of  my  worthy  friend,  you  would 
be  induced  to  suppose  that  he  and  his  immersionist  friends  are  the  only 
people  in  the  world  who  believe  there  is  but  one  baptism.  But,  sir,  all 
Pedo-baptists  maintain  this  doctrine.  Who  ever  imagined  that  there  are 
two  or  more  baptisms  ?  The  Scriptures  teach  that  there  is  one  baptism ; 
but  the  gentleman  would  make  an  important  addition  to  their  language : 
he  would  say,  there  is  but  one  mode,  or  one  action  of  baptism.  But 
does  the  Bible  so  teach  ?  It  certainly  uses  no  such  language.  This  one 
baptism  is  an  ordinance  administered  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  an  ordained  minister  of 
the  gospel. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  I  was  amazed  and  confounded  to-day,  when 
he  produced  that  terrific  author,  Stokius  ;  that  I  was  quite  frightened  out 
of  my  senses,  and,  in  my  confusion,  turned  and  read  a  passage  which 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  265 

condemned  the  position  I  had  assumed !  I  will  simply  remark,  that  the 
fear  of  Mr.  Campbell  has  never  been  before  my  eyes,  neither  to-day,  nor 
heretofore.  I  have  been  in  vv'ar  of  this  kind  before  to-day ;  and  I  have 
seen  big  books,  and  heard  wind-guns  fired,  without  doing  much  execu- 
tion. And,  pray,  what  was  it  that  so  alarmed  me  ?  Why,  Stokius  says, 
haptizo  means,  tropically,  to  wash.  But  does  not  Mr.  Carson,  his  pro- 
found critic,  fully  sustain  me  in  all  I  have  said  ?  I  have  asserted,  that 
bapto  and  baptizo  signify  not  only  to  sink,  plunge,  &c.,  but  also  to  dye, 
to  wash,  to  cleanse  in  a  literal  sense.  Mr.  Campbell  maintains,  that 
these  last  meanings  ^xe figurative.  But  what  says  Carson?  He  asserts, 
most  positively,  as  I  have  repeatedly  proved,  that  bapto  means  to  dye,  in 
any  manner,  even  by  sprinkling,  and  that  this  meaning  is  as  literal  as 
the  primary  m,eaning.  "Nor,"  says  he,  "are  such  applications  of  the 
word  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as  Dr.  Gale  asserts."  (And  Dr. 
Gale  contended  for  the  very  principle  now  urged  by  Mr.  Campbell.)  "  It 
is  by  extension  of  the  literal  meaning,  and  not  loy  figure  of  any  kind, 
that  words  come  to  depart  so  far  from  their  primary  meaning."  I  have 
asserted,  that,  even  admitting  these  meanings  to  be  secondary,  or  tropical, 
they  became,  by  usage,  particularly  among  the  Jews,  the  proper  and  lit- 
eral meanings  of  the  words.  Carson,  whom  the  gentleman  considers  a 
profound  linguist,  asserts  the  very  principle  for  which  I  have  contended. 
Why,  then,  should  I  have  been  confounded,  with  the  gentleman's  learned 
critic  standing  by  me  and  defending  me  from  his  assaults  ? 

But  he  tells  you,  that,  in  my  great  alarm,  I  turned  and  read  a  passage 
from  Ernesti  that  directly  condemned  me,  and  was  not  aware  of  it !  Let 
me  read  the  passage  again ;  and  the  audience  will  be  able  to  determine 
whether  he  or  I  ought  to  be  most  confounded.  Stokius  gives  to  wash  as 
a  tropical  meaning  of  baptizo;  and  Mr.  C.  asserts,  that  the  tropical 
meaning  of  words  is  always  figurative.  Now  hear  the  language  of 
Ernesti : 

"  But,  there  are  several  different  points  of  light  in  which  tropical  words 
are  to  be  viewed.  For,  first,  the  primitive  or  proper  signification,  strictly 
understood,  often  becomes  obsolete,  and  ceases  for  a  long  period  to  be  used. 
In  this  case,  the  secondary  sense,  which  originally  would  have  been  the  tro- 
pical one,  becomes  the  proper  one.  This  applies  especially  to  tlie  names 
of  things.  Hence,  there  are  many  words  which,  at  present,  never  have 
their  original  and  proper  sense,  such  as  etymology  would  assign  them,  but 
only  the  secondary  senses,  which  may  in  such  cases  be  calied  the  proper 
sense  ;  e.  g.  in  English,  tragedy,  comedy,  villain,  prtgan,  knave,  &c. 

"  Secondly,  i?i  like  manner,  the  tropical  se^se  of  certain  words  has  be- 
come so  common,  by  usage,  that  it  is  better  understood  than  the  original  sense. 
In  this  case,  too,  we  call  the  sense  proper;  although  strictly  and  technically 
speaking,  one  might  insist  on  its  being  called  tropical.  If  one  should,  by  his 
last  will,  give  a  library  [bibliothecam']  to  another,  we  should  not  call  the  use 
of  bibliotheca  tropical ;  although  strictly  speaking  it  is  so,  for  bibliotheca 
originally  meant  the  shelves  or  place  where  books  are  deposited." — Ernesti, 
pp.  23,  24. 

Sustained  by  such  authorities,  I  have  felt  as  cool  and  as  deliberate  as  if 
I  were  eating  my  dinner. 

To  prove,  that  immersion  was  practiced,  at  a  very  early  period  in  the 
christian  church,  Mr.  C.  quotes  Barnabas  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 
I  reply  to  this  testimony  by  reading  a  paragraph  from  Mosheim's  Church 
History. 

"  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  was  the  production  of  some  Jew,  who,  most 
probably,  lived  in  this  century,  and  whose  mean  abilities,  and  superstitious 

Z 


266  DEBATE  ON  CHRIS  HAN  BAPTISM. 

attachments  to  Jewish  fables,  show,  notwithstanding  the  uprightness  of  his 
intentions,  that  he  must  have  been  a  very  different  person  from  the  true 
Barnabas,  who  was  St.  Paul's  companion.  The  work,  which  is  entitled 
The  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  because  the  angel,  who  bears  the  principal  part 
in  it,  is  represented  in  the  form  and  habit  of  a  shepherd,  was  composed  in 
the  second  century  by  Hermas,  who  was  brother  to  Pius,  bishop  of  Rome. 
This  whimsical  and  visionary  writer  has  taken  the  liberty  to  invent  several 
dialogues,  or  conversations,  between  God  and  the  angels,  in  order  to  insin- 
uate, in  a  more  easy  and  agreeable  manner,  the  precepts  which  he  thought 
usefiil  and  salutary,  into  the  minds  of  his  readers.  But,  indeed,  the  dis- 
course which  he  puts  into  the  mouths  of  these  celestial  beings,  is  more 
insipid  and  senseless  than  what  we  commonly  hear  among  the  meanest  of 
the  multitude." — Mosheint's  Ch,  His.  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  ch.  21. 

These  are  his  witnesses.  If  they  were  the  authors  of  the  works  quo- 
ted, he  is  welcome  to  their  testimony. 

Stuart,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  admits,  that  the  Oriental  church  has  prac- 
ticed immersionyVojn  tlie  beginning.  It  is  true,  Stuart  admits,  that  from 
an  early  period  the  Oriental  church  practiced  trine  immersion,  as  the 
Greek  church  still  does  ;  but  he  does  not  admit  that  such  was  the  apos- 
tolic practice.     But  let  him  speak  for  himself.     He  says  : 

*'  I  have  now  examined  all  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  the  circumstances  related  or  implied,  would  seem  to  have  a  bearing 
on  the  question  before  us,  viz:  Whether  the  mode  of  baptism  is  determined 
by  the  sacred  writers!  I  am  unable  to  find  in  them  any  thing  which  settles 
this  question.  I  find  none,  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede,  which  seem  abso- 
lutely to  determine  that  immersion  was  not  practiced.  But  f  re  there  not 
some,  which  have  been  cited  above,  that  serve  to  render  it  improbable  that 
immersion  was  always  practiced,  to  say  the  least"?  I  can  only  say  that  such 
is  my  persuagion.  The  reader  has  the  evidence  before  him,  and  can  judge 
for  himself.  He  will  indulge  me,  I  hope,  in  the  same  liberty.  I  do  con- 
sider it  as  quite  plain,  that  none  of  the  circumstantial  evidence  thus  far, 
proves  immersion  to  have  been  exclusively  the  mode  of  christian  baptism, 
or  even  that  of  John.  Indeed,  I  consider  this  point  so  far  made  out,  that  I 
can  hardly  suppress  the  conviction,  that  if  any  one  maintains  the  contrary, 
it  must  be  either  because  he  is  unable  rightly  to  estimate  the  nature  or 
power  of  the  Greek  language  ;  or  because  he  is  influenced  in  some  measure 
by  party  feeling ;  or  else  because  he  has  looked  at  the  subject  in  only  a 
partial  manner,  without  examining  it  fully  and  thoroughly." — Stuart,  pp. 
53,  54. 

Such  was  the  conclusion  of  Stuart,  whose  learning  and  candor  the 
gentleman  has  frequently  applauded.  Every  one  must  see  that,  if  cor- 
rect, it  is  fatal  to  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion — destructive  of  the 
very  position  Mr.  C.  is  laboring  to  establish. 

He  has  made  an  important  statement  concerning  those  baptized  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling,  in  the  ancient  church ;  viz.  that  of  so  doubtful 
character  was  their  baptism  considered,  that  they  were  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  Gospel  ministry.  I  will  prove  to  you  that  this  statement  is 
wholly  incorrect.  The  council  of  Neocesarea,  which  met  some  eighty 
years  after  Cyprian  and  the  council  of  sixty-six  bishops  had  declared 
their  belief,  that  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  valid  and  scriptural, 
uses  the  following  language  : 

"  He  that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick,  ought  not  to  be  made  a  priest, 
[for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not  voluntary,  but  from  necessity.)  unless  hit 
diligence  and  faith  do  prove  commendable,  or  the  scarcity  of  men  ft  for  the 
qffice  do  require  it.^^ 

Mr.  Campbell.  [Addressing  the  Moderators.]  I  wish  to  have  the 
second  rule  of  this  debate  now  read. 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  267 

Mr.  Moderator  (Judge  Robertson)  then  read  as  follows ;  "  Rule  2.  Oa 
the  final  negative,  no  new  matter  shall  be  introduced." 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  now  appeal  to  the  president  whether  the  gentleman 
is  not  now  out  of  order.  I  submit  the  question,  whether  he  is  not  now 
introducing  new  matter  ? 

Mr.  Ruje.  And  I  submit  whether  Mr.  Campbell  did  not,  in  his  last 
speech,  introduce  the  matter  to  which  I  am  now  replying  ? 

Mr.  Moderator  (Col.  Speed  Smith.)  The  respondent  has  certainly  the 
right  to  answer  all  the  arguments  adduced  in  the  last  speech  of  the  affir- 
mant. 

Mr.  Rice.  The  Moderators  have  decided  correctly,  that  I  have  the 
right  to  answer  his  last  speech.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  my  friend  has 
sought  to  protect  his  argument  by  an  appeal  to  the  Moderators. 

You  perceive,  that  no  doubt  whatever  was  entertained  of  the  validity 
of  such  baptisms.  The  persons  thus  baptized  were  debarred  from  the 
ministry,  until  they  had  afforded  clear  evidence  of  piety,  because  it  was 
believed  that  sick-bed  repentance  was  of  a  suspicious  character. 

Mr.  C.  is  quite  sanguine  in  the  belief,  that  immersion  will,  ere  long,  be 
universally  practiced.  Yet,  he  tells  us,  that  until  the  thirteenth  century 
all  Christendom  isnmersed.  Then  there  has  certainly  been  a  wonderful 
falling  away  from  the  primitive  practice.  On  what  evidence  he  founds 
his  confident  anticipation  of  the  prevalence  of  immersion,  I  know  not. 
"  The  signs  of  the  times,"  I  think,  do  not  indicate  such  a  change.  Nev- 
ertheless, his  faith  is  quite  strong  enough  to  utter  the  prediction.  Well, 
we  must  wait  and  see  whether  it  will  be  fulfilled  ! 

He  asks,  why  was  it  necessary  to  go  where  there  was  much  ivater,  if 
baptism  was  not  performed  originally  by  immersion  ?  This  question  has 
already  been  fully  answered.  John,  we  know,  needed  much  water,  even 
if  he  practiced  pouring  or  sprinkling;  because  multitudes,  attending  his 
ministry,  remained  together  for  several  days  at  a  time,  and  they  must 
have  had  much  water  for  ordinary  purposes,  and  for  their  ablutions.  But 
the  apostles  (the  fact  is  remarkable,)  never,  in  a  solitary  instance,  went 
after  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  any  number  of  converts,  at  any 
time  or  place  !  If  they  had  been  immersionists,  they  would  doubtless 
been  found  going  to  ponds  or  streams  of  water;  and  Mr.  C,  and  father 
Taylor,  would  not  have  found  it  necessary  to  draw  so  largely  on  their 
imaginations  to  supply  the  defect  in  sacred  history. 

He  is  quite  astonished  at  my  saying,  that  our  Savior  was  not  buried  in 
the  earth ;  and  he  tells  us,  Christianity  is  founded  on  the  fact,  that  he  was 
buried  and  rose  again.  I  did  not  say,  he  was  not  buried.  We  are  dis- 
cussing the  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  I  said,  he  was  not  put  under  ground, 
80  that  the  plunging  of  persons  under  water  could  be  a  representation  of 
his  burial  ;  and  so  I  still  say.  I  have  also  said,  (and  I  now  repeat  it)  that 
the  mere  fact  of  our  Savior's  being  put  into  a  tomb,  is  not,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, presented  as  a  matter  of  fundamental  importance.  There  are  dif- 
ferent modes  of  burying  the  dead  ;  and  our  Savior  would  have  risen  from 
the  dead,  wherever  his  body  might  have  been  placed.  The  matter  of 
greatest  moment  to  us  and  to  all  men  is,  that  he  died  for  our  sins,  shed 
his  blood  for  us,  and  rose  from  the  dead.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  sup- 
posed that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  intended  as  a  representation  of  his 
burial. 

My  friend  is  certainly  right  in  determining  not  to  be  laughed  out  of  his 
religion,  and  in  meekly  bearing  all  the  persecution  that  may  come  upon 


268  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

him.  Why,  one  would  think,  judging  from  his  last  speech,  that  he  is 
a  martyr  among  martyrs! — that  he  is  one  of  that  "sacramental 
host,"  of  whom  he  has  spoken  so  eloquently  !  I  really  supposed  that  the 
reformers  persecuted  us  quite  as  much  as  we  persecute  them.  Every 
body,  I  believe,  is  disposed  to  allow  them  quietly  to  enjoy  their  own 
opinions.  We  have  not  excommunicated  immersionists  because  they 
prefer  a  particnlar  mode  of  baptism  ;  but  they  have  excommunicated  us, 
and  pronounced  us  unbaptized,  and  out  of  the  church  of  Christ,  We 
are  the  persons  who  should  complain  of  reproach.  But  he  feels  himself 
in  company  with  the  sacramental  host  of  God's  elect,  the  immersionists 
of  olden  time.  They,  however,  did  not  believe  the  doctrine  for  which 
he  is  now  contending.  They  recognized  the  validity  of  baptism  as  ad- 
ministered by  us ;  and  we  rejoice  to  acknowledge  them  as  a  portion  of 
tlie  family  of  our  Heavenly  Father. 

But  the  gentleman  himself,  though  he  has  appealed  to  your  sympathy, 
as  one  that  is  suffering  reproach  and  persecution  for  conscience'  sake, 
rejects  from  the  church  of  Christ,  such  men  as  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and 
Zuinglius,  and  Cranmer,  and  Wesley,  and  Whitefield,  and  the  whole  of 
the  Pedo-baptists.  Aye,  and  his  faith  puts  them  out  of  heaven  !  For 
if  his  doctrine  concerning  the  importance  and  efficacy  of  immersion  be 
true,  they  have  failed  of  reaching  heaven.  I  know,  he  has  expressed  the 
opinion,  that  some  unimmersed  persons  may  be  saved  ;  but  if  his  doc- 
trine is  true,  his  opinion  is  false.  We  might,  perhaps,  with  some  show 
of  reason,  appeal  to  sympathy  ;  but  we  will  not.  I  leave  the  audience  to 
determine  whether  Mr.  C.  or  I  more  resemble  Eckius,  the  popish  priest. 
In  the  mean  time,  I  will  proceed  to  review  the  arguments  I  have  offered. 

Having  reviewed  the  arguments  from  the  lexicons,  the  classics,  and 
the  translations,  I  was  presenting  that  from  Bible  usage.  Bapto,  as 
I  have  proved,  as  used  in  the  Bible,  rarely  expresses  an  immersion,  gen- 
erally a  partial  dipping,  wetting,  moistening  or  sprinkling.  If,  then,  bap- 
tizo  has  the  same  meaning,  as  to  mode,  the  argument  for  immersion  must 
fail. 

I  have  also  examined  the  Bible  and  Jewish  usage  of  baptizo.  It  oc- 
curs first  in  2  Kings  v.  10 — 14,  where  Naaman,  the  leper,  was  di- 
rected to  go  and  wash  seven  times  in  Jordan;  and  he  went  and  baptized 
seven  times,  as  the  prophet  directed.  The  command  was  to  wash,  not  to 
immerse;  and  he  obeyed  it.  Accordingly  Jerom,  notwithstanding  his 
prejudices  in  favor  of  immersion,  here  translated  baptizo  by  lavo — a 
generic  term,  signifying  to  tvash,  without  reference  to  mode.  In  this 
instance  the  word  cannot  be  proved  to  mean  immerse. 

Baptizo  occurs  also  in  Judith  xii.  7.  She  went  out  in  the  night,  in  a 
military  camp,  and  baptized  herself  at  (epi)  a  fountain  [or  spring]  of 
water.  Both  the  language  and  the  circumstances  here  prove  that  she 
did  not  immerse  herself,  but  applied  the  water  to  her  person  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling. 

It  occurs  again  in  Ecclesiasticus,  where  a  man  is  said  to  be  baptized 
from  the  dead,  or  after  touching  a  dead  body ;  and  the  question  is  asked, 
what  will  his  washing  profit  him,  if  he  touch  it  again  ?  We  examined 
the  law  relative  to  this  cleansing,  and  found  sprinkling  commanded,  as 
the  most  important  part  of  it,  but  no  immersion  required.  The  gentle- 
man could  not  find  time  to  reply  to  these  arguments  !  Here  we  have  two 
clear  examples  of  the  use  of  baptizo,  in  the  sense  of  cleansing  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling.     These  examples  are  particularly  important,  as  show 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  269 

ing  the  sense  in  which  the  word  was  employed  by  the  Jews,  in  relation 
to  their  religious  washings, 

Baptizo  occurs  again,  in  a  literal  sense,  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  where  the 
Jews  are  said  to  have  baptized  themselves  (baptisontai)  when  they  came 
from  the  market.  Mr.  Campbell's  translation  of  this  passage,  I  have 
proved  not  to  be  a  translation,  but  a  strange  perversion  of  the  original 
Greek.  He  throws  out  some  two  Greek  words,  translates  a  conjunction, 
an  adverb,  and  a  verb  in  the  third  person,  plural  number,  by  a  preposition 
by,  a  participle  dipping,  and  adds  the  word  them,  (referring  to  the  hands,) 
which  is  not  in  the  original!  And  he  makes  the  little  adverb /ji/g-me 
mean  "  by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them!''''  But  the  gentleman  has 
not  found  time  to  defend  his  translation,  or  to  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
Jews  immersed  themselves,  their  hands,  or  their  couches  !  But  let  it  be 
understood,  that  in  the  stereotyped  edition  of  his  New  Testament,  baptizo 
is  made  to  mean  the  washing  of  the  hands.  If  the  washing  of  the  hands 
is  baptizing  the  person,  (for  such  is  the  meaning  of  baptisontai,)  surely 
the  application  of  water  to  the  face,  through  which  the  soul  looks  out, 
may  be  regarded  as  a  baptism. 

Baptizo  again  occurs  in  Luke  xi.  38 ;  and  here  I  find  it  in  Mr.  C.'s 
translation,  rendered  "  used  washing.''''  This,  however,  we  are  told, 
happened  by  a  mistake  of  the  compositor,  and  the  error  having  escaped 
notice  through  several  successive  editions,  is  now  stereotyped !  It  was 
truly  a  remarkable  oversight !  But  the  gentleman  has  not  attempted  to 
prove  that  the  Pharisee  wondered  that  the  Savior  had  not  immersed  him- 
self before  dinner  !  Here,  then,  we  have  some  four  examples  of  the 
use  of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  ivashing  the  hands,  (which,  amongst 
the  Jews,  we  know,  was  generally  done  by  pouring  water  on  them,)  and 
of  purifying  tables  or  couches,  which  was  doubtless  performed  in  the 
same  way. 

The  last  example  of  the  use  of  the  word,  in  a  literal  sense,  not  in  re- 
lation to  christian  baptism,  is  in  Hebrews  ix.  10,  where  the  ceremonial 
law  is  said  to  consist  in  "  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms.^''  There 
are  in  the  law,  divers  baptisms  ;  but  there  are  not  divers  immersions.  I 
have  repeatedly  asserted,  that  in  not  one  instance  was  personal  immer- 
sion required  by  the  Levitical  law;  and  I  called  on  the  gentleman  to  shovir 
one.  He  has  not  done  it.  In  this  passage,  the  word  baptism  evidently 
includes  all  the  ablutions  of  the  Jews,  the  most  important  of  which  were 
required  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the  Bible,  where 
baptizo  is  used  in  a  literal  sense,  not  in  relation  to  christian  baptism,  we 
have  found  no  one  instance  in  which  it  can  be  proved  to  mean  immerse; 
indeed,  in  every  case  but  one,  which  might  be  considered  doubtful,  it  is 
evidently  used  to  signify  washing  or  purification,  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. The  conclusion  is  not  only  fair,  but  most  obvious,  that  as  appro- 
priated to  the  ordinance  of  christian  baptism,  it  has  the  same  meaning. 

5Ch.  I  have  appealed  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  christians,  in 
regard  to  baptizo.  We  have  seen  that  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  them, 
speaking  of  the  altar  on  which  Elisha  directed  the  priests  to  pour  several 
barrels  of  water,  says,  it  was  baptized.  Here  is  a  baptism,  the  mode  of 
which  we  can  all  understand.  We  know  that  the  water  was  poured  on 
the  altar ;  and  we  know  that  Origen  says,  it  was  baptized.  And  if  an 
altar  was  baptized  by  pouring,  why  may  not  a  person  be  baptized  in  the 
same  way?     This  is  high  authority.     Origen  was  a  native  Greek;  he 

z2 


270  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

was  a  christian  ;  and  he  was  an  eminently  learned  man.  Yet  he  certainly 
nses  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  the  pouring  of  water  on  the  altar.  Th6 
gentleman  did  not  find  time  to  tell  us  how  this  altar  was  immersed !  I 
think  he  did  intimate  that  Origen  did  not  employ  figures  very  correctly! ! 
But  it  will  not  answer  to  make  a  figure  of  twelve  barrels  of  literal  water, 
poured  on  a  literal  altar.  If  this  was  not  a  literal  baptism,  where  will 
you  find  one  ? 

Origen,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  the  same  man  who  substituted  ranti- 
zo  for  bapto.  If  he  understood  his  vernacular  tongue,  (of  which,  how- 
ever, Mr,  Carson  expresses  a  doubt !)  it  is  certain  that  baptizo  expresses 
the  application  of  water  by  pouring. 

But  Origen  does  not  stand  alone  in  thus  using  this  word.  I  have  proved 
that  Alhanasius,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Basil,  and  others,  employed  it  to 
express  the  flowing  of  the  tears  over  the  face,  and  of  a  martyr's  blood 
over  his  body.  My  friend  has  been  profoundly  silent  concerning  all 
these  quotations  !  If  the  Greek  fathers  understood  their  vernacular 
tongue,  baptizo  means  pouring  and  sprinkling,  as  well  as  dipping. 

I  have  also  appealed  to  the  Latins,  and  have  proved,  that  Cyprian  and 
sixty-six  bishops,  early  in  the  third  century,  declared  baptism  administer- 
ed by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  valid  and  scriptural,  and  to  prove  it,  appeal- 
ed to  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you," 
&c.  Did  they  not  believe,  that  baptizo  expressed  the  application  of  water 
by  sprinkling?  If  they  had  not,  they  would  not  have  appealed  to  Eze- 
kiel, nor  have  decided  as  they  did.  Observe,  they  said,  let  not  those  who 
have  received  baptism  by  pouring,  so  far  mistake  as  to  be  baptized  again. 
The  usage  of  the  ivord  baptizo  by  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  sustains 
my  position,  and  refutes  that  of  Mr.  Campbell. 

6th.  I  have  proved  another  important  fact,  viz :  that  when  immersion 
came  to  prevail  among  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  they  employed  baptizo  to 
denote  the  ordinance,  and  selected  other  words  to  express  the  mode  of 
performing  it  by  immersion.  The  Greeks  used  A"a/a(mo  and  katadusis s 
and  the  Latins,  tingo,  intingo,  mergo,  immergo,  &c.  If  baptizo  ex- 
pressed definitely  the  action  of  immersing,  as  Mr.  Campbell  contends ; 
how  shall  we  account  for  the  indisputable  fact,  that  they  selected  other 
words  to  express  that  action,  and  employed  baptizo,  when  no  such  action 
was  performed  ?  /  have  the  authority  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  chris- 
tians against  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell. 

7th.  1  have  appealed  to  the  history  of  baptism,  and  proved  that  the 
first  writer  of  any  respectability  who  mentions  immersion,  is  TertuUian, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century;  and  he  speaks  of  trine  immersion, 
with  sign  of  the  cross  and  other  superstitions.  The  gentleman  will  not 
practice  according  to  TertuUian,  but  subtracts  from  his  testimony,  till  it 
suits  him.  On  the  same  principle  I  may  subtract  a  little  more  from  it, 
and  it  will  suit  me.  But  I  have  found  sprinkling  practiced  and  universal- 
ly admitted  to  be  valid  and  scriptural  baptism,  earlier  than  immersion  can 
be  found.  I  mentioned  the  case  of  the  Jew  who  fell  sick  in  a  desert,  and, 
having  no  water  convenient,  was  sprinkled  with  sand.  The  bishop  deci- 
ded, that  he  was  truly  baptized,  if  only  water  was  poured  on  him  (per- 
funderetur.)  The  history  of  the  ordiyxance  sustains  us.  For  if,  as  his- 
tory teaches,  our  baptism  is  valid  and  scriptural;  if  it  has  ever  been  so 
recognized  from  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity ;  the  doctrine  for  which 
the  gentleman  is  contending  is  proved,  so  far  as  history  is  worthy  of  con- 
sideration, to  be  false.     And  if  so,  there  is  not  only  sin  in  excommunica- 


DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  271 

ting  all  who  do  not  practice  immersion,  but  something  like  a  profanation 
of  the  ordinance  by  a  repetition  of  it  in  case  of  such  as  have  been  validly 
baptized.  The  Pedo-baptist  concessions  of  which  he  boasts,  do  not  touch 
the  validity  of  our  baptism;  but  the  concessions  of  the  old  Greek  and 
Latin  immersionists  place  him  in  an  unenviable  position. 

I  must  close  this  discussion  by  stating  the  facts  which  more  directly 
prove,  that  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  valid  and  scriptural. 

1st.  Christian  baptism  is  a  significant  ordinance,  in  which  water  is  used 
as  an  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing — of  sanctification.  Hence  it  is  fre- 
quently called  a  washing,  as  I  have  abundantly  proved. 

2d.  When  God  first  selected  a  mode  of  representing  spiritual  cleansing, 
ne  selected  sprinkling.  The  ablutions  of  the  Levitical  law,  the  mode  of 
■which  was  prescribed,  were  required  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling.  No 
personal  immersion  was  required.  This  fact  cannot  be  disproved.  If, 
then,  sprinkling  was  once  the  most  appropriate  mode  of  representing 
spiritual  purification  ;  why  is  it  not  so  still  ?     Can  a  reason  be  given  ? 

3d.  The  inspired  writers  never  did  represent  spiritual  cleansing  or 
sanctification  by  putting  a  person  under  water,  either  figuratively  or  liter- 
ally. No  exception  can  be  produced.  If,  then,  immersion  was  not 
then  a  suitable  mode  of  representing  sanctification ;  how  can  it  be  so 
now  ? 

4th.  The  inspired  writers  did  constantly  represent  sanctification  by 
pouring  and  sprinkling.  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  clean.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,"  &c.  Here 
the  prophet  represents  a  new  heart  by  sprinkling.  We  do  the  same  thing 
in  administering  christian  baptism.  The  apostles  used  the  same  mode  of 
expression,  "  Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and 
our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  If  you  would  represent  emblem- 
atically the  sprinkling  of  the  heart;   would  you  not  sprinkle  water? 

5th.  I  have  stated  another  very  important  fact — that  from  the  time 
when  christian  baptism  was  instituted,  we  find  not  one  instance  on  record 
of  the  apostles  going  after  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing.  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  were  not  going  in  search  of  water,  but  came  to  it,  on  their 
journey.  Tens  of  thousands  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  in  a  country, 
having  few  streams  of  water  of  any  considerable  depth  ;  yet  they  were 
always  able  to  baptize  tlie  many  or  the  few  without  delay,  whenever  and 
wherever  they  professed  faith — in  the  crowded  city,  in  the  country,  in  the 
desert,  in  the  prison,  night  or  day.  And  in  no  one  instance  is  it  recorded, 
that  they  went  one  step  out  of  their  way  after  water !  This  is  indeed 
most  unaccountable,  if  immersion  was  then  practiced  ;  but  if  the  apostfes 
baptized  as  we  do,  the  history  of  their  baptisms  is  just  such  as  we  should 
have  expected. 

6lh.  Paul,  I  have  said,  according  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  lan- 
guage employed,  was  baptized  in  a  city,  in  a  private  house,  standing  up. 
Ananias  came  and  found  him  blind  and  enfeebled,  and  said,  "Arise  (stand 
up)  and  be  baptized;"  "  and  he  arose  and  was  baptized."  Just  so  Pedo- 
baptists,  who  practice  pouring  or  sprinkling,  write ;  and  thus  our  immer- 
sionist  fiiends  do  not  write.  We  certainly  write  as  Luke  wrote,  whether 
we  practice  as  he  did  or  not;  and  immersionists  do  not  write  as  he  wrote, 
It  is  indeed  remarkable,  that  those  who  write  as  he  did,  differ  from  him 
in  practice;  whilst  those  who  do  not  write  as  he  did,  do  yet  imitate  his 
example ! 

7ih.  I  derive  an  argument  for  our  practice  from  the  three  witnesses,  the 


272  DEBATE  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

water,  the  Spirit  and  the  blood,  1  John  v.  8.  The  blood  of  Christ  clean- 
ses from  all  sin.  The  Spirit  sanctifies  the  heart.  The  blood  is  called 
"the  blood  of  sprinkling;"  the  Spirit  is  represented  as  poured  out,  shed 
forth  and  the  water,  the  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing — how  should  it 
be  applied  ?  Surely  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Thus  these  three  wit- 
nesses most  strikingly  agree ;  and  the  scriptural  representation  is  uniform 
and  constant. 

The  argument  is  before  the  audience.  I  now  ask  you,  my  friends,  has 
my  opponent  produced  evidence  to  satisfy  your  minds,  that  immersion  is 
the  only  valid  and  scriptural  baptism  ;  and  that  all  who  have  received  the 
ordinance  in  any  other  form,  are  really  unbaptized  and  out  of  the  church 
of  Christ?  Look  at  his  arguments  and  the  indisputable  facts  I  have  stated 
and  proved,  and  determine  for  yourselves.  All  true  christians  have  one 
God  and  one  Savior,  and  are  going  to  the  same  bright  and  glorious  habi- 
tation. It  is  no  trifling  matter  to  divide  the  church  and  excommunicate 
multitudes  of  its  most  pious  and  worthy  members.  Has  the  gentleman 
produced  evidence,  in  view  of  which  you  are  prepared  to  take  such  a  step  ? 
My  decided  conviction  is,  that  he  has  not, — that,  on  the  contrary,  I  have 
clearly  proved,  that  baptism  should  always  be  performed  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling.  I  cheerfully  leave  you  to  judge  of  the  weight  of  my  argu- 
ments ;  and  pray,  that  God  will  in  his  mercy  lead  us  to  the  truth. 


Qbnd  of  the  first  proposition.] 


PROPOSITION    SECOND. 

The  Infant  of  a  Believing  Parent  is  a  Scriptural  Subject 

of  Christian  Baptism.     Mr,  Rice   affirms.     Mr.  Campbell 

denies. 

Monday,  Nov.  20 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  subject  of  discussion,  this  morning,  is  the  bap- 
tism of  infants ;  and  the  proposition  wliich  I  undertake  to  establish,  is 
the  following:  The  infant  of  a  believi7ig parent  is  a  scriptural  subject 
of  christian  baptism. 

I  am  constrained  to  regard  this  subject  as  one  of  greater  practical  im- 
portance than  that  of  which  we  have  just  disposed.  For  it  involves,  in 
no  inconsiderable  degree,  the  interests,  present  and  future,  of  our  chil- 
dren. In  the  mind  of  every  affectionate  parent,  therefore,  it  must  excite 
a  deep  and  tender  interest:  for  what  is  more  natural  than  the  strong  de-^ 
sire,  in  the  bosom  of  the  parent,  to  secure  for  his  offspring  all  the  bless- 
ings, temporal  and  spiritual,  which  God,  in  his  boundless  condescension 
and  mercy,  has  offered?  It  becomes  us,  then,  to  give  this  subject,  if  pos- 
sible, even  a  more  candid  and  thorough  examination  than  that  which  has 
preceded  it ;  for,  in  regard  to  this,  we  are  called  to  act  for  those  who  are 
incapable  of  acting  for  themselves. 

Allow  me  here  to  remark,  (and  the  fact  is  Avorthy  of  special  considera- 
tion,) that  whether  this  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures  or  not,  it  cer- 
tainly has  commanded  the  belief,  the  firm  belief,  of  almost  the  whole 
of  Christendom,  in  all  ages ;  not  of  the  ignorant  and  superstitious  only, 
or  chiefly,  but  of  the  wise  and  good — of  those  who  have  taken  the  Bible 
as  their  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  overwhelming 
majority  of  those  who  have  diligently  sought  to  know  their  duty,  as  con- 
nected with  this  interesting  subject,  have  understood  the  Scriptures  to 
teach,  that  the  children  of  believing  parents  ought  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
exceptions,  I  may  venture  to  say,  are  as  one  to  a  thousand.  The  oppo- 
sers  of  this  doctrine,  compared  with  even  Protestant  Christendom,  are  a 
mere  handfull. 

My  worthy  friend,  Mr.  C,  agrees  with  me,  that  the  Bible  is  a  plain 
book,  easily  understood  on  all  important  points.  This  being  admitted,  we 
have  the  very  strongest  presumptive  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
for  which  I  contend.  For,  if  it  be  the  absurd  and  ridiculous  thing  it  is 
often  represented — nay,  if  it  be  not  true,  how  shall  we  be  able  to  account 
for  the  almost  universal  belief  of  it  amongst  the  pious  readers  of  the  Bi- 
ble ?  How  unaccountable  has  been  the  infatuation  of  almost  the  whole 
christian  world,  on  the  supposition  that  this  doctrine  is  false  and  absurd ! 

In  support  of  the  proposition  before  us,  I  appeal  to  the  word  of  God. 
And  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  say,  that  on  this  subject  there  will  be  but 
little  necessity  for  dry  criticism.  The  doctrine  of  the  baptism  of  infants 
can  be  defended  in  plain  English. 

18  273 


274  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

I  commence  my  argument  by  reading  the  commission  given  by  oui 
Savior  to  his  apostles.  Matt,  xxviii.  18 — 20,  "And  Jesus  came  and 
spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.    Amen." 

Such  is  the  high  and  momentous  commission  under  which  the  twelve 
apostles  went  forth,  to  proclaim  to  a  dying  world  "  the  unsearchable 
riches  of  Christ."  That  we  may  understand  its  import,  so  far  as  the 
present  subject  is  concerned,  I  will  state  a  few  facts. 

1.  This  is  not  a  commission  to  organize  a  clmrch.  As  it  is  recorded 
by  Mark,  it  required  the  apostles  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  But  in  neither  case  does  it  contain  even  an  intimation,  that  a 
new  church  was  to  be  organized ;  nor  do  we  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  that  they  ever  did  organize  the  christian  church.  God  had 
long  had  a  church  on  earth,  and  long  had  the  gospel  substantially  been 
preached.  But  hitherto  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  his  church  had 
been  confined  to  the  Jewish  nation.  A  gentile  could  enjoy  them  only  by 
becoming  a  Jew,  and  submitting  to  all  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Levitical  law.  But  the  period  had  now  arrived,  when  the  privileges  of 
the  church,  and  the  blessings  of  the  gospel,  were  to  be  extended  to  all 
nations;  when,  as  Paul  says,  God  "would  justify  the  heathen  through 
faith."  To  this  happy  day  Isaiah  was  enabled  to  look  forward,  when, 
comforting  God's  afflicted  church,  he  pointed  her  to  a  brighter  period  in 
her  future  history,  when  the  gentiles  should  become  fellow  heirs  with  the 
pious  Jews,  and  exclaimed — "Sing,  O  barren,  thou  that  didst  not  bear; 
break  forth  into  singing,  and  cry  aloud,  thou  that  didst  not  travail  with 
child :  for  more  are  the  children  of  the  desolate  than  the  children  of  the 
married  wife,  saith  the  Lord.  Enlarge  the  place  of  thy  tent,  and  let 
them  stretch  forth  the  curtains  of  thy  habitation :  spare  not,  lengthen  thy 
cord,  and  strengthen  thy  stakes.  For  thou  shall  break  forth  on  the  right 
hand,  and  on  the  left ;  and  thy  seed  shall  inherit  the  gentiles,  and  make 
the  desolate  cities  to  be  inhabited."  The  gentiles  were  to  be  admitted 
into  a  church  already  in  existence,  not  into  a  church  then  to  be  organized. 

2.  The  second  fact  I  state,  is  liiis :  the  commission  specifies  neither  in- 
fants nor  believers  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  "  Go,  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them" — the  nations.  Or,  as  Mark  gives  it,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  In 
the  commission,  as  given  by  Mark,  the  Savior  informs  us  who  shall  be 
saved,  but  not  who  shall  be  baptized.  It  may  be  said,  the  expression — 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized" — necessarily  confines  baptism  to  be- 
lievers, since  infants  cannot  exercise  faith.  I  answer,  if  you  thus  exclude 
infants  from  baptism,  you  must  also  exclude  them  from  heaven;  for  the 
commission  also  says,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned;  and  infants 
cannot  believe.  The  Savior's  language  was  to  be  addressed  and  is  appli- 
cable only  to  those  capable  of  understanding  and  believing  ;  and  it  neither 
excludes  infants  from  heaven  nor  from  the  church. 

3.  I  state  a  third  fact :  the  apostles  were  to  make  disciples  (for  such  is  the 
meaning  oi  matheteiio)  by  baptizing  and  teaching.  This  is  man's  part  of 
the  work.  A  more  important  part  belongs  to  God.  Mr.  Campbell  and  I 
are  agreed,  that  disciples  were  to  be  made  by  baptizing  and  teaching. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  275 

4.  I  wish  distinctly  to  state  a  fourth  fact :  the  commission  does  not  say, 
that,  in  all  eases,  teaching  must  precede  baptizing;  nor  does  it  say,  that 
in  any  case,  it  must  precede.  This  must  be  determined  from  other 
sources  of  evidence.  In  the  case  of  adults  it  is  necessary  to  teach  both 
before  and  after  baptism.  Infants  are  taught  after  baptism.  If  you  would 
induce  an  adult  to  enter  your  school  as  a  pupil,  you  must  first  convince 
him  that  it  is  his  interest  to  do  so ;  but  children  may  be  placed  in  the 
school  by  their  parents.  In  both  cases  you  speak  of  them  as  scholars  or 
disciples.  Adults  must  enter  the  church  voluntarily,  as  they  receive  all 
instruction  voluntarily;  but  parents  are  to  "  train  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  Since,  then,  the  Savior  has  not 
said,  that  teaching  must  always  precede  baptism ;  no  man  has  the  right 
to  say  so.  • 

The  question,  then,  arises — who  or  what  characters  are,  according  to 
the  law  of  Christ,  to  receive  christian  baptism  ?  I  think,  the  gentleman 
will  agree  with  me,  that  all  who  have  a  right  to  be  in  the  church  of  God, 
ought  to  receive  baptism.  All  admit,  that  now  (whatever  may  have  been 
the  case  under  the  old  dispensation)  no  one  can  enjoy  membership  in  the 
church  of  Christ,  until  he  is  baptized.  A  man  may  be  pious  before  he  is 
baptized;  but  he  cannot  be  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  en- 
titled to  its  privileges  and  bound  by  its  rules.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that 
all  to  whom  Christ  has  given  the  privilege  of  membership  in  his  church, 
ought  to  be  baptized  ;  since,  whatever  other  purposes  baptism  may  an- 
swer, it  is  certainly  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  church. 

This  being  admitted,  the  great  and  most  important  inquiry  is  this  :  who 
or  what  characters  are,  according  to  the  laio  of  God,  to  enjoy  member- 
ship in  his  church?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  necessarily  deter- 
mine to  whom  baptism  is  to  be  administered ;  for  if  we  can  ascertain,  that 
certain  persons  have  a  right  to  enter  a  house,  it  follows  that  they  have  a 
right  to  enter  by  the  door. 

Now  let  us  inquire,  where  shall  we  look  for  the  law  of  membership  in 
the  church  of  Christ?  Or  when  would  the  question  concerning  the  right 
of  membership  necessarily  be  determined  ?  I  answer,  when  the  church 
was  first  properly  organized.  You  cannot  organize  a  society  of  any 
kind,  even  a  litde  debating  society,  without  determining  who  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  membership.  When  a  society  is  organized,  the  constitution, 
of  course,  determin€3  the  question  concerning  membership.  If,  there- 
fore, we  would  ascertain  who  has  the  privilege  of  a  place  in  the  church 
of  God,  we  must  go  to  the  organization  of  the  church. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  another  very  important  inquiry,  viz:  when  and 
where  ivas  the  church  organized?  I  do  not  learn,  that  the  apostles  were 
directed  to  organize  the  church ;  nor  do  I  find,  that  they  did  so.  I  am 
obliged,  therefore,  to  look  elsewhere  for  the  correct  answer  to  this  question. 

I  maintain,  then,  that  the  church  was  organized  in  the  days  and  in 
the  family  of  Mraham ;  when  God  entered  into  a  covenant  with  the 
father  of  the  faithful  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  seed.  Before  proceed- 
ing to  the  proof  of  this  proposition,  allow  me  to  give  a  definition — or, 
if  you  please,  a  description  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  church  is  a 
body  of  people  separated  from  the  world  for  the  service  of  God,  with  or- 
dinances of  divine  appointment,  and  a  door  of  entrance,  or  a  rite  by 
which  membership  shall  be  recognized.  The  correctness  of  this  defini- 
tion or  description,  I  think,  will  not  be  called  in  question.  What  is  the 
church  of  Christ  now,  but  a  body  of  people  separated  from  the  world  for 


'Ttt' 


276  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  and  a  door  of 
admission?  Whenever  I  find  such  a  body  of  people,  I  find  a  church  of 
God.  Let  us  now  inquire  wlielher  such  a  people  are  to  be  found  in  the 
family  of  Abraham. 

In  the  r2th  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  are  informed,  that  the  Lord  spoke 
to  Abraham  in  the  following  language :  "  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and 
from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will 
shew  thee  :  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee, 
and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shah  be  a  blessing :  and  I  will  bless 
them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee  ;  and  in  thee  shall 
all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  And  in  the  7th  verse — "And 
the  Lord  appeared  unto  Abraham,  and  said,  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this 
land."  Here  we  find  promises  of  bleesings,  both  temporal  and  spiritual, 
to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  The  same  promises  substantially  were  after- 
wards repeated,  as  recorded  in  Gen.  xv.,  and  again,  some  years  after,  re- 
iterated and  ratified  by  the  sign  of  circumcision  ;  of  which  we  read  in 
Gen.  xvii.  1 — 14. 

According  to  the  tenor  of  this  covenant  Abraham  and  his  family  were 
circumcised,  and  thus  became  a  people  separated  from  the  world  for  the 
service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  and  a  door  of 
entrance — a  rite  which  distinguished  them  from  all  other  people,  as  in 
covenant  with  God.  Here  we  find  the  church  of  God  organized.  Of 
circumcision  the  great  Baptist  writer,  Andrew  Fuller,  says,  it  distinguish- 
ed Abraham  and  his  family  from  others,  as  in  covenant  with  God,  and 
bound  them  to  his  service.  Is  not  this  true  of  christian  baptism  ?  I  care 
not,  however,  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned,  whether  baptismi 
came  in  the  place  of  circumcision  or  not. 

From  this  time  God  spoke  of  Abraham  and  his  descendants  through 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  as  his  people.  He  directed  Moses  thus  to  speak  to 
Pharoah,  king  of  Egypt:  "Thus  saith  the  liord,  let  7ny  people  go,  that 
they  may  serve  me,"  Exod.  viii.  1  and  ix.  1.  Again — "  Thus  saith  the 
luord,  My  people  went  down  aforetime  into  Ejiypt,  to  sojourn  there,"  &;c. 
Isa.  Hi.  4.  They  are  also  repeatedly  called  the  church,  Acts  vii.  38. 
"  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness,  with  the  angel 
which  spoke  to  him  in  Mount  Sinai,"  &;c. 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  church  of  God  organized.  Whether  it  is 
identical  with  the  christian  church,  we  shall  inquire  in  due  time.  We  are 
now  ])repared  to  inquire,  to  vjhom  did  God  give  the  privilege  of  member- 
ship in  this  church?  We  are  at  no  loss  for  an  answer  ;  for  it  is  abso- 
lutely certain,  that  he  by  positive  enactment  made  believers  and  their  chil- 
dren members.  Abraham,  who  was  the  father  of  believers,  and  his 
children  and  family,  constituted  the  church.  Some,  perhaps,  may  object, 
that  Abraham's  adult  servants  were  also  circumcised.  It  is,  however,  a 
fact — an  important  fact — which  I  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  adults  were 
never  permitted,  according  to  the  divine  law,  to  receive  circumcision,  but 
upon  profession  of  faith  in  the  true  God.  It  cannot  be  proved,  that  any 
of  Abraham's  servants  were  unbelievers.  Professed  believers  and  their 
children,  therefore,  were,  by  positive  law  of  God,  constituted  members 
of  his  church.     This  fact  cannot  be  successfully  controverted. 

Let  me  now  state  another  important  fact,  viz :  From  the  organization 
of  the  church,  to  the  moment  when  the  commission  was  given  to  the  apos- 
tles, believers  and  their  children  enjoyed  together  the  privilege  of  mem- 
bership.    This  fact  cannot  be  disputed. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  27-7 

In  view  of  these  facts  T  will  now  state  an  important  principle.  Since 
the  children  of  believers  were  put  into  the  church  by  positive  law  of  God  ; 
they  can  be  put  out  only  by  positive  law  of  God.  Inferences  will  not 
answer  the  purpose.  You  cannot  infer  men  out  of  their  political  rights. 
Men  do  not  reason  so  conclusively  that  we  may  safely  trust  our  rights  and 
privileges  to  their  deductions  and  inferences.  I  enjoy  the  rights  of  a  citi- 
zen of  these  United  States  by  the  plain  letter  of  the  constitution.  If  you 
wish  to  deprive  me  of  these  rights,  you  must  prove,  that  the  constitution 
has  been  so  altered  as  to  exclude  me.  You  must,  in  order  to  deprive  me 
of  my  political  rights,  find  law  as  positive,  and  of  as  high  authoritj'  as 
that  which  originally  conferred  them.  The  principle  holds  good  in  eccle- 
siastical matters.  If  I  prove  that  God  put  certain  persons  into  his  church, 
you  cannot  exclude  them,  unless  you  can  point  to  the  law  authorising  you 
so  to  do.  God  did  put  the  chiidre*  of  believers  into  his  church  by  clear 
and  positive  enactment;  and  you  may  as  lav/fully  exclude  believers  from 
the  church,  as  their  children,  unless  you  can  produce  a  '■'■Thus  saith  the 
Lord "  for  excluding  the  latter.  This  principle  is  so  perfecdy  under- 
Stood,  that  I  need  not  spend  time  either  in  proving  or  illustrating  it. 

I  wish  now  to  state  one  more  important  fact,  viz  ;  The  commissiori 
given  the  apostles,  does  not  exclude  the  children  of  believers.  As  al- 
ready remarked,  it  specifies  neither  believers  nor  their  children,  as  proper 
subjects  of  baptism.  It  says,  "  Go,  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them'''' — the  nations. 

But  you  ask :  Does  dot  the  Savior  say,  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved  ?  and  can  infants  believe  ?  And  I  ask,  does  he  not 
also  say,  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  ?  Then  infants  must  be 
damned,  if  you  apply  this  language  to  them.  If  my  friend  will  take  that 
ground,  very  well.  Our  Savior,  in  this  langviage,  has  told  us  who  were  to 
go  to  heaven,  but  not  who  were  to  be  baptized.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved.  Did  Matthew  give  the  commission  complete  ? 
Certainly.  But  did  he  say  that  children  should  be  excluded  ?  He 
did  not 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  children  of  believers  put  into  the  church  by 
positive  law,  and  remaining  in  the  church  for  long  successive  ages  with- 
out interruption.  They  entered  by  the  same  door  with  the  parents,  and 
tiad  the  same  seal  of  God's  covenant  upon  them.  We  find  them  there 
till  the  Savior  gave  this  commission,  and  it  does  not  exclude  them.  In- 
deed, it  would  have  been  marvellous  if  it  had ;  for  it  was  a  privilege 
expressly  granted  to  Abraham,  to  have  his  children  in  covenant  with  the 
Lord.  If  it  had  not  been  a  privilege,  the  Lord  would  not  have  required 
it.  And,  if  it  were  a  favor  to  the  Jews  to  have  their  children  in  the 
■church,  why  is  it  not  to  christians  ? 

Did  Jesus  Christ,  the  Great  Immanuel,  come  to  t?. 'ie  av/ay  privileges 
•which  had  been  enjoyed  for  so  many  centuries  ?  Believers  had,  from 
the  days  of  Abraham,  enjoyed  tlie  privilege  of  having  their  children  em- 
braced in  God's  covenant.  Did  the  Messiah  come  to  deprive  his  people  of 
their  privileges?     No:  he  came  rather  to  enlarge  than  to  diminish  them- 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  children  of  believers  put  into  the  church  by 
positive  law,  and  remaining  in  the  church  to  the  moment  of  the  giving 
■of  the  great  commission ;  and  the  commission  does  not  exclude  them- 
Where,  then,  I  ask,  is  the  law  for  excluding  them?  I  have  found  a  law, 
clear  and  positive,  for  putting  them  in.  Can  Mr.  Campbell  find  the  law 
ior  putting  them  out  ? 

2A 


278  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

But  it  is  urged  as  an  objection,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  not  di- 
rectly mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  Suppose  it  is  not.  Infants  are 
in  the  church  by  positive  law ;  and  it  will  not  do  to  infer  them  out,  on 
the  ground,  that  the  baptism  of  such  is  not  in  so  many  words  mentioned. 
You  have  the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth  by  the  plain  letter 
of  the  constitution  ;  and  you,  therefore,  have  the  right  to  a  vote  in  the  elec- 
tion of  public  officers.  But  many  legislatures  have  met,  and  many 
changes  have  been  made  in  our  laws,  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion. Suppose,  now,  some  one  should  attempt  to  deprive  you  of  the 
right  to  vote  ;  would  you  not  at  once  appeal  to  the  constitution  I  But  he 
might  say,  there  have  been  many  changes  in  our  laws  since  that  constitu- 
tion was  adopted ;  and  in  these  changes,  not  a  word  is  said  about  your 
right  to  vote.  Would  you  not  demand  of  him  to  prove,  that  the  constitu- 
tion had  ever  been  so  altered  as  to  exclude  you  '  Just  so  we  find  the 
children  of  believers  put  in  the  church  at  its  first  organization,,  and  the 
right  of  membership  secured  to  tliem  by  the  highest  authority  in  the  uni- 
verse. My  friend,  Mr.  C,  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  are  anxious 
to  put  them  out.  JVe  call  for  the  law.  But  they,  instead  of  producing 
any  thing  remotely  resembling  such  a  law,  tell  us,  infant-membership  is 
not  directly  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  thus  they  would  put 
them  out  by  an  inference !  an  inference,  too,  by  no  means  legitimate ! 
No — neither  believers  nor  infants  can  be  despoiled  of  their  privileges  in 
this  way. 

I  have  said,  the  Savior  in  giving  the  commission,  gave  no  intimation 
of  a  purpose  to  exclude  the  children  of  believers  from  his  church — not 
even  a  hint  that  he  designed  to  make  any  change  in  the  law  of  member- 
ship. I  desire  tlie  audience  particularly  to  remark  the  strength  of  the 
argument  for  infant-membership,  founded  on  this  fact.  It  was  extremely 
important,  if  he  purposed  to  make  any  such  change,  that  it  should  have 
been  very  distinctly  stated.  The  apostles  had  grown  up  under  a  system 
of  religion  which  embraced  in  the  church  not  only  believers,  but  their 
children.  All  their  prejudices,  therefore,  would  incline  them  to  believe,  that 
children  were  still  to  occupy  a  place  in  the  church.  And,  let  it  be  re- 
marked, their  Jewish  prejudices  were  exceedingly  strong — so  strong,  that 
although  the  Savior  commanded  them  to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature;  they  still  did  not  understand  that  it  was  to 
be  preached  to  the  gentiles.  They  seem  to  have  understood  only  that 
they  were  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Jews  dispersed  among  the 
surrounding  nations ;  and  so  strong  was  this  impression,  that  it  was 
removed  only  by  a  miracle  and  a  special  revelation.  The  family  of  Cor- 
nelius (Acts  X.)  was  the  first  gentile  family  to  whom  the  gospel  was 
preached ;  and  Peter  was  the  first  of  the  apostles  who  ventured  to  oflTer 
salvation  to  the  gentiles ;  and  he  was  induced  to  do  so  only  by  a  special 
revelation  from  God.  So  far  were  the  other  apostles  from  doing  any  such 
thing,  that  they  called  Peter  to  an  account  for  what  he  had  done. 

Now  look  at  the  language  of  the  commission — "  Go,  teach  all  na- 
tions''''— "Preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.^''  Is  it  not  perfectly 
clear  ?  Yet  the  apostles,  for  a  length  of  time,  did  not  understand  it.  Is 
it  not,  then,  most  marvellous,  if  whilst  they  did  not  understand  what  was 
so  plainly  spoken  in  regard  to  preaching  the  gospel  to  the  gentiles,  they 
did  so  readily  understand  what  was  not  at  all  expressed — that  henceforth 
children  were  to  be  excluded  from  the  church?  Their  Jewish  prejudices, 
it  would  seem,  prevented  them  from  understanding  what  was  most  plainly 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM,  279 

commanded ;  and  yet,  notwithstanding  those  prejudices,  they  at  once  in- 
ferred what  was  not  stated — that  there  was  now  to  be  a  radical  change  of 
the  law  of  membership  in  the  church !  Is  it  credible,  that  whilst,  in  the  face 
of  the  express  language  of  the  Savior,  they  believed  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  was  to  be  confined  to  the  Jews ;  they  so  readily  inferred  a  change  as 
to  the  right  of  membership  which  was  not  specified,  and  which  almost 
the  whole  christian  world  have  tailed  to  see?  Can  any  one  believe  it? 
Surely  the  very  prejudice  which  would  prevent  their  perceiving  the 
extent  of  the  commission,  would  also  prevent  them  from  discovering,  un- 
less it  were  most  unequivocally  stated,  that  a  change  of  the  law  of  mem- 
bership was  designed ;  and  having  always  been  accustomed  to  see  believers 
and  their  children  side  by  side  in  the  church,  they  would  still  have 
received  both. 

Under  such  circumstances,  if  our  Savior  had  purposed  to  exclude  chil- 
dren from  the  church  ;  he  certainly  would  have  said  so  as  distinctly  as  he 
commanded  the  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations.  Even  then 
it  would  not  have  been  wonderful,  if  they  had  been  as  slow  to  understand 
him  on  this  point  as  they  were  on  the  other. 

This  is  not  all.  The  Savior  not  only  did  not  give  the  slightest  intima- 
tion of  a  purpose  to  exclude  children  from  the  church,  but  he  employed 
such  language  as  must  have  left  on  the  minds  of  the  apostles,  the  distinct 
impression,  that  no  change  of  the  kind  was  to  be  made.  When  little 
children  were  brought  to  him,  that  he  might  lay  his  hands  on  them  and 
pray,  the  disciples  rebuked  those  who  brought  them.  What  was  his  re- 
ply ?  "  Sufi'er  litde  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me  •,for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  /je«yen,"— Matth.  xix.  13,  14.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell will  not  deny,  that  by  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  in  this 
passage,  is  meant  the  church  of  Christ.  If  he  does  not  admit  it,  Dr. 
Gill,  the  Baptist  commentator,  does.  Now,  consider  the  character  and 
religious  views  of  the  persons  whom  the  Savior  addressed.  They  had 
always  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  children  of  professed  believers  as 
entitled  to  a  place  in  God's  church.  They  had  never  known  a  church 
constituted  on  any  other  principles.  When,  therefore,  the  Savior  said  to 
them,  "  Suffer  little  cl)ildren  to  come  unto  me,"  <fcc. — "  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  " — the  church  ;  would  not  the  impression  be  made 
most  distinctly,  on  their  minds,  that  the  children  of  believers  were  still 
to  constitute  a  part  of  his  visible  church  ? 

It  is,  then,  clear  that  the  children  of  believers  were  put  into  the  church 
Dy  positive  law  of  God  ;  that  they  remained  in  the  church  to  the  moment 
■when  our  Savior  gave  to  the  apostles,  the  commission  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel ;  that  he  gave  not  the  slightest  intimation  of  a  purpose  to  exclude 
them  ;  that  the  strong  Jewish  prejudices  of  the  apostles  would  induce 
them,  unless  explicitly  forbidden,  still  to  receive  into  the  church  believers 
and  their  children  ;  that  the  Savior  had  employed  language  which  would 
naturally  induce  them  to  believe  that  children  were  not  to  be  excluded. 
Do  not  these  facts,  not  one  of  which  can  be  disproved,  establish  the  doctrine 
of  infant-membership  in  the  church  of  Ciirist?  I  miglit  here  close  my 
argument ;  for  I  have  put  the  children  of  believing  parents  into  the  church 
by  clear  and  positive  law.  It  is  the  business  of  the  gendeman  to  pro- 
duce a  law  equally  clear  and  positive  for  excluding  them.  If  he  cannot 
do  this,  (and  I  am  certain  that  he  cannot,)  they  must  be  permitted  to 
remain.  It  is,  moreover,  a  fact  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  infants  and 
adtdts  entered  the  church  by  the  same  door — the  same  rite  was  ad- 


280  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

ministered  to  both.  Since,  then,  both  infants  and  adults  still  have  a 
right  to  a  place  in  the  church,  they  must  still  enter  by  the  same  door. 
Circumcision  was,  at  first,  the  initiatory  rite  ;  and  both  adults  and  in- 
fants were  circumcised.  Baptism  is  now  the  initiatory  rite  ;  and  both 
must  receive  baptism. 

But  it  may  be  objected,  that  only  male  children  received  circumcision; 
and  therefore  the  argument  would  prove,  that  only  males  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized. I  answer,  that  under  the  old  dispensation,  females,  both  infants 
and  adults,  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  membersliip  in  the  church  without 
any  initiatory  rite  being  administered  to  them.  They  enjoyed  these 
privileges  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with  the  males  of  the  family. 
Under  that  dispensation,  ministers  were  not  sent  forth  to  proselyte  the 
nations.  When  proselytes  were  made  from  the  gentiles,  they  came  as 
families  ;  and  the  males  being  circumcised,  the  whole  family,  males  and 
females,  were  admitted  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church  ;  Exodus  xii. 
48.  Under  the  gospel  dispensation,  all  are  invited  and  commanded  to 
enter  the  church  ;  and  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  see  the  females 
of  a  family  enter  without  the  males.  Hence  it  became  proper,  under  the 
new  dispensation,  to  appoint  an  initiatory  rite  equally  applicable  to  males 
and  females.  Under  the  former  dispensation,  both  adult  and  infant  fe- 
males entered  the  church  without  receiving  any  initiatory  ordinance;  and 
under  the  present  dispensation,  both  enter  by  the  same  rite  which  is  ad- 
ministered to  males. 

The  argument,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  conclusive.  It  is  an  indisputable 
fact,  that  the  children  of  believers  were  put  into  the  church  by  positive 
law  of  God.  It  is  a  fact,  that  for  many  centuries,  believing  parents  en- 
joyed the  privilege  of  having  their  children  with  them  in  the  church.  It 
is  a  fact,  that  our  Savior  and  his  apostles  never  excluded  them  :  no  law 
of  the  kind  can  be  produced.  The  conclusion  appears  inevitable,  that 
they  still  have  the  right  to  be  in  the  church,  and  of  course,  to  enter  by 
the  door — christian  baptism. 

I  do  not  wish  to  hasten  through  the  investigation  of  this  subject,  as  I 
have  three  days  within  which  to  establish  the  proposition  before  me.  I 
will,  however,  make  some  remarks  on  another  very  important  point. 

It  will,  doubtless,  be  said,  that  my  whole  argument  is  inconclusive,  inas- 
much as  the  church  into  which  children  were  put,  and  the  christian 
ehurch,  are  two  entirely  distinct  organizations  ;  and,  therefore,  it  does 
not  follow,  that  because  infants  were  put  into  the  former,  they  are  to  be 
admitted  into  the  latter. 

The  question  now  presents  itself — Is  the  christian  church  the  same 
into  which  children  were,  by  divine  authority,  admitted  ?  I  affirm  that 
it  is  ;  and  I  now  undertake  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  church  of  God, 
under  the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensations  ;  to  make  it  evident  that 
Christ  has  had  but  one  church  on  the  earth.  Will  you  give  me  your 
close  and  candid  attention,  whilst  I  proceed  to  state  a  number  of  impor- 
tant principles  and  facts,  which,  as  I  believe,  establish  this  point  incontro- 
vertibly. 

Let  the  fact  already  stated,  be  kept  in  view,  that  the  commission  given 
to  the  apostles  did  not  authorize  them  to  organize  a  neiv  church.  Hith- 
erto the  privileges  of  the  church  of  God  had  been  confined  to  the  Jews. 
The  time  had  come  when  those  privileges  were  to  be  extended  to  all  na^ 
tions.  The  burthensome  ceremonies  of  the  Levitical  law,  which  render- 
ed it  impossible  that  the  church  should  embrace  the  gentile  nations,  were 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  281 

now  passed  awav,  and  fewer  and  simpler  ceremonies  substituted  for  tliem. 
And  now  tlie  apostles  were  commissioned  to  go  forth  and  offer  to  all  na- 
tions the  blessings  which  had  been  confined  to  the  Jews.  They  were 
not  to  organize  a  new  church,  but  to  extend  the  boundaries  of  the  existing 
church. 

That  we  may  be  enabled  correctly  to  weigh  the  facts  and  arguments  to 
be  offered  on  this  point,  it  is  essential  that  we  distinctly  understand  in 
what  consists  ecclesiastical  identity .  What  are  we  to  understand  by  the 
identity  or  sameness  of  the  church  ?  Perhaps  I  shall  be  able  more  satis- 
factorily to  answer  this  question,  and  to  illustrate  the  point  before  us,  by 
reference  to  a  subject  with  which  we  are  all,  to  some  extent,  familiar — I 
mean  political  identity. 

In  what,  then,  does  political  identity  consist?  If  I  were  to  ask  you, 
whether  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  is  the  same  political  body  which 
existed  under  this  name  forty  years  ago,  you  would  unhesitatingly  say, 
it  is.  But  suppose  I  were  to  deny  that  it  is  the  same,  how  would  you 
undertake  to  prove  its  identity  ?  I  could  truly  say,  that  it  is  not  composed 
of  the  same /persons  ;  for  the  greater  part  of  them  are  gone.  With  equal 
truth  I  could  affirm,  that  it  is  not  governed  by  the  same  laws  ;  for,  year 
after  year,  the  legislatures  have  repealed,  altered,  amended  and  added  to 
them.  How,  then,  would  you  prove,  that  notwithstanding  all  these  changes, 
the  commonwealth  is  the  same  political  body  ?  You  would  tell  me,  that 
although  it  is  not  composed  of  the  same  persons,  nor  governed  by  the  same 
laws  precisely,  it  is  the  same  political  body;  because  the  constitution  is, 
in  all  its  important  features,  the  same  ;  and  the  same  power,  "  the  sove- 
reign people,"  reigns.  We  find,  then,  that  political  identity  consists  in 
these  two  things,  viz;  the  identity  of  the  governing  potver,  and  the 
sameness  of  the  coixstitution,  at  least,  in  its  essential  features.  For  if, 
within  the  last  forty  years,  the  constitution  of  this  commonwealth  had 
been  radically  changed,  and  a  monarchical  or  kingly  goverment  establish- 
ed, its  identity  must  have  been  lost.  So  long,  however,  as  it  retains  these 
two  great  characteristics,  although  every  individual  of  whom  it  was  ori- 
ginally constituted,  may  die,  and  although  the  legislature  continue  an- 
nually to  repeal,  alter,  amend,  and  add  to  the  laws,  it  will  continue  to  be 
the  same  political  body. 

These  principles  are  so  obviously  correct,  that  I  am  sure  they  will  not 
be  controverted.  Let  us  apply  them  to  ecclesiastical  identity.  And  I 
venture  the  assertion,  that  if  you  can  prove  the  commonwealth  of  Ken- 
tucky, or  these  United  States,  to  be  the  same  political  body  which  exist- 
ed under  the  name  forty  years  ago,  I  can  produce  three  times  the  amount 
of  evidence  to  prove  that  the  christian  church  is  the  same  ecclesiastical 
body  which  was  organized  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  of  which  believers 
and  their  children  were  constituted  members.  My  evidence  shall  consist 
chiefly  of  indisputable  facts — the  best  of  all  arguments. 

1st.  It  is  a  fact,  that  under  both  dispensations  the  same  King  reigns. 
The  same  glorious  God,  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  is  ac- 
knowledged, worshiped,  and  obeyed,  as  the  only  true  God,  the  only  ob- 
ject of  religious  worship,  the  only  Legislator,  whose  all-wise  laws  are 
binding  on  the  consciences  of  all  men.  The  world  does  not  acknowledge, 
worship,  and  serve  him,  and,  therefore,  cannot  constitute  a  part  of  his 
church  or  kingdom.     This  fact  will  not  be  denied. 

2nd.  The  same  moral  law  is  received  and  obeyed  under  both  dispen- 
sations.   This  law,  briefly  presented  in  the  ten  commandments,  is  admit- 

2a2 


282  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

ted  to  be  as  binding  on  the  Christian  as  on  the  Jew.  Some,  it  is  true, 
object  to  the  fourth  commandment,  as  not  obligatory  on  the  christian 
church  ;  but  although  I  believe  it  can  be  unanswerably  proved  to  be  still 
in  force,  I  might  admit  that  one  commandment  out  of  ten  has  been  abol- 
ished, and  still  prove  all  for  which  I  am  contending.  For  the  constitu- 
tion of  this  commonwealth  might  be  changed  in  a  number  of  its  features, 
without  destroying  the  identity  of  the  political  body.  I  need  not  enter 
into  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  moral  law  is  obligatory  on  the  chris- 
tian church,  and  has  ever  been  so  recognized.  Was  it  the  duty  of  the 
Jew  to  obey  the  command,  "Thou  shah  have  no  other  Gods  before  me  ?" 
It  is  equally  the  duty  of  the  christian  to  worship  the  one  living  and  true 
God.  Was  the  Jew  forbidden  to  make  any  similitude  of  any  thing  in 
heaven  or  in  earth,  through  which  to  worship  God  ?  It  is  equally  the 
duty  of  the  christian  to  worship  God  "  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Was  the 
Jew  forbidden  to  take  the  name  of  God  in  vain  ?  It  is  equally  the  duty 
of  the  christian  to  hallow  the  name  of  the  great  God.  I  need  not  go  fur- 
ther into  particulars.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  moral  law  is  obliga- 
tory upon  Jew  and  Christian,  and  that,  under  both  dispensations,  it  has 
been  acknowledged  and  obeyed  as  the  rule  of  right  and  wrong.  This 
law  may  be  considered,  in  an  important  sense,  the  constitution  of  God 's 
moral  government ;  for  it  defines  the  duties  of  the  subjects  to  the  great 
King,  and  their  rights,  duties,  and  responsibdities  toward  each  other. 
Under  both  dispensations,  therefore,  we  find  the  same  King  reigning,  and 
the  same  great  moral  constitution  existing. 

3d.  Under  both  dispensations  the  same  gospel  is  received  and  rested 
upon  for  salvation.  In  proof  of  this  fact,  the  language  of  inspiration  is 
so  perfecdy  clear,  that  I  cannot  believe  that  it  will  be  disputed.  Paul 
says — "  And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen 
through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham.,  saying — In 
thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  So  then  they  which  be  of  faith  are 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,"  Gal.  iii.  8,  9.  Here  we  find  the  gospel 
preached  to  Abraham,  in  the  very  covenant  on  which  I  have  said  the 
church  was  organized.  It  was  substantially  contained  in  the  promise, 
*' In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed."  Accordingly  our  Savior  said  to 
the  Jews — "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and  he  saw 
it  and  was  glad,"  John  viii.  56.  Abraham,  in  the  light  of  this  promise, 
looked  forward,  saw  the  advent  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  and  rested  on 
Christ  crucified  for  the  salvation  of  his  soul.  The  same  gospel,  there- 
fore, is  received  and  trusted  in  for  salvation,  by  the  church,  under  both  dis- 
pensations. This  fact  is  further  confirmed  by  the  language  of  the  apostle, 
in  Hebrews  iv.  2,  where,  speaking  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  he  says  : 
"  For  unto  us  the  gospel  was  preached,  as  well  as  unto  them  ;  but  the 
word  preached  did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in  them 
that  heard  it."  The  Jews  in  the  wilderness  had  the  gospel  as  well  as 
we  ;  and  it  did  profit  those  who  received  it  by  faith.  This  important  fact 
is  incontrovertibly  established  ;  yet  it  is  susceptible  of  being,  if  possible, 
even  more  convincingly  proved.  The  gospel  consists  of  a  number  of 
parts  or  doctrines,  and  it  is  easy  to  prove,  that  in  all  its  most  important 
features,  it  is  presented  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  every  one  of  its  funda- 
mental doctrines  is  there  taught.  Let  us  look  at  a  few  facts  on  this  point. 
1st.  Under  both  dispensadons  the  church  had  the  same  Mediator,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  saints  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  New, 
alike  trust  in  Christ,  his  atonement  and  intercession,  for  eternal  life.    The 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  283 

ministry  of  the  church  has  been  somewhat  different ;  but  the  great  Me- 
diator has  been  the  same.  This  we  are  taught  in  many  parts  of  God's 
word.  Heb.  ix.  15 — "And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  Mediator  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  by  means  of  death,  ybr  the  redemption  of  the  transgres- 
sions that  were  under  the  first  Testament,  they  which  are  called  might  re- 
ceive the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance."  Here,  you  observe,  the  death  of 
Christ  atoned  for  the  sins  of  those  under  the  old  dispensation,  as  well  as 
of  those  under  the  new.  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  which, 
if  necessary,  I  will  quote.  Isaiah,  presenting  the  same  general  truth, 
teaches  that  the  church  has,  under  both  dispensations,  the  same  founda- 
tion. "  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God — Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion,  for  a 
foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure  founda- 
tion :  he  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste,"  ch.  xxviii.  16.  And  the 
iifty-third  chapter  of  his  prophecy  contains  a  most  clear  and  lucid  exhibi- 
tion of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

2d.  The  great  doctrine  oi  justification  by  faith,  is  also  taught  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New.  In  Rom.  iv.  1,  Paul  proves  and 
illustrates  this  doctrine  by  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament — "  For  if 
Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory;  but  not 
before  God.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and 
it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  Now  to  him  that  worketh  is 
the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justilieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted 
for  righteousness.  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the 
man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works." 

3d.  The  doctrine  of  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  clearly  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Thus  Ezekiel  says — "  A  new  heart  will  I  also 
give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  :  and  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh. 
And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my 
statutes,"  (fee.  And  David  prays — "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  and 
renew  a  right  spirit  within  me,"  Ps.  li.  10.  Did  not  David  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit? 

4th.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
well  as  in  the  New.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  says — "  For  I  deliv- 
ered unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  [Old  Testament ;]  and  that  he  was 
buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures." 
And,  in  presenting  the  glorious  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  just, 
he  says — "  So  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and 
this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass 
the  saying  that  is  written,  [in  the  Old  Testament,]  death  is  swallowed  up 
in  victory,"  1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4,  54. 

5th.  The  doctrine  of  the  eternal  happiness  of  the  righteous,  and  the  eter- 
nal punishment  of  the  wicked,  and  the  doctrine  of  a  general  judgment, 
are  also  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  50th  Psalm,  we  find  an  awful 
and  sublime  description  of  that  great  day,  to  which  the  world  is  looking 
brward,  when  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  shall  ascend  his 
throne,  and  fix,  by  an  unchangeable  decree,  the  destiny  of  the  righteous 
and  of  the  wicked. 

6th.  The  Old  Testament  presents  the  same  conditions  of  salvation  that 
are  found  in  the  New.  What  are  the  conditions  of  salvation  under  the 
present  dispensation  ?     Paul  tells  us,  that  he  preached,  as  conditions  of 


284  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

eternal  life,  "  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  And,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  to  the  Hebrews,  we  find  a 
long  catalogue  of  worthies,  who  walked  by  faith,  looked  for  a  city 
whose  maker  and  builder  is  God,  eternal  in  the  heavens,  overcame  the 
world,  died  in  faith,  and  were  received  to  eternal  glory.  These  saints 
lived  under  the  Jewish  and  patriarchal  dispensations.  The  doctrine  of 
'^epentance  is  taught  with  equal  clearness.  Thus  David,  in  that  peniten- 
tial Psalm,  (the  51st,)  says,  "  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit: 
a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  0  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."  It  is  clear, 
that  under  the  Old,  as  under  the  New  Testament,  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion were  faith,  repentance,  and  consequent  reformation,  or  obedience  to 
existing  laws  and  ordinances.  They  are  all  included  in  the  following 
exhortation  by  the  prophet  Isaiah :  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way, 
and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord, 
and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him :  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundant- 
ly pardon ;"  ch.  Iv.  6. 

7th.  The  qualifications foi'  church-membership  are  the  same  under  both 
dispensations.  I  assert  again,  and  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  no  adult, 
according  to  the  law  of  God,  could  enter  the  Jewish  church,  without  pro- 
fessing his  faith  in  the  God  of  the  Bible,  and  his  purpose  to  serve  him. 
No  gentile  could  enter  into  it,  without  renouncing  his  idol  gods,  and  pro- 
fessing his  faith  in  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  Under  the 
Old  Testament,  then,  adults  must  profess  faith,  repentance,  and  reforma- 
tion, before  they  could,  lawfully,  enter  the  church ;  and  then,  it  was  their 
privilege,  and  duty,  to  bring  their  infant  children  with  them.  And  so  it 
is  under  the  New  Testament.  The  proof  that,  under  both  dispensations, 
the  church  did  receive,  and  expect  salvation  by,  the  same  gospel,  is  ab- 
solutely unanswerable  and  irresistible. 

If,  then,  under  both  dispensations,  the  church  worshiped  and  served 
the  same  God  and  King,  received  and  obeyed  the  same  moral  law,  and 
received  and  trusted  in  the  same  gospel,  the  same  plan  of  salvation,  I  ask, 
is  not  the  church  the  same  ecclesiastical  body  under  both? 

But  what  is  the  chief  and  only  important  difference  between  the  two 
dispensations  ?  Under  the  former,  there  was  a  code  of  ceremonial  and 
civil  laws,  adapted  to  the  existing  state  of  the  church;  which,  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  gave  place  to  a  few  more  simple  ordinances,  adapted  to 
the  church,  as  about  to  be  extended  in  her  boundaries  to  all  nations. 
This  is  the  simple  and  only  difference,  so  far  as  the  present  discussion  is 
concerned. 

The  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  were  appointed  by  God  for  a  specific 
purpose  and  ybr  a  limited  time.  So  Paul  teaches  in  Galatians  iii.  19, 
"  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added,  because  of  transgres- 
sions, till  the  seed  shoidd  come  to  ivhom  the  promise  ivas  made.'"  It 
was  added,  because  of  transgressions — it  was  designed  to  keep  the  Jews 
entirely  distinct  and  separate  from  the  pagans,  that  they  might  not  be 
drawn  away  from  their  allegiance  to  God ;  and  it  was  to  continue  in 
force  only  till  Christ,  the  seed  to  whom  the  promise  was  made,  should 
come.  Consequently,  when  Christ  came  and  died  on  the  cross,  the  civil 
and  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews,  having  accomplished  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  enacted,  expired  by  virtue  of  its  own  limitation ;  and,  of 
course,  the  priests  and  other  officers  appointed  to  administer  it,  so  long 
as  it  was  in  force,  went  out  of  office.  And  now,  instead  of  those  bur- 
densome laws  and  ceremonies,  new  and  simpler  ordinances  were  inslitu- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  285 

ted,  and  proper  officers  appointed  to  administer  them  and  to  preach  the 
word. 

But  even  the  ceremonial  law  proclaimed  the  gospel  in  types  and  shad- 
ows. Its  bloody  sacrifices  pointed  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  which  was 
also  the  constant  theme  of  prophecy ;  and  its  ablutions  pointed  to  the 
sanctification  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  apostle  teaches  "that 
the  law  had  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come;"  Heb.  x.  1. 

Now  I  ask,  did  the  passing  away  of  those  laws  and  ceremonies  by  vir- 
tue of  their  own  limitation — the  disappearing  of  those  shadows  to  give 
place  to  the  substance  ; — did  this  destroy  the  identity  of  the  church  ? 
Was  its  identity  destroyed  by  the  fact,  that  the  officers  appointed  to  exe- 
cute those  temporary  laws,  went  out  of  office  when  the  laws  had  answer- 
ed the  purpose  for  which  they  were  enacted  ?  I  think,  every  one  must 
see,  in  a  moment,  that  the  passing  away  of  those  civil  and  ceremonial 
laws  could  not  affect  the  existence  of  the  church. 

Suppose  the  legislature  of  Kentucky  should  enact  a  number  of  laws 
(say  fifty)  to  answer  a  specific  purpose,  to  continue  in  force  for  twenty 
years;  and  should  also  appoint  a  number  of  officers  to  carry  into  execu- 
tion these  laws.  At  the  termination  of  the  twenty  years,  the  laws  would 
cease  to  be  in  force  by  virtue  of  their  limitation ;  and  all  the  offices  grow- 
ing out  of  their  provisions  would  cease  to  exist,  and  those  filling  them 
would  go  out  of  office.  Now  what  would  you  think  of  the  wisdom  of 
tlie  man,  who  should  insist  that  the  passing  away  of  those  laws  had  des- 
troyed the  identity  of  the  commonwealth,  and  that  it  is  no  longer  the 
same  political  body?  And  what  would  you  think  of  him,  if  he  should 
go  further  and  say,  the  fact  that  you  were  a  citizen  of  the  commonwealth 
of  Kentucky  and  had  a  right  to  vote  before  the  expiration  of  the  supposed 
code  of  laws,  affijrds  no  evidence,  that  since  that  time  you  are  entitled  to 
such  privileges  ?  I  presume,  you  would  smile  at  the  absurdity  of  such 
sentiments. 

No  less  absurdly  do  they  reason,  who  contend  that  the  passing  away 
of  a  number  of  ceremonial  and  civil  laws,  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  a  pre- 
viously existing  church,  to  answer  a  specific  purpose,  and  to  be  in  force 
only  for  a  limited  period,  really  annihilates  the  church  !  !  !  No — the 
church  still  existed,  after  the  passing  away  of  its  types  and  shadows,  wor- 
shiping and  serving  the  same  God,  obeying  the  same  moral  law,  receiv- 
ing and  rejoicing  in  the  same  glorious  gospel,  (taught  in  all  its  essential 
features  under  both  dispensations,)  and  having  substantially  the  same 
conditions  of  membership,  and  (as  I  will  prove)  the  same  covenant. 

The  church,  then,  is  the  same  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dis- 
pensations— the  same  into  which  God  did,  by  positive  law,  put  believers 
and  their  children. 

I  have  already  exhibited  more  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  church, 
than  can  be  produced  to  show  the  identity  of  the  commonwealth  of  Ken- 
tucky during  the  last  forty  years.  Kut  I  have  much  more  yet  to  produce. 
— [Time  expired. 

[ma.  Campbell's  first  reply.] 

Monday,  Nov.  20—11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
Mr.  President — You  doubtless  perceive  a  great  difference  in  the  posi- 
tions we  occupy  this  morning.     The  laboring  oar  has  at  length  fiillen  into 
the  hands  of  my  former  respondent.     He  has  something  to  prove  to-day  ; 
and  that,  too,  before  an  English  audience  and  in  the  English  language. 


286  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  jury  are  therefore  more  competent  to  decide  on  the  issue,  the  argu- 
ments, and  the  proof,  than  when  the  subject  was  partially,  at  least,  en- 
veloped in  the  mists  of  Greek  and  Latin  dissertations. 

It  was  fortunate  for  my  friend,  that  his  hour  had  almost  expired  when 
he  sat  down.  Ten  minutes  more,  sir,  and  we  should  have  heard  every 
argument,  save  one  or  two,  which  we  may  expect  to  hear  from  him  on 
this  proposition.  If  we  have  been  able  to  separate  them,  he  has  already 
given  the  materials  of  some  fifteen  or  twenty,  such  as  they  are.  There 
remains  but  one  or  two  more  to  be  heard  from.  I  predict,  we  shall  have 
little  more  that  will  be  new  to  the  end  of  this  question. 

It  is  all  important,  sir,  as  you  well  know,  to  make  few  points,  to  con- 
centrate the  mind  upon  them,  and  to  fortify  them  well  with  documentary 
proof.  A  multiplicity  of  matters  confusedly  thrown  together,  is  neither 
so  edifying  nor  so  convincing  as  a  i'ew  well  selected  and  digested  argu- 
ments properly  arranged  and  fully  elaborated.  Without  a  distinct  and 
methodical  arrangement,  we  might  argue  for  years  and  prove  nothing  sat- 
isfactorily. 

I  feel  particularly  happy,  that  I  stand  in  the  midst  of  more  than  a  hun- 
dred ministers  who  appreciate  what  I  now  say,  and  whose  experience 
proves  the  importance,  nay,  the  indispensable  necessity,  of  fixing  the 
mind  upon  one  subject  at  a  time,  and  prosecuting  it  till  fully  discussed, 
before  a  final  dismissal  of  it. 

He  first  informed  us,  that  this  was  a  more  important  proposition  than 
that  which  we  have  just  discussed.  I  do  not  compare  atoms  with  the 
universe,  nor  moments  with  eternity.  All  things  commanded  by  God  are 
equally  important  to  be  observed,  so  far  as  Divine  authority  is  regarded ; 
for  he  that  said,  "  thou  shalt  not  kill,"  "  thou  shalt  not  steal,"  said  also, 
"  repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you."  The  authority  of  thelaw- 
giver,  being  contemplated,  he  that  keeps  the  whole  law,  omitting  one 
point,  is  guilty  of  disparaging  the  whole  law.  He  is,  therefore,  said  to 
be  guilty  of  all.  A  proper  regard  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  humanly 
speaking,  is  more  important  to  the  church  :  inasmuch  as  the  introduction 
of  infant  baptism  has  served  greatly  to  corrupt  it  by  admitting  all  the 
world  into  it.  The  operation  and  tendency  of  infant  baptism,  is  to  bring 
all  that  are  born  of  the  flesh,  without  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  into  the 
church  ;  consequently,  to  make  the  doors  of  the  church  as  wide  as  the 
doors  of  the  world.  Indeed,  for  hundreds  of  years,  it  has  in  many 
nations  brought  the  whole  population  nominally  into  the  church ;  and  has, 
therefore,  obliterated  all  the  land-marks  between  the  church  of  Christ  and 
the  kingdom  of  Satan.  The  visible  and  nominal  church  of  Christ,  as  it 
is  sometimes  designated,  is  thus  filled  with  a  mass  of  ignorance,  a  mere 
assemblage  of  flesh,  and  blood,  and  bones.  It  was  in  this  view  of  the 
matter,  this  introduction  of  the  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  life  into  the 
professed  family  of  God,  that  gave  to  Daniel  those  fearful  types  of  its 
corruption — the  savage  monsters,  true  symbols,  indeed,  of  Babylon,  the 
great  mother  of  harlotry  and  abominations.  Nothing,  I  presume,  tended 
more  effectually  to  mix  up  the  church  and  the  world,  to  confound  the  spi- 
ritual with  the  natural,  than  the  introduction  of  millions  of  babes  into  it, 
by  the  operation  of  the  regenerating  process  of  infant  baptism. 

The  gentleman  told  you  of  a  majority  of  a  thousand  to  one,  that  were, 
as  he  supposed,  at  one  time  with  him  on  his  side  of  the  former  question. 
He  is  now  about  to  show  you  how  he  got  that  majority.  The  true  ma- 
jority was,  however,  fearfully  against  him.     But  he  has  a  majority  with 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  287 

him  on  this  question,  I  confess — a  great  majority.  But  you  will  see  how 
he  has  got  that  majority — just  as  the  ancient  Jews  and  modern  Turks 
obtain  a  majority  for  circumcision.  Truth  with  me  is  truth,  whether 
believed  by  one  or  one  million.  The  largest  majority  on  earth  would  not 
make  transubstantiation  true,  nor  any  other  falsehood  in  the  universe. 
In  religious  aflairs,  the  majority  of  mankind,  since  the  days  of  Noah,  has 
always  been  wrong.  I  never  quote  a  majority  as  a  test  of  truth.  With 
me  they  are  but  an  argumentum  ad  hominem — an  argument  to  them 
who  go  for  majorities.  The  majority  of  the  world,  with  shame  be  it 
spoken  to  christians — the  majority  of  the  world  are  pagans:  I  had  the 
majority  on  the  former  question,  he  will  have  the  majority  on  this.  The 
argument  was  as  good  on  the  last  as  on  the  present  proposition,  and  no 
better.  So  far,  then,  the  truth  must  rest  upon  other  evidence  than  the 
suffrage  of  an  untaught,  unthinking,  fickle  multitude — a  multitude  that 
to-day  would  make  Jesus  a  king,  and  to-morrow  would  crucify  him. 

To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,  then,  we  go.  We  will  take  with  us 
in  this  case  also,  the  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith,  so  far  as  the  capital 
truth  is  stated, — "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  (ordinance  we  call  it)  of  the 
New  Testament."  To  the  New  Testament,  then,  we  must  look  for  a 
precept,  or  a  precedent,  for  infant  baptism.  But  who  ever  saw  one  there  ! 
Comes  it  not,  then,  with  an  awkward  grace,  from  a  Presbyterian,  after 
affirming  so  important  a  truth,  to  abandon  the  New  Testament  in  the  de- 
bate, and  to  haste  avvay  to  Moses  and  father  Abraham  for  proof  of  a 
"  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament !"  I,  however,  affirm,  with  the  con- 
fession, that  it  is  a  New  Testament  ordinance,  and  consequently,  to  the 
New  Testament  I  am  disposed  to  go  to  look  for  it. 

In  a  very  complimentary  way,  indeed,  Mr.  Rice  read  you  the  commis- 
sion given  for  converting  the  nations  :  but  after  a  very  obscure  remark  or 
two  upon  "discipling  them,"  he  very  soon  abandoned  it  and  fled  away  into 
the  wilderness  and  to  Mesopotamia,  to  Abraham  and  the  law.  I  regret 
that  he  did  not  break  the  seal  of  the  commission  ;  that  he  was  pleased  to 
read  the  envelope,  and  hand  it  over  to  me.  I  expected  an  hour,  at  least, 
upon  the  commission,  especially  as  that  was  the  only  document  relied  on 
from  the  New  Testament.  He  said,  indeed,  what  we  all  know,  that 
Jesus  commanded  his  aposdes  to  make  disciples,  baptizing  them.  He 
expected  me  to  assent  to  this  view  of  the  matter.  Certainly,  I  do ;  but 
not  with  his  emendation  added  to  it,  by  only  baptizing  them.  Do  I  un- 
derstand him  as  intimating  that  baptizing  them  resembles  marking  or 
branding  sheep  or  catde  ?  From  all  the  development  he  has  yet  given,  I 
would  suppose  this  to  be  his  meaning.  He  makes  disciples  first,  and 
teaches  thsm  afterwards — that  is,  he  baptizes  them  in  his  way,  before 
they  have  one  idea,  and  then  enlightens  them.  St.  Xavier  seems  to  have 
been  his  beau-ideal  of  an  enlightened  minister,  acting  under  the  sanction  of 
the  commission.  In  order  to  replenish  the  church  of  Rome,  by  way  of 
compensation  for  the  loss  sustained  by  the  Lutheran  defection,  he  became 
a  missionary  to  Central  America.  He  chose  the  Mexican  Indians  for  the 
special  field  of  his  benevolent  operations.  And,  like  my  friend,  anxious 
to  disciple  the  Indians,  he  had  them  sometimes  allured  and  sometimes 
driven  up  into  large  companies,  and  by  some  kind  of  a  squirt  or  huge 
sprinkler,  dipped  into  a  large  basin  of  holy  water,  he  scattered  it  over 
hundreds  in  a  group,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  In  this  way  he  disci- 
pled  about  a  million  of  them  in  the  space  of  a  few  years,  at  least  he  so 
reported  the  matter  to  the  pope ;  and  for  his  great  travels,  and  labors, 


288  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  eminent  success  in  discipling  the  American  Indians,  he  was  canonized 
at  St.  Peter's,  and  is  known  among  the  worthies  as  Saint  Xavier.  Mr. 
Rice,  tlien,  and  the  Saint,  it  seems,  concur  in  opinion  on  the  proper  im- 
port of  the  words  disciple  them. 

I  should  wish  to  begin  with  my  friend  somewhere,  if  I  could  only  find 
him,  either  in  the  commission  or  in  some  other  place  ;  but  he  treads  so 
lightly  upon  the  ashes  as  if  he  feared  the  embers,  that  I  know  not  where 
to  find  him.  There  appeared  some  policy  in  the  scattering  remarks  which 
he  gave  us.  It  seems  he  designed  to  plunge  into  the  olden  times  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenants,  and  yet  he  wished  to  say  something  about  the  New 
Testament  for  the  sake  of  appearances.  He  needed  a  mark  or  a  sign,  to 
inscribe  on  his  banners,  and  found  it,  at  last,  in  the  fleshly  mark  of  cir- 
cumcision. Well,  so  let  it  be.  Every  one  in  this  free  country,  has  a 
right  to  choose  his  mode  of  defence.  Circumcision  was  a  door  into  the 
Abrahamic  church ;  and  hence  we  must  have  doors  into  all  churches  and 
dispensations. 

I  must,  however,  demur  at  his  commencement  of  the  church  at  so  late 
a  period.  Abraham  was  born,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  Hebrew 
chronology,  in  the  year  of  the  world  2008,  and  was  called  out  of  Urr  of 
Chaldea  in  the  year  2083,  and  circumcision  was  not  given  till  twenty- 
five  years  later — till  2108.  Now  the  question  which  I  propound  to  the 
audience,  and  to  Mr.  R.  especially,  in  accordance,  I  presume,  with  a  com- 
mon sense  of  propriety,  is — Was  there  no  church  of  God,  in  his  sense 
of  the  phrase,  during  the  first  2108  years  of  the  world;  and  if  so, 
what  was  the  door  into  it?  I  shall  expect  an  explicit  answer  to  this 
question.  If  ihe  church  of  God,  as  he  argues,  was  virtually  the  same  in 
all  ages,  were  infants  members  of  it  for  the  first  2000  years  ?  and  if  so, 
by  what  door  did  they  enter? 

He  seems  to  touch  circumcision  very  delicately.  I  wonder  not  at  this. 
Light  has  gone  forth  on  that  subject,  and  Pedo-baptists  know  it  is  a  deli- 
cate point.  Yet,  still  it  is  indispensable  to  the  plea.  Take  that  away, 
and  infant  baptism  is  immediately  (Refund.  He  must  have,  therefore, 
circumcision  somewhere  in  the  argument.  I  hope,  indeed,  to  drive  it 
wholly  out  of  his  head,  and  yours,  my  fellow-citizens,  if  it  have  any 
lodgment  there,  before  we  close  this  discussion. 

There  are  three  prominent  grounds  of  defence  of  infant  baptism  :  1st. 
The  Romanish  ground  of  oral  ecclesiastic  tradition  ;  2d.  The  proselyte 
baptism  of  the  Jews;  and  3d.  Circumcision,  or  the  identity  of  the  Jew- 
ish commonwealth  and  the  church  of  Christ.  The  first  is  the  foundation 
of  infant  baptism.  The  Roman  bishop  of  Philadelphia,  in  a  recent  work, 
in  which  he  does  me  some  honor,  fully  sustains  the  ground  of  papal  tra- 
dition. The  church  of  England,  according  to  Dr.  Wall,  frequently  founds 
it  upon  Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  one  of  the  most  baseless  figments  in 
Christendom,  born  in  the  Mishna,  or  rather,  the  Talmuds,  since  the 
christian  era.  John  Calvin  took  the  ground  of  circumcision,  and  has 
been  closely  followed  by  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  and  their  liege  Ameri- 
can sons. 

Bishop  Kendrick,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  ably  sustains  his  position- 
ecclesiastic  tradition.  He  candidly  concedes  that  infant  baptism,  or  infant 
affusion,  is  not  found  in  the  apostolic  writings.  It  has  not  one  word 
of  authority  from  the  New  Testament.  But  theprimilive  fathers  got  it 
orally  from  St.  Papias,  or  St.  Somebody,  who  had  heard  some  other  St. 
Somebody  say  that  he  heard  one,  who  had  heard  the  apostles  declare  it. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  28t 

The  pope  and  his  councils  have  sanctioned  the  affair,  and  that  is  plenipo- 
tentiary authority  to  satisfy  every  sound,  liege,  unthinking  Romanist  in 
the  four  quarters  of  the  world. 

Dr.  Wall  had  rather  make  a  god-father  out  of  some  of  the  Jews,  than 
of  any  auditor  of  the  apostles,  and  strongly  makes  it  appear,  that  not  from 
heaven,  but  from  men  came  infant  baptism.  A  learned  Pedo-baptist,  not 
a  hundred  miles  from  this  house,  has  taken  it  into  his  head  to  give  a  new 
volume  on  baptism,  and  he,  (Rev.  W.  Hendricks,)  I  think,  has  followed 
Wall  in  his  phantasies  about  Jewish  washings  of  proselytes.  Mr.  Rice, 
however,  has  read  Stuart,  and  with  him,  it  seems,  makes  no  account  of 
proselyte  baptism.  He  takes  circumcision — alias,  the  identity  of  some- 
thing called  the  Jewish  church,  with  the  Christian.  Still  he  does  not 
wish  to  appear  as  though  he  leaned  much  on  circumcision.  That  is, 
however,  his  whole  basis ;  because  of  what  account  is  identity,  unless 
what  he  calls  Jewish  infant-membership,  is  not  the  plea  for  christian  in- 
fant-membership ! !  Without  farther  preamble,  then,  I  must  follow  the 
gentleman,  not  all  at  once,  indeed,  into  all  the  amplitude  of  his  cojnprC' 
hensive  speech,  but  into  the  essence  and  main  point  of  it.  I  shall  then 
begin  where  he  began,  and  trace  his  remarks  upon  the  Abrahamie  institu- 
tion. While,  with  brevity,  I  shall  attempt  this,  I  hope  not  to  sacrifice 
perspicuity  in  my  attempts  to  condense  my  views  and  reasonings  on  so 
large  a  field.  I  shall  only  farther  premise,  that  no  man  can  well  under- 
stand the  New  Testament  who  is  not  profoundly  read  in  the  five  books 
of  Moses.  Certainly,  without  that  knowledge,  he  is  not  fit  to  be  a  teachet 
of  the  christian  religion.  Before  the  gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  apostles 
were  written,  the  five  books  of  Moses  were  the  most  valuable  documents 
on  earth.  Had  1  to  choose  between  them  and  all  the  books  of  the  mos* 
hoary  antiquity;  nay,  between  them  and  all  the  writings  of  the  whole  pa 
gan  world,  in  all  time,  and  all  other  records  of  all  past  times,  I  would  no* 
hesitate  a  moment  in  seizing  Moses  in  preference  to  them  all.  No  maR 
(I  am  sorry  to  have  to  make  the  remark)  who  understands  the  pentateuch 
will  apply  any  portions  of  it  as  you  have  heard  this  morning. 

Allow  me,  then,  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  whole  scheme  of  the  Abra 
hamic  institution : — When  God  called  Abraham,  he  gave  him  two  prom 
ises  of  an  essentially  different  import  and  character.  The  first  was  per 
sonal  and  familiar;  the  second,  spiritual  and  universal  ;  in  other  words — 
the  first  had  respect  to  Abraham  and  his  natural  descendants,  according  t« 
the  flesh ;  the  latter  had  respect  to  the  Messiah  and  all  his  people.  Twe 
covenants,  sometimes  called  two  testaments,  old  and  new,  and  two  schemes 
of  Divine  government  and  special  providence,  are  founded  on  these  twr 
promises.  The  whole  Bible  groAvs  out  of  these  two  promises  ;  and  is  bu 
a  development  of  them.  The  whole  Jewish  nation,  with  all  its  peculiari- 
ties, grew  out  of  the  first;  the  whole  christian  church,  out  of  the  second 
The  words  are  as  follows — "I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  „ 
will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing 
and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  I  will  curse  him  that  cursetfc 
thee."  So  reads  the  first  promise,  personal  and  familiar;  that  is,  a  pro- 
mise of  a  nation  in  his  own  family,  to  be  placed  under  a  peculiar  provi 
dence,  extending  so  far  as  to  bless  and  curse  individuals  and  nations  for 
their  treatment  of  Abraham's  people.  The  second  promise  is — "  And  in 
thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This  blessing  is  spirit- 
ual and  eternal.  Paul  regarded  it  as  the  gospel  in  embryo.  He  preached 
the  gospel  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  saying — "  In  thee,  or  in  thy 
19  2B 


290  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

seed,  shall  all  the  families  (i.  e.  nations)  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  These 
two  promises,  one  for  a  nation,  and  one  for  all  nations  ; — one  for  fleshly, 
and  one  for  spiritual  blessings — one  for  a  time,  the  other  for  all  time  and 
for  eternity  too,  embrace  within  them  the  entire  destinies  of  humanity.  The 
universal  history  of  man  is  but  a  development  of  the  import  of  these  two 
most  sublimely  comprehensive  promises.  They  are  the  fountains  of  two 
streams  of  promises,  prophecies,  and  histories,  which,  from  that  moment, 
began  to  flow,  and  whose  waters  meander  through  all  ages,  and  disem- 
bogue themselves  at  last  into  the  vast  ocean  of  eternity.  Never  were  so 
many  promises  uttered,  so  many  prophecies  sketched,  so  many  histo- 
ries written  in  one  short  period,  since  language  was  instituted,  as  are 
couched  in  those  momentous  words,  pregnant  with  the  fates  and  fortunes 
of  all  time. 

From  that  moment  a  single  family  of  two  branches  constitutes  the  me- 
ridian line  of  all  revelation,  of  all  developments.  I  shall  endeavor  to  keep 
these  two  from  becoming  one — from  being  confounded,  in  this  discussion. 
By  keeping  these  two,  the  Bible  is  all  intelligible  ;  by  making  them  one, 
no  man  can  understand  the  Old  Testament  or  New.  By  this  key  of  inter- 
pretation, all  covenants,  promises,  laws,  ordinances,  principles,  promises, 
dispensations,  &c.  Sic.  are  to  be  interpreted,  understood  and  applied. 
Emanating  from  these,  the  fleshly  and  the  spiritual,  the  temporal  and  the 
eternal,  the  rational  and  the  animal,  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly,  all 
Biblical  matters  are  easily  adjusted  and  reconciled. 

The  distinction  of  Jew  and  Gentile  is  conceived  in  these  two  pre- 
mises. The  Jew  stands  for  Abraham's  nation.  The  CTentile  is  always 
a  cosmopolite — a  citizen  of  any  nation.  The  Gentiles,  or  the  nations, 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Jews  on  the  other,  are  here  first  placed  in  com- 
parison and  contrast.  But,  after  being,  for  a  time,  severed  by  a  special 
providence,  a  portion  of  both  meet  in  the  Messiah,  by  a  mystic  tie,  and 
become  one  in  him  ;  in  whom  "  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  bond 
nor  free,  male  nor  female" — we  are  all  one  in  the  one  seed  of  Abraham. 
For,  says  Paul,  "  He  speaks  not  of  seeds  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one;  thai 
is,  the  Messiah.^'  I  earnestly  hope  that  my  Presbyterian  friends,  for 
whom  I  entertain  a  very  high  respect  for  the  sake  of  old  times,  will  give 
due  attention  to  these  considerations ;  for  indeed,  I  doubt  not,  should  I  be 
permitted  in  this  discussion  to  draw  that  grand  line  as  I  ought,  all  persons 
of  candor  and  intelligence  will  approve  and  admire  the  grandeur  of  the 
developments  emanating  from  so  simple,  yet  so  comprehensive  a  con- 
ception. 

That  these  two  grand  germs  of  blessings,  planted  in  the  person  of  Abra- 
ham, have  grown  up  into  diflerent  covenants  and  dispensations,  still 
retaining  the  original  characteristic  idea,  is  clearly  stated  and  propounded 
to  us  by  prophets  and  apostles.  Paul,  to  the  Romans,  says,  chap.  ix.  4, 
*'  To  the  Israelites  pertain  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants, 
and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises.^' 
There  are,  then,  a  plurality  of  covenants  with  Abraham,  and  a  plurality 
of  covenants  with  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Tiie  two  grand  covenants, 
however,  one  from  Sinai  and  one  from  Jerusalem,  or  the  old  covenant 
and  the  new,  are  the  two  complete  developments  of  the  promises  made; 
Gen.  xii.  3,  before  quoted. 

Comprehensive  and  concentrated  views  of  the  great  principles  of 
tilings,  are  regarded  as  the  most  felicitous  developments  of  mind.  Hence 
minds  are  sometimes  graduated  upon  the  scale  of  their  ability  to  attain  a 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  291 

comprehensive  simplicity,  both  in  conception  and  expression.  The  Bible 
abounds  with  examples  of  this  sort,  and  we  ought  to  acquire,  as  far  as 
possible,  a  taste  for  them,  and  a  proficiency  in  the  application  of  them. 
The  great  masters  of  modern  science  have  devoted  themselves  to  this 
work  of  simplification  and  classification ;  and  to  their  successful  labors 
are  we  chiefly  indebted  for  the  great  improvement  and  advancement 
of  the  sciences  of  the  present  day.  We  need  a  similar  application  of 
mind  to  the  things  of  revelation ;  not  to  the  origination  of  a  new  nomen- 
clature, or  a  new  classification,  but  to  the  discovery,  development,  and 
application  of  that,  furnished  us  by  the  inspired  authors  of  the  Bible. 
"We  shall,  then,  in  the  first  place,  take  up  the  first  promise  to  Abraham, 
and  briefly  trace  the  covenants  growing  out  of  it. 

The  first  is  developed  in  the  15th  of  Genesis.  It  is  a  covenant  con- 
cerning the  inheritance  of  Canaan.  Sometime  after  tliese  two  promises, 
given  to  Abraham  while  yet  in  Chaldea — when  he  was  in  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, at  Moreh,  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  and  promised  him  that  land. 
Some  years  after,  on  a  certain  occasion,  Abraham  asked  the  Lord,  where- 
by shall  I  know  (be  assured,)  that  I  shall  inherit  this  land.  The  Lord 
commanded  him  to  prepare  a  splendid  sacrifice  of  all  clean  birds  and 
quadrupeds,  and  at  even  the  Lord  met  with  him  at  the  altar,  and  while  a 
burning  lamp  passed  between  the  severed  animals,  the  Lord  revealed  the 
fortunes  of  his  family  for  the  next  four  hundred  years ;  and  made  a  cove- 
nant with  him,  securing  to  him  and  his  fleshly  seed,  the  whole  land  from 
the  borders  of  the  Nile  to  the  Euphrates — a  district  of  country  then  pos- 
sessed by  some  ten  nations.  The  details  of  this  whole  transaction  are 
recorded.  Gen.  xv.,  in  the  words  following:  "Take  me  an  heifer  of  three 
years  old,  and  a  she  goat  of  three  years  old,  and  a  ram  of  three  years 
old,  and  a  turtle  dove,  and  a  young  pigeon.  And  he  took  unto  him  all 
these,  and  divided  them  in  the  midst,  and  laid  each  piece  one  against  ano- 
ther ;  but  the  birds  divided  he  not.  And  it  came  to  pass  that,  when  the 
sun  went  down,  and  it  was  dark,  behold,  a  smoking  furnace,  and  a  burn- 
ing lamp  that  passed  between  those  pieces."  Then  the  Lord  solemnly 
grants,  in  passing  between  the  parts  of  the  sacrifice,  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  the  inheritance  of  the  land — saying,  "  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given 
this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river — the  river  Eu- 
phrates." 

Not  long  after  these  transactions,  Abraham  having,  at  Sarah's  bidding, 
taken  to  wife  Hagar,  an  Egyptian  maid,  her  slave,  had  a  son  by  her 
called  Ishmael.  This  slave-wife  of  Abraham,  and  her  slave-son,  Ishmael, 
become  allegoric  characters  in  after  times,  and  it  is  important  that  we 
notice  them  here.  But  the  time  drawing  nigh,  when  the  promised  son 
by  Sarah,  the  free  woman  and  wife  proper  of  Abraham,  should  be  born, 
in  order  that  this  issue  by  Sarah  might  be  contradistinguished  from  that 
by  Hagar,  God  Avas  pleased  to  command  Abraham  to  prepare  for  another 
covenant.  This  next  covenant,  growing  out  of  the  first  promise,  is  made 
especially  for  the  sake  of  ascertaining,  by  a  fleshly  mark,  the  natural  off- 
spring of  Abraham,  and  guarantying  to  them  the  parental  blessings,  con- 
veyed to  Abraham  by  the  covenant  concerning  the  inheritance,  and  also 
as  to  the  fime  of  its  institution,  one  year  before  the  birth  of  Isaac :  it 
occasioned  a  remarkable  diff"erence  between  Ishmael  and  Isaac,  though 
sons  of  the  same  parent — the  former  being  the  son  of  his  uncircumcis- 
ion,  the  latter  of  his  circumcision;  though  both  circumcised  themselves, 
Ishmael  in  his  thirteenth  year,  and  Isaac  on  the  eighth  day.     This  cove- 


292  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

nant  has  in  it  no  new  specification.  In  the  preamble  to  it,  God  reminds 
Abraham  of  all  that  he  had  promised  and  covenanted  to  him,  concerning 
his  own  special  family.  He  calls  him  Abraham,  instead  of  Abram  ;  for 
a  "  Father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee,  and  I  will  make  thee  exceed- 
ingly fruitful,  and  I  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out 
of  thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  thee  and  me,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee ;  and  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger — all  the  land 
of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession,  and  I  will  be  their  God."  Then 
he  proceeds  on  these  promises  to  enact,  what  Stephen  calls  "  The  cove- 
nant of  circumcision."  "  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant,  therefore,  thou 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations.  Every  man-child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised,  and  you  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  fore- 
skins, and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  between  me  and  you.  He 
that  is  eight  days  old,  &c.,  every  man-child  born  in  thy  house,  or  bought 
with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised ;  and  my  covenant  shall  be 
in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncircumcised  man- 
child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  ofl'from  his  people.  He  hath  broken  my  covenant.''''  In  this  cove- 
nant, then,  is  a  further  development  of  the  second  promise  concerning  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham. 

The  second  promise  concerning  the  Messiah  is  no  farther  developed 
during  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation.  It  is,  indeed,  repeated  to  Isaac, 
and  to  Jacob,  and  confirmed  by  an  oath  at  the  virtual  sacrifice  of  Isaac — 
and  is  called  by  Paul  "  the  covenant  confirmed  by  God  (eis)  concerning 
the  Christ,  made  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the 
law." 

We  have  now  got  the  covenant  concerning  Christ,  and  two  covenants 
based  on  the  first  promise.  There  is  yet  wanting  a  third  covenant,  or  the 
fuller  development  and  engrossment  of  all  that  is  contained  in  the  first 
promise,  Gen.  xii.,  as  drawn  out  in  that  concerning  the  inheritance,  and 
in  that  concerning  circumcision.  This  is  not  done  till  after  the  Exodus ; 
till  the  giving  of  the  law,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  calling 
of  Abraham.  Then  it  is  all  proposed  to  the  twelve  tribes,  amounting  to 
about  three  millions,  having  six  hundred  thousand  men  of  war.  It  is 
now,  with  certain  developments,  thrown  into  a  new  form,  proposed  to  the 
people,  accepted  by  them,  and  ratified  with  bloody  sacrifices. 

To  sum  up  the  whole,  the  two  promises  tendered  to  Abraham  at  the 
time  of  his  being  called,  while  he  was  yet  in  Urr,  of  Chaldea,  and  de- 
pending on  which  he  consented  to  leave  his  own  country,  and  become  a 
voluntary  pilgrim  for  life,  constitute  the  basis  of  tivo  great  institutions 
The  first  promise  is  developed  in  the  covenant  concerning  the  inheritance, 
some  ten  or  twelve  years  after  he  had  become  a  pilgrim.  The  covenant 
of  circumcision  was  instituted  twenty-four  years  after — and  the  Sinai 
covenant,  or  great  national  development,  embracing  all  these  other  devel- 
opments, was  sealed  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  time  of  these 
two  promises. 

The  second  promise,  containing  the  spiritual  blessing  of  the  gentiles 
of  all  nations  in  Christ,  is  denominated  by  Paul,  Gal.  iii.,  "The  covenant 
confirmed  by  God  concerning  Christ,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 
the  law."  They  are  then  dated  as  well  as  named.  They  are  arrang- 
ed   as  follows — The  covenant   concerning;  Christ  was    confirmed  Anno 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  293 

Mundi  2183,  in  the  seventy-fifth  year  of  Abraham.  That  concerning 
circiiincision,  Anno  Mundi  2107,  in  the  ninety-ninth  of  Abraham.  The 
covenant  at  Sinai  was  ratified  immediately  after  the  Exodus,  Anno  Mun- 
di 2513.  Now,  these  facts  being  indisputably  true,  the  christian  cove» 
nant,  which  was  developed  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Jer.  xxxi.  31, 
re-written  Heb.  viii.  8 — 13,  was  not  based  upon,  nor  is  it  identical  with, 
either  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  nor  with  the  old  covenant  made 
with  all  Israel  at  Horeb. 

That  the  national  covenant  and  organization  at  Sinai,  grew  out  of 
the  precedinof  covenants,  appears  from  the  following  testimonies — and  as 
much  depends  on  the  clear  understanding  of  this  matter,  we  shall  read  a 
passage  from  Exodus  vi.  4 — 8:  "I  have  established  my  covenant  with 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  to  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  land  of 
their  pilgrimage,  wherein  they  were  strangers.  I  have  also  heard  the 
groaning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  whom  the  Egyptians  keep  in  bondage, 
and  I  have  remembered  my  covenant.  Wherefore,  say  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  I  am  the  Lord,  and  I  will  bring  you  out  from  under  the  bon- 
dage of  the  Egyptians — and  I  to  ill  take  you  unto  me  for  a  people,  and 
I  will  be  to  you  a  God — and  I  will  bring  you  unto  the  land,  concerning 
which  I  did  swear  to  give  it  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  .Jacob,  and  I  will  give 
it  to  you  for  an  heritage.     I  am  the  Lord." 

Mr.  Rice  will  have  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  and  the  proceedings  there- 
upon, a  church  organization;  although,  in  the  Avhole  transaction,  there 
is  not  one  word  about  the  Messiah,  or  the  blessing  of  the  nations  in  him. 
Nay,  indeed,  Paul  contrasts  the  whole  affair  with  the  ministration  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  christian  church,  2  Cor.  iii.  But  of  this  again.  Mean- 
time, after  all  the  solemn  preparations  recorded  in  Exod.  xix.  and  xx.« 
the  nation  was  organized,  and  immediately  was  added  to  the  covenant, 
written  and  engraven  on  stones,  a  judicial  law,  for  the  management  of 
their  national  affairs,  with  a  symbolic  ceremonial,  prospective  of  a  better 
covenant  and  a  more  spiritual  dispensation. 

It  is  important  to  observe,  that  circumcision  was  appended  to  the  insti- 
tution, and  incorporated  with  it-  It  was  taken,  as  it  were,  from  the  hand 
of  Abraham,  and  put  into  the  hands  of  Moses.  It  becomes  a  national 
from  a  patriarchal  affair.  Our  Lord  says,  "  Moses  gave  you  not  circum- 
cision ;  yet  you  circumcise  a  child  on  the  Sabbath  day,  (part  of  the  law 
of  Moses,)  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be  broken  ;  that  is,  that  cir- 
cumcision may  be  performed  according  to  the  law."  But  again,  Ex. 
xiii.  48,  speaking  of  the  law  of  the  passover,  it  is  enacted  that  circumci- 
sion be  imposed  upon  all  persons  identifying  themselves  with  the  Jewish 
nation,  in  order  to  a  participation  of  the  ordinances  commemorative  of  a 
national  salvation.  "  One  law,  says  the  Lord,"  concerning  the  institution 
of  circumcision,  "shall  be  to  him  that  is  home  born,  and  to  the  stranger 
that  sojourneth  among  you."  Here,  then,  is  circumcision,  as  enacted  by 
Moses.  But  if  any  one  want  still  fuller  and  clearer  legislation  on  this  sub- 
ject, he  may  find  it  in  Leviticus  xii.  3,  "  And  in  the  eighth  day  the  flesh 
of  his  foreskin  shall  be  circumcised."  Indeed  the  New  Testament  contem- 
plates it  as  a  part  of  the  Jewish  law.  Acts  xv.  1.  "  And  certain  men  came 
down  from  Judea,  and  taught  the  brethren  :  Except  ye  be  circumcised 
after  the  manner  of  Moses,  you  cannot  be  saved."  Evident  then,  it  is, 
that  circumcision  had  become  a  part  of  this  ceremonial  of  Moses,  and 
was  identified  with  his  institution,  as  much  part  and  parcel  of  it,  as  was 
ihe  passover  that  also  occurred  before  the  organization  at  Mount  Sinai. 

2d2 


294  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

That  covenant,  need  I  add,  was  sealed  with  the  blood  of  sin-offerings. 
"  For  as,"  Paul  says,  "  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to, the 
people,  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  with 
water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hj-sop,  saying;  this  is  the  blood  of  the  cov- 
enant which  God  has  enjoined  upon  you."  Of  that  national  institution, 
not  circumcision,  but  the  blood  of  sin-offerings,  was  the  seal. 

Thus  was  consummated  the  national  organization,  and  the  promises  to 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  concerning  this  inheritance,  and  also  the  bles- 
sings in  the  tirst  promise,  were  now  engrossed  in  it.  God  was  now 
known  not  only  as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  .Jacob;  but  the  "God 
of  the  Hebrews"  also.  Let  me  observe,  emphatically,  that  from  thai  day 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  repudiation  of  that  nation,  no 
other  compact,  covenant,  or  law,  was  given  them  ;  and  all  the  special 
favors  of  having  God  for  their  God  were  manifested  while  they  kept  his 
law. 

Jeremiah  promised  a  new  covenant,  as  aforesaid,  having  in  it  four  spi- 
ritual blessings,  comprehensive  of  the  whole  evangelical  dispensation  of 
mercy.  To  show  that  this  is  the  only  contrast  of  the  first  covenant,  and 
that  the  first  general  covenant  was  that  at  Mount  Sinai ;  the  preamble  to 
the  new  evidently  demonstrates — "  I  will  make  a  nev/  covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah,  saith  the  Lord.  Not  like 
that  v/hich  I  made  with  their  fathers,  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  &c.  The  second  promise,  or  the 
"  covenant  contirmed  by  God,  concerning  Christ,  is,  then,  developed  in 
the  new  covenant,  while  that  contained  in  the  first  promise  was  fully  de- 
veloped in  the  old  covenant.  And  Paul  says,  "  In  that  he  saith  a  new 
covenant,  he  niaketh  the  first  old.  Now  that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth 
old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away,"  We  have,  then,  in  this  simple  narrative 
of  these  all-important  transactions,  fully,  as  we  conceive,  set  forth  the 
whole  scope  and  meaning  of  these  two  promises,  with  all  the  covenants 
germinating  from  them.  From  which  facts  most  important  conclusions 
are  deducible,  wholly  subversive  of  the  Pedo-baptist  assumptions. 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  in  sacred  history  than  that  there  are  two  gene- 
ral covenants,  growing  out  of  two  promises  to  Abraham.  God's  nation 
built  upon  the  one,  and  Christ's  church  upon  the  other.  The  one  guar- 
antying all  manner  of  temporal  benefits,  under  a  special  providence  ;  the 
other,  guarantying  all  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings,  under  a  mediato- 
rial interposition.  The  one  founded  on  Jlesh,  the  other  on  spirit;  the 
one  received  by  sight  and  sense,  the  other  by  faith  and  hope. 

Before  we  descend  into  the  particular  details  of  the  subject,  I  desire 
your  attention  specially  to  the  precept  of  circumcision,  as  commented  on 
by  Paul,  Rom.  iv.  With  this  great  master,  in  our  Israel,  circumcision, 
in  the  person  of  Abraham,  differed  from  circumcision  in  the  person  of 
every  other  man.  in  his  case  it  was  both  a  sign  and  a  seal.  The  lan- 
guage is  so  peculiar,  that  no  grammarian  can  misconceive  it.  And,  says 
Paul,  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised.  Circumcision  was 
not  a  sign,  but  the  sign — it  was  not  the  seal,  but  a  seal.  The  former 
style  denotes  a  thing  well  defined  and  established — the  latter,  a  special 
occurrence.  To  all  the  Jews  it  was  the  sign  ;  to  Abraham  it  was  a  seal — 
a  seal  of  what  ?  Of  something  which  he  had  before  circumcision.  I 
challenge  a  discussion  of  this  point.  It  is  the  gist  of  the  controversy 
about  circumcision. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  29S 

If  there  be  not  a  demonstrable  difference  between  "  the  righteousness 
of  faithr  and  "  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  ivhich  he  hacV — then 
there  is  no  appreciable  dilTerence  between  any  two  propositions  on  the 
whole  subject  of  faith.  Circumcision  was  but  the  sign  of  a  covenant  to 
the  whole  Jewish  nation.  It  was  the  seal  of  the  peculiar  excellency,  of 
the  extraordinary  faith  vouchsafed  to  Abraham.  On  this  point  I  may, 
perhaps,  anticipate,  in  my  turn,  Mr.  Rice.  I  do  it,  however,  not  in  the 
way  of  retaUation,  but  to  apprise  him  of  my  course,  that  he  may  prepare 
for  a  defence,  on  this  much  Htigated  case.  I  have  never  seen  it  fully 
cleared  up  in  any  discussion.  I  hope  we  shall  satisfactorily  dispose  of  it 
on  the  present  occasion.  I  desire  him,  most  sincerely,  to  make  the  best 
effort  that  he  can.  I  could,  for  public  utility  and  satisfaction,  wish  that 
my  opponent  possessed  the  most  discursive  and  argumentative  powers, 
and  the  largest  amount  of  information  on  the  whole  premises — that  he 
had  all  learning — all  talents  of  this  sort — that  he  might  give  the  highest 
satisfaction,  and  demonstrate  that  he  neither  needs  nor  calculates  upon 
quibbling,  manoeuvring,  or  any  expedients  incompatible  vvith  conscious 
strenjilh,  and  christian  dignity,  and  decorum.  I  concur  with  him,  that  a 
more  important  question  can  scarcely  be  discussed  in  the  present  age.  It 
is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  humanity.  I  am  astonislied  that  any  one 
can  contemplate  the  subject  with  indifference,  or  seek  to  slur  it  over  from 
public  inspection  and  examination.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  under- 
stand this  subject.  It  concerns  the  church,  the  state,  the  whole  world,  to 
know  what  is  true  on  a  question  that  affects  millions,  by  imposing  on 
them  a  religion,  without  a  deed,  or  thought,  or  volition  of  their  own. 
Besides,  if  we  could  only  root  out  this  root  of  partyism,  how  much 
would  be  achieved  tor  the  cause  of  suffering  Christianity  !  What  advances 
towards  a  harmonious  concert  and  co-operation  ! 

I  have  some  fifteen  or  sixteen  facts  on  the  subject  of  circumcision,  in- 
dicative of  its  general  repugnance  to  any  accommodation  witli  Pedo-bap- 
tist  assumptions.  They  put  it,  methinks,  wholly  out  of  debate,  as  to 
the  feasibility  of  baptism  coming  in  the  room,  or  standing  in  the  stead  of 
circumcision.  I  never  heard  so  egregious  a  turn  given  to  a  phrase,  as 
that  given  to  a  clause  of  a  sentence,  in  ray  first  address  on  the  last  propo- 
sition. I  had,  in  speaking  of  its  prominence  in  the  christian  system,  ob- 
served that  baptism  stands  in  importance  "  as  circumcision  to  a  Jew, 
hereditary  descent  to  an  English  nobleman,  or  the  elective  franchise  to  an 
American  citizen."  Tliis,  Mr.  Rice,  in  his  sometimes  left-handed  and 
infelicitous  ingenuity,  converted  into  a  proof  that  I  held  baptism  as  com- 
ing in  the  room  of  circumcision  !  !  Why  did  he  not  put  it  also  in  room 
of  the  elective  franchise,  or  hereditary  descent  to  a  nobleman  !  !  I  wonder 
not  at  some  comments  on  the  new  version,  and  on  my  other  writings,  by 
this  gentleman,  who  could  in  my  presence  commit  so  palpable  an  error. 
I  shall  now  proceed  with  my  specifications. 

1.  Males  only  were  the  subjects  of  circumcision.  All  females  were 
excluded  from  the  blessings,  if  blessings  they  were,  in  the  sign  of  whose 
flesh  a  man  was  clothed.  I  argue  that  there  were  no  spiritual  blessings 
in  circumcision,  else  females  had  not  been  at  all  excluded.  The  God  of 
Abraham  never  would,  by  a  covenant  seal,  exclude  them  from  spiritual 
blessings — from  any  thing  tending  to  their  sanctification  and  salvation. 
Baptism  certainly  has  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision  in  this  par- 
ticular. 

2.  Adults  circumcised  themselves,  at  any  age,  whenever  they  took  it 


296  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

into  their  heads  to  become  Jews.     Do  children  baptize  themselves  ?     To 
•ircumcise  one's  self  was  a  very  general  practice  on  sundry  occasions. 

3.  Infant  males  were  to  be  circumcised  the  eighth  day.  Do  they  bap- 
tize infants  on  the  eighth  day  ? 

4.  Infants  were  circumcised  by  either  parent,  as  the  case  may  be. 
You  all  remember  the  case  of  Zipporah  !  Why  then  employ  ministers 
to  baptize,  if  these  are  both  seals  of  the  same  spiritual  church  covenant^ 
and  if  the  churches,  Jewish  and  Christian,  be  identical? 

5.  A  Jew's  property  in  a  man  or  child  constrained  his  circumcision. 
Abraham's  servants,  adults  and  all,  because  his  property,  were  circum- 
cised. Three  hundred  and  eighteen  warriors  belonged  at  one  time  to  his 
household.  Why  do  not  Presbyterians  baptize  all  a  man's  slaves  when 
he  joins  the  church,  on  the  principle  of  identity  ? 

6.  Circumcision  was  not  the  door  into  any  church  or  religious  institu- 
tion. It  was  no  initiatory  rite  to  any  moral  institution^  The  Ishmaelites, 
and  Edomites,  and  many  other  nations  by  Keturah,  were  circumcised- 
Into  what  church  did  they  enter?  The  Jews  were  members  of  the 
politico-ecclesiastico  church  by  natural  birth.  Circumcision  was  no  ini- 
tiatory rite  or  door  to  them.  But  none  can  enter  Christ's  church  unless 
"born  again,"  "born  from  above."  How  then  are  the  two  churches 
identical  ? 

7.  The  qualification  for  circumcision  was  Jlesh.  Is  that  the  qualifica- 
tion for  baptism  ?  for  admission  into  Christ's  church? 

8.  Circumcision  was  not  a  dedicatory  rite.  Pedo-baptists  talk  much  and 
often  about  dedicating  their  infant  offspring  to  the  Lord.  Now  under  the 
law,  females  were  never  dedicated,  and  of  males  no7ie  but  the  first  born! 
How  righteous,  over  much,  in  dedicating  both  male  and  female !  The 
Lord  never  asked  this  much  from  the  Jews.  But  Pedo-baptist  dedica- 
tion is  only  nominal.  Among  the  Jews  it  was  real — bona  fide  dedica- 
tion. Jesus  Christ,  being  the  ^rs^  bot'n,  was  dedicated.  He  was  also 
circumcised  and  baptized ;  circumcised  the  eighth  day  at  home,  dedica- 
ted the  fortieth  day  in  the  temple,  and  baptized  when  thirty  years  old 
in  the  Jordan.    Are  the  churches  identical  here  ?    What  singular  identity  ! 

9.  Circumcision,  requiring  no  moral  qualification,  communicated  no 
spiritual  blessings.  Ishmael,  Esau,  and  all  the  servants  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  were  circumcised  on  the  faith  of  their  masters. 

10.  Idiots  were  circumcised — for  not  even  reason,  intellect,  or  sanity 
were  qualifications — flesh  only  !  It  was  a  covenent  in  thefiesh,  and  went 
for  preserving  the  flesh  till  the  Messiah  was  made  of  the  seed  of  Abra- 
nam  and  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh. 

IL  It  was  a  visible,  appreciable  mark,  as  all  signs  and  seals  are.  Is 
sprinkling  so,  or  any  use  of  water  ? 

12.  It  was  binding  on  parents  and  not  on  children.  The  command- 
ment was,  "Circumcise  your  children."  But  the  christian  word  is,  "  Be 
Daptized  every  one  of  you."  No  one  ever  found  a  precept  in  the  New 
Testament,  commanding  parents  to  baptize  their  children.  Where  there 
is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression :  and  where  there  is  no  precept,  there 
can  be  no  obedience.  There  is,  therefore,  no  transgression  in  the  neg- 
lect, nor  obedience  in  the  performance,  of  infant  baptism. 

13.  The  right  to  circumcision  in  no  case  depended  upon  the  faith,  the 
piety,  or  the  morality  of  parents.  The  infant  of  the  most  impious  Jew, 
had  just  as  good  a  right  to  circumcision  as  the  son  of  Abraham,  David,  or 
Daniel.     Why,  then,  do  Pedo-baptists  suspend  the  right  to  baptism  upom 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  297 

the  faith  of  a  father  or  grandfather,  or  some  kinsman  of  the  infant  ?  Does 
their  practice  look  like  their  faith  in  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circum- 
cision, or  in  the  identity  of  the  two  churches,  the  Jewish  and  the  christian? 

14.  Circumcision,  say  our  Pedo-baptist  friends,  guarantied  certain  tem- 
poral blessings  to  the  Jews.  Query — What  temporal  blessings  does  bap- 
tism secure  to  infants? 

15.  It  was  not  to  be  performed  into  the  name  of  any  being  whatever, 
neither  in  heaven  nor  on  earth.  Why,  then,  baptize  or  sprinkle  into  any 
name,  if  the  latter  fills  the  place  of  the  former  ? 

16.  The  subject  of  circumcision,  was  a  debtor  to  keep  the  law  of 
Moses  in  all  its  institutions  :  for,  says  Paul,  "  Whosoever  among  you 
is  circumcised  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,"  of  which,  as  before 
shown,  circumcision  was  a  part.  Query — Are  those  infants  baptized, 
debtors  to  keep  all  the  Jewish  ordinances  ?  If  not,  how  does  baptism  fill 
the  place  of  circumcision  ? 

These  sixteen  indisputable  facts  show — that  circumcision  was  peculiar 
in  its  nature,  character,  and  designs — that  it  was  the  sign  of  a  national 
covenant — that  it  was  the  sign  of  the  same  privilege  to  all  its  subjects  ; 
and,  consequently,  never  the  sign  of  any  spiritual  blessing  in  Christ  to 
any  one  of  them. 

That  the  covenant  of  which  it  was  a  sign  was  not  the  covenant  of  the 
christian  church,  will  appear  most  evident  from  a  fact  which  I  will  just 
now  state,  viz :  that  some  eight  hundred  years  after  its  establishment, 
Jeremiah  foretold  that  it  should  be  abolished,  and  that  God  would  make 
a  neiv  covenant,  and  instead  of  writing  his  new  laws  upon  marble  or 
upon  parchment,  he  would  write  them  upon  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
The  words  are : — "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of 
Judah.  Not  according  to  the  covenant  which  I  made  with  their  fathers 
in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt.  (Which  my  covenant  they  break,  although  I  was  a  husband  to 
them,  saith  the  Lord.)  But  this  shall  be  the  covenant  which  I  will  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel.  After  those  days,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their 
inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  be  their  God  and  they 
shall  be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his  neigh- 
bor, and  every  man  his  brother,  saying.  Know  the  Lord ;  for  all  shall 
know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord ;  for  I  will 
forgive  their  iniquity  and  remember  their  sins  no  more." — [Time  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  20— lU  o'clock,  Jl.  M. 
LMr.  rice's  second  address.] 
Mr.  President — I  have  no  objection  to  holding  the  laboring  oar,  or  to 
have  something  to  prove.  Many  very  intelligent  persons  thought  that  I 
proved  something,  even  when  the  laboring  oar  was  in  the  gentleman's 
hand  ;  and,  perhaps,  I  may  now  accomplish  even  more  than  before.  I 
despair,  however,  of  pleasing  him.  I  find  it  impossible  to  travel  at  a  gait 
tbat  will  suit  him  :  I  am  always  either  too  fast  or  too  slow — generally 
too  fast.  I  must  be  permitted,  in  this  matter,  to  pursue  my  own  course; 
and  I  shall  cheerfully  leave  him  to  pursue  his.  If,  however,  I  should 
still  be  far  in  advance  of  him,  I  will  often  return  to  pay  him  my  compli- 
ments. I  venture  to  say,  that  I  shall  be  with  him  as  often  as  he  wishes 
to  see  me.  When  I  passed  on  before  him  in  the  argument  on  the  mode, 
he  gave  rae  warning,  that  he  should  probably  soon  have  the  same  advan- 


298  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

tageof  me;  but  at  the  very  outset,  he  is  again  complaining.  Well,  I 
cannot  help  it. 

Infant  baptism,  the  gentleman  believes,  has  done  more  to  corrupt  the 
church,  than  all  things  else.  Did  you  not  hear  on  Saturday  evening, 
how  eloquently  he  spoke  of  "the  sacramental  host" — the  innumerable 
multitudes  of  immersionists  of  olden  time,  in  whose  footsteps  he  was 
journeying  on  to  a  better  world  ?  Alas  !  the  great  majority  of  them 
were  baptized  in  infancy !  From  the  earliest  period  to  which  the  history 
of  the  church  can  take  us  back,  infant  baptism  prevailed  universally.  If 
we  subtract  from  the  immersionist  ranks,  all  who  experienced  the  sad 
consequences  of  being  baptized  in  infancy,  his  sacramental  host  dwindles 
to  a  very  small  company.  On  the  other  evening,  whilst  he  contemplated 
them  as  immersionists,  they  seemed  to  his  imagination  a  host  of  saints 
and  martyrs  ;  but  now  they  are  with  us  most  fully,  and  they  appear,  in 
his  eyes,  sadly,  deplorably  corrupt!  !  ! 

But  it  is  vain  to  reason  against  indisputable  facts.  The  baptism  of 
infants  has  been  practiced  in  our  country  by  Congregationalists,  Presby- 
terians and  others,  for  more  than  two  centuries  ;  and  during  a  much  longer 
period  in  Scotland  and  other  countries.  Now,  I  ask  this  intelligent  audi- 
ence, are  not  the  Pedo-baptist  churches,  that  take  the  Bible  as  their  only 
rule  of  faith,  as  moral,  as  upright,  as  virtuous,  as  pure  in  their  lives,  and, 
so  far  as  man  can  judge,  as  pious,  as  those  of  the  anti-Pedo-baptists  ? 
Where  is  the  corruption  which,  according  to  the  gentleman's  logic,  must 
have  Howed  like  a  torrent  into  our  churches  ?  I  am  more  than  willing  to 
compare  the  Presbyterian  church  with  liis  ;  and  in  the  comparison,  his 
would  have  this  great  advantage ;  that,  being  only  about  sixteen  years  oj 
age,  (!)  it  has  had  scarcely  time  to  lose  its  tirst  love,  or  to  lose  any 
portion  of  the  virtue  originally  belonging  to  it.  And  now  I  assert,  (and 
those  who  hear  me  will  bear  me  witness,)  that  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  the  other  Pedo-baptist  churches  that  take  the  Scriptures  as  their  in- 
fallible guide,  are  as  moral,  as  religious,  in  every  respect  as  pure  and 
pious,  as  any  anti-Pedo-baptist  church  on  earth.  AVhere,  then,  is  the 
corruption  of  which  the  baptism  of  infants  is  the  prolific  cause  ?  The 
cause  has  been  operating  in  our  own  country  more  than  two  centuries ; 
but  the  effect  has  not  appeared.  Is  it  not,  then,  evident  that  the  gentleman, 
under  the  influence  of  strong  prejudices,  has  fallen  into  the  error  so  com- 
mon among  men,  of  ascribing  to  things  they  dislike,  tendencies  which 
they  do  not  possess  ? 

You  heard,  whilst  we  were  discussing  the  mode  of  baptism,  with  what 
pleasure  the  gentleman  counted  the  number  of  immersionists.  To-day, 
however,  he  has  quite  a  distaste  for  that  mode  of  reasoning  !  Eckius,  the 
Roman  priest,  he  tells  us,  boasted  of  number  whilst  the  world  was  against 
Luther.  The  comparison,  however,  is  unfortunate  ;  for,  in  the  first 
place,  it  was  not  true  that  the  whole  christian  world  was  with  Eckius. 
During  the  first  five  centuries  of  the  christian  era,  the  church,  though  be- 
coming gradually  corrupt,  did  not  become  papists ;  and  in  the  second 
place,  the  assertion  of  Eckius  was  true  only  of  those  who  did  not  search 
the  Scriptures,  and  take  them  as  their  infallible  guide.  Luther  was  an  in- 
strument in  the  hands  of  God,  in  commencing  a  glorious  reformation,  at 
a  period  when  it  might  be  emphatically  said,  "  darkness  covered  the  earth, 
and  gross  darkness  the  people  ;"  when  the  Bible  was  almost  unknown, 
and  the  people  were  not  permitted  to  read  it  for  themselves.  It  is  the  pe- 
culiar prerogative  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  have  commenced  a  radical  reforma- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  299 

tion,  at  a  time  when  the  Bible,  untrammeled  by  note  or  comment,  is  in 
the  hands  of  the  people,  and  to  proclaim  to  vast  multitudes  of  the  most 
devout  readers  and  students  of  that  plain  book,  that  they  have  utterly 
failed  to  understand  its  fundamental  doctrines  !  ! !  This  reformation,  me- 
thinks,  will  hereafter  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  singular  in  its 
character,  and  the  most  absurd  in  its  pretensions,  that  history  records — a 
general,  radical  reformation  of  churches,  whose  ministers  and  members 
make  the  Bible  their  daily  and  prayerful  study,  and  who,  in  their  lives, 
exhibit  the  spirit  of  that  blessed  book  quite  as  fully,  to  say  the  least,  as 
they  who  would  reform  them  ! 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  that  we  cannot  understand  the  New  Testa- 
ment without  consulting  the  Old  ;  and  yet  he  finds  fault  with  me  because 
I  have  appealed  to  it  !  Baptism,  it  is  true,  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New 
Testament;  but  connected  with  the  subject  before  us,  there  are  two  dis- 
tinct questions,  viz:  1.  What  persons  are  entiUed  to  membership  in  the 
church  of  Christ?  and,  2.  By  what  ordinance  must  they  be  introduced? 
I  do  not  go  to  the  Old  Testament  to  ascertain,  whether  persons  are  to  en- 
ter the  church  by  circumcision  or  by  baptism.  I  appeal  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, in  part,  to  ascertain  who  has  a  right  to  membership  in  the  church; 
and  I  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  to  determine  by  what  ordinance  they 
are  to  be  recognized  as  members.  If  you  wish  to  ascertain  to  whom  the 
rights  of  citizenship  in  these  United  States,  belong;  you  do  not  go  to  the 
transactions  of  the  last  congress.  You  go  back  to  the  organization  of  the 
government  and  the  adoption  of  the  constitution;  and  if  the  last  or  any 
preceding  congress  has  changed  the  forms  of  recognizing  those  rights, 
you  will  appeal  to  the  latest  enactments  on  that  subject  to  learn  what  those 
forms  are.  And  so  I  go  to  the  organization  of  the  church — the  period 
when  the  law  of  membership  was  passed — to  ascertain  wiio  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted as  members,  and  to  the  new  dispensation  to  learn  by  what  rite 
or  ordinance  they  are  to  enter.  If  in  this  there  is  any  absurdity,  the  gen- 
tleman is  welcome  to  expose  it. 

He  agrees  with  me,  that  the  commission  required  the  apostles  to  go 
and  make  disciples  by  baptizing  and  teaching;  but  he  insists,  that  he  does 
not  make  disciples  as  I  do.  That  is  likely  enough  ;  but  I  make  them,  so 
far  as  human  instrumentality  is  concerned,  by  baptizing  and  teaching ; 
and  if  he  makes  them  in  any  other  way,  he  does  not  act  according  to  the 
commission.  With  the  errors  and  superstitions  of  Xavier  we  have  no 
concern. 

He  tells  the  audience,  that  I  went  back  to  Abraham  only  to  get  the 
mark.  This  is  a  mistake.  I  M'ent  to  Abraham,  as  every  intelligent  and 
attentive  hearer  saw,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  the  church  and  the  law  of 
membership.  I  care  not,  so  far  as  the  defence  of  infant-baptism  is  con- 
cerned, whether  baptism  did,  or  did  not  come  in  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion. His  fifteen  arguments  I  may  notice  in  passing.  I  had  informed 
him,  that  1  cared  not  whether  baptism  came  instead  of  circumcision ;  and 
I  will  show  the  audience,  that  my  argument  does  not  at  all  depend  upon 
establishing  that  fact.  I  prove,  that  infauts  have  the  right  to  a  place  in  the 
church ;  and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  they  have  a  right  to  enter 
by  the  door.  Whether  it  is  in  the  same  side  of  the  building  as  formerly, 
is  of  little  importance.  But  his  fifteen  arguments  were  in  his  speech, 
and,  like  the  lawyer,  he  must  speak  them  ! 

The  papists,  he  informs  us,  do  not  profess  to  find  infant-baptism  in  the 
Bible ;  and  he  quotes  a  certain  popish  writer  to  that  effect.     The  church 


»00  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  Rome,  however,  does  not  make  this  admission.  I  have  several  ser- 
mons delivered  on  the  subject  of  infant-baptism  by  bishop  Kenrick,  of 
Philadelphia,  and  published  with  the  approbation  of  bishop  Flaget,  of 
Louisville,  in  which  the  doctrine  is  defended  at  considerable  length  by  the 
Scriptures. 

Dr.  Wall,  too,  he  informs  us,  does  not  undertake  to  prove  this  doctrine 
by  the  Scriptures,  but  relies  for  its  defence  on  Jewish  proselyte  baptism. 
Dr.  Wall  undertook  simply  to  write  the  history  of  infant-baptism,  not  to 
go  at  length  into  the  Bible  argument  in  support  of  it.  Yet  he  did  very 
repeatedly  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  the  progress  of  his  history,  as  clearly 
teaching  the  doctrine.  As  to  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  I  am  not  par- 
ticularly concerned  about  it.  I  can  and  will  prove  the  doctrine  for  which 
I  am  contending,  independently  of  that  source  of  evidence.  Yet  it  will 
require,  I  think,  something  more  than  the  mere  assertion  of  the  gentleman 
to  disprove  a  fact  which  has  so  generally  commanded  the  belief  of  the 
most  learned  men. 

He  repeats  the  declaration,  that  Calvin  claimed  the  right  to  change  the 
ordinances  of  the  church.  I  regret,  that  he  cannot  be  induced  to  give  us 
Calvin's  language — to  let  him  speak  for  himself.  Until  he  will  do  so,  I 
shall  pass  his  assertions  without  particular  notice. 

We  come  now  to  notice  the  main  point  in  his  speech.  He  tells  us, 
that  God  made  to  Abraham  two  promises,  and  formed  with  him  two  cov- 
enants. I  am  curious  to  know  where  he  finds  in  the  Scriptures  a  plural- 
ity of  covenants  with  Abraham.  I  read  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham; 
but  I  find  no  mention  of  the  covenants  (in  the  plural.)  It  is  true,  Paul,  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  speaks  of  "  the  covenants  of  promise ;"  but 
unfortunately  for  the  gentleman,  he  does  not  say,  that  these  covenants 
were  made  with  Mraham.  It  is  admitted,  that  God  made  to  Abraham 
several  promises;  but  this  affords  no  evidence  of  a  plurality  of  covenants  ; 
for  who  does  not  know,  that  one  covenant  may  embrace  a  number  of  dis- 
tinct promises  ?  The  gospel  contains  a  number  of  promises ;  and  if 
there  must  be  a  distinct  covenant  for  every  promise,  it  contains  quite  a 
number  of  covenants  !  When  the  gentleman  proves,  that  God  made  with 
Abraham  two  covenants ;  I  will  prove,  that  our  Savior  has  made  with 
his  church  half  a  dozen  ! 

In  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  find  several  promises  made  to 
Abraham,  but  not  ratified  in  the  form  of  a  covenant.  In  the  15th,  we  find 
the  promises  repeated,  but  still  not  ratified  by  any  seal  to  be  applied 
to  Abraham  and  his  posterity.  In  the  17th,  we  find  the  same  promises 
again  repeated,  and  ratified  in  the  form  of  a  covenant,  of  which  circum- 
cision was  the  seal  to  be  administered  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  in  succeed- 
ing generations.  "  And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old  and  nine, 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God: 
walk  before  me  and  be  thou  perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  covenant  [one 
covenant  only]  between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly. 
And  Abram  fell  on  his  face :  and  God  talked  with  him,  saying,  As  for  me, 
behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many 
nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram ;  but  thy 
name  shall  be  Abraham :  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee. 
And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  nations  of  thee, 
and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for 
an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  30I 

And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou 
art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession :  and  I 
will  be  their  God.  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee.  Every  man  child  among  you  shall 
be  circumcised,"  chap.  xvii.   1 — 10. 

Here  is  the  covenant  upon  which  the  church  was  organized.  It  con- 
tains three  distinct  promises;  1.  A  promise  of  a  numerous  natural  seed, 
which  has  been  fulfilled  ;  2.  That  his  natural  seed  should  possess  the 
land  of  Canaan,  which  has  also  been  fulfilled ;  3.  That  he  should  be 
a  father  of  many  nations ;  that  in  his  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed.  This  is  the  great  promise  of  the  covenant,  the  promise 
of  spiritual  blessings  to  all  nations  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  promised 
seed,  and  is  now  being  fulfilled.  This  covenant  containing  these  three 
promises,  the  same  that  are  recorded  in  the  12th  and  15th  chapters, 
was  ratified  and  sealed  by  circumcision.  With  Abraham,  therefore,  God 
made  but  one  covenant.  My  friend  may,  if  he  pleases,  insist  on  three 
covenants,  each  containing  the  same  promises;  but  it  is  all  apocryphal — it 
is  absurd.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  speaks  of  more 
than  one. 

With  the  organization  of  the  nation  which  he  supposes  to  have  taken 
place  at  Sinai,  I  have  nothing  to  do,  so  far  as  the  present  discussion 
is  concerned.  I  am  concerned  only  to  find  the  organization  of  the  church, 
and  to  ascertain  the  law  of  membership  in  it. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us,  that  when  the  nation  was  organized,  circum- 
cision passed  out  of  the  hands  of  Abraham  into  the  hands  of  Moses. 
To  prove  this  most  singular  declaration  he  refers  to  John  vii.  23,  "  If 
a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day  receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses 
should  not  be  broken,"  &;c.  But  it  is  most  manifest,  that  his  construction 
of  this  passage  is  wholly  incorrect.  It  is  flatly  contradictory  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Paul,  Rom.  iv.  11,  "And  he  [Abraham]  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision; a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet 
being  uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe, 
though  they  be  not  circumcised  ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto 
them  also:  and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the 
circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our 
father  Abraham,  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised."  Now  if,  as 
the  gentleman  contends,  circumcision  passed  from  the  hands  of  Abraham  to 
Moses ;  how  could  circumcision  make  Abraham  the  father  of  all  believers 
in  all  time  to  come  ? 

The  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  written  chiefly  by 
Moses,  and  were,  therefore,  commonly  called  the  law  of  Moses,  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  25 ;  Daniel  ix.  11  ;  John  vii.  19.)  Indeed  the  Old  Testament  was 
divided  into  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  or  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets.  It  was  on  this  account  that  circumcision  was  said  to  be  ad- 
ministered, that  the  law  of  Moses  might  not  be  broken,  not  because  it  had 
in  some  incomprehensible  sense  been  transferred  from  Abraham  to  Moses. 
The  law  which  was  given  at  Sinai,  was  a  temporary  addition  to  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  designed  to  answer  a  particular  purpose,  for  a  limited 
time;  and  therefore  circumcision,  the  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
embraced  and  sealed  those  additions  to  it,  made  for  the  purpose  of  carry- 
ing out  Us  provisions.  So  Paul  teaches  in  Galatians  iii.  19,  "Where- 
fore then  serveih  the  law?  It  was  added  [of  course,  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant]  till  the  seed  should  come,"  «fec.     The  law  at  Sinai,  was  no^ 

2C 


802  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

therefore,  another  covenant  entirely  distinct  from  that  made  with  Abraham, 
but  was  only  an  addition  to  it. 

The  gentleman  informs  us,  that  circumcision  was  a  seal  only  in  the  case 
of  Abraham — that  to  his  posterity  it  was  a  sign,  but  not  a  seal.  That  is, 
he  makes  this  ordinance  one  thing  to  Abraham,  and  quite  another  to  his 
posterity  and  to  all  others  who  received  it!  Wtll,  if  he  will  be  good 
enough  to  point  us  to  the  Scripture  which  so  teaches,  I  will  believe  it. 
And  it  is  particularly  proper,  that  he  should  do  this ;  for  he  commen- 
ced his  reformation  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  having  a  "  thus  saith  the 
Lord  "  for  every  item  of  faith  and  practice.  I  now  call  upon  him  to 
produce  the  passage  of  Scripture  which  sustains  his  assertion. 

My  acknowledgments  are  due  to  him  for  his  benevolent  wish,  that  I 
possessed  very  great  powers,  in  order  to  sift  to  the  bottom  this  important 
subject.  But  feeble  as  my  powers  are,  they  were  sufficient,  in  the  opi- 
nion of  very  many  intelligent  persons,  to  give  him  great  trouble  last  week. 
When  we  see  a  great  man,  like  my  friend — a  man  standing  at  the  head 
of  a  reformation  of  extraordinary  pretensions  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
in  such  difficulty,  so  puzzled  to  meet  the  arguments  of  one  of  the  small 
men  of  the  Presbyterian  church ;  we  are  obliged  to  think,  he  has  a  diffi- 
cult cause  to  plead.  It  affords  strong  presumptive  evidence,  that  truth  is 
on  the  side  of  the  small  man.  Under  such  circumstances  I  incline  to 
the  opinion,  that  he  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  my  powers. 

But  I  must  very  briefly  pay  my  respects  to  the  gentleman's  fifteen  ar- 
guments, designed  to  prove  that  baptism  did  not  come  in  place  of  circum- 
cision. As  I  have  before  stated,  I  care  not,  so  far  as  the  defence  of  infant 
baptism  is  concerned,  whether  it  did  or  not.  I  can,  however,  easily 
prove  that  it  did.  What  do  we  mean  when  we  say  that  baptism  came 
in  place  of  circumcision?  We  mean  simply  this;  that  baptism  answers 
the  same  purposes  to  the  church  under  the  new  dispensation,  that  cir- 
cumcision answered  under  the  old.  Circumcision  was  the  door  of  en- 
trance into  the  church  under  the  former  dispensation  ;  baptism  is  the 
door  under  the  present  dispensation.  Circumcision  was  the  sign  and 
seal  of  God's  covenant  with  his  people,  the  mark  which  distinguish- 
ed them  from  those  not  in  covenant  witli  God :  and  baptism  is  now  the 
ordinance  which  distinguishes  his  people  from  the  world,  and  which  seals 
to  them  his  promised  grace.  Circumcision  was  a  significant  ordinance, 
pointing  to  the  sanctification  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  hence 
the  wicked  were  called  uncircumcised  in  heart,  and  were  exhorted  to 
circumcise  the  foreskin  of  their  hearts.  Baptism  is  a  significant  ordi- 
nance, pointing  emblematically  to  the  same  thing.  These  statements,  I 
am  prepared  to  prove,  if  indeed  they  require  proof;  and  these  things  be- 
ing true,  it  is  certain  that  baptism  came  in  place  of  circumcision — that  it 
answers  the  same  ends  in  the  church  now,  that  were  answered  by  cir- 
cumcision under  the  former  dispensation.  But  I  am  not  at  all  concerned 
to  prove  this  point.  The  whole  of  his  fifteen  arguments  are  based  on 
the  false  assumption,  that  the  substitute  must  be,  in  all  respects,  like  the 
thing  for  which  it  is  substituted,  regardless  of  difference  of  circumstances! 

But  I  will  answer  the  gentleman's  question.  He  inquires  whether  I 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  a  church  before  the  days  of  Abraham — and 
if  so,  how  infants  entered  it?  I  will,  for  argument's  sake,  admit  the  exist- 
ence of  a  church  before  the  organization  in  Abraham's  family;  and  now, 
if  he  will  tell  us  how  adtdts  entered  it,  I  pledge  myself  to  show  how 
infants  were  received.     This  certainly  is  a  fair  proposition. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  303 

He  asks  a  second  question,  (and  I  like  to  answer  questions,)  viz.  what 
spiritual  blessing  was  conveyed  by  circumcision  to  the  Ishmaelites  and 
Edomites  ?  He  labors  to  prove,  that  circumcision  conveyed  to  those  who 
received  it,  no  spiritual  blessing.  I  will  answer  his  question  by  asking 
another,  viz.  What  spiritual  blessing  does  immersion  convey  to  the  Mor- 
mons? If  many  were  circumcised  who  did  not  receive  any  spiritual 
blessing;  have  not  many  (and  the  Mormons  among  them,)  been  immersed 
without  receiving  such  blessings?  Yet  the  gentleman  firmly  believes, 
that  immersion  conveys  spiritual  blessings. 

But  I  am  truly  surprised,  that  any  one  who  has  carefully  read  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New,  should  assert,  that  piety  was  not  required  of 
adults,  in  order  to  membership  in  the  Jewish  church.  God  entered  into 
covenant  with  the  Jewish  church.  He  represents  himself  as  married  to 
her.  Did  he,  I  emphatically  ask,  enter  into  covenant  with  men,  without 
requiring  them  to  obey  him  ?  And  could  they  truly  obey  him  without 
possessing  true  piety?  It  would,  indeed,  have  been  most  marvellous,  if 
God  had  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Jews,  promising  to  them  bless- 
ings not  bestowed  on  any  other  nation,  and  yet  left  it  optional  with  them 
whether  they  would  serve  him  !  But  the  genUeman's  assertion  is  in  di- 
rect contradiction  of  the  Bible.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Galatians,  says : 
"I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law,"  chap.  v.  3.  Could  any  one  keep  the  whole  law,  which 
was  given  to  the  Jewish  church,  without  possessing  piety  ?  That  law  re- 
quired them  to  love  God  with  the  whole  heart.  Could  they  do  this  with- 
out piety  ?  Why,  Paul  teaches  us,  that  circumcision,  without  true  piety, 
was  absolutely  worthless,  "  For  circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou 
keep  the  law  ;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is 
made  uncircumcision,"  Rom.  ii.  25.  Now,  can  a  man  keep  the  law,  the 
moral  law,  of  which,  as  the  connection  shows,  he  is  speaking,  without 
piety?  Every  one  must  see  that  it  is  impossible.  Circumcision,  there- 
fore, did  require  piety,  and  no  one  could  be  a  worthy  member  of  the  Jew- 
ish church,  without  possessing  it. 

Let  us  now  place  before  our  minds  the  real  state  of  the  argument.  The 
gentleman  complains  that  I  travel  too  rapidly,  that  I  present  too  many 
points ;  but  I  discover  that  the  audience  can  easily  keep  up  with  me.  He, 
however,  is  not  speaking  for  present  ejfeet.  He  is  elaborating  from  this 
Book,  which  he  professes  to  believe  quite  plain,  ideas  too  profound  to  be 
appreciated  by  this  audience.  He  is  making  a  book — a  book  for  poster- 
ity J  He  does  not  speak  for  the  multitude.  I  go  for  present  effect  and 
for  future  effect;  and  I  think  I  shall  be  understood,  and  my  arguments 
will  be  appreciated  by  those  who  hear  me. 

I  have  said,  and  Mr.  Campbell  has  not  disputed  it,  that  all  who  are 
entitled  to  membei'ship  in  the  church  of  God,  ought  to  be  baptized.  I 
have  defined  the  church  to  be  a  body  of  people  separated  from  the  world 
for  the  service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  and  a  door 
of  admission — a  rite  for  the  recognition  of  membership.  He  has  not 
disputed  the  correctness  of  this  definition.  I  have  found  such  a  body — 
a  church  organized,  in  the  family  of  Abraham.  I  have  proved  that  be- 
lievers and  their  children  were  put  into  this  church  by  positive  law  of 
God,  and  my  friend  has  found  no  law  for  putting  out  the  one  or  the  other. 
I  have  proved  the  identity  of  the  church  under  both  dispensations.  The 
conclusion  follows  inevitably,  that  the  children  of  believers  are  still  entitled 
to  a  place  iu  the  church,  and,  of  course,  to  baptism,  the  initiatory  rite. 


304  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  great  Baptist  writer,  Andrew  Fuller,  comments  on  the  twelfth  and 
seventeenth  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  follows: 

Fuller,  vol.  v.  p.  115.  "This  promise  has  been  fulfilling  ever  since. 
All  the  true  blessedness  which  the  world  is  now,  or  shall  hereafter  be  pos- 
sessed of,  is  owing  to  Abrani  and  his  posterity.  Through  them  we  have  a 
Bible,  a  Savior,  and  a  gospel.  They  are  the  stock  on  which  the  christian 
church  is  grafted." 

Ibid.  p.  153.  *'  The  first  promise  in  this  covenant  is,  that  he  shall  be 
the  father  of  many  nations;  and  as  a  token  of  it,  his  name  in  future  is  to  be 
called  Abraham.  He  had  the  name  of  a  high,  or  eminent  father,  from  the 
beginning  ;  but  now  it  shall  be  more  comprehensive,  indicating  a  very  large 
progeny.  By  the  exposition  given  of  this  promise  in  the  New  Testament, 
(Rom.  iv.  16,  17,)  we  are  directed  to  understand  it,  not  only  of  those  who 
sprang  from  Abraham's  body,  though  these  were  many  nations  ;  but  also 
of  all  that  should  be  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  It  went  to  make  him  the 
father  of  the  church  of  God  in  all  future  ages,  or,  as  the  apostle  calls  him, 
the  heir  of  the  world.  In  this  view,  he  is  the  father  of  many,  even  of  a 
multitude  of  nations.  All  that  the  christian  world  enjoys,  or  ever  will 
enjoy,  it  is  indebted  for  it  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  A  high  honor  this, 
to  be  the  father  of  the  faithful,  the  stock  from  which  the  Messiah  should 
spring,  and  on  which  the  church  of  God  should  grow." 

Fuller,  you  observe,  though  a  decided  anti-Pedo-baptist,  did  not  believe 
that  God  made  with  Abraham  more  than  one  covenant.  Observe,  too,  he 
believed  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.,  consti- 
tuted him  the  father  of  the  church  of  God  in  all  future  ages;  and  he  says, 
the  christian  world  is  indebted  to  Abraham,  and  his  seed,  for  all  they  now 
enjoy,  or  ever  will  enjoy.  I  will  put  Fuller,  who  was  both  a  great  and  a 
good  man,  against  Mr.  Campbell. — [Time  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  20— 12|  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[[mr.  Campbell's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President — To  condescend,  sir,  from  the  dignity  of  rational  and 
grave  argument  upon  divine  ordinances,  connected  with  man's  sanctifica- 
tion  and  salvation,  to  the  ad  captandum  statements  of  my  politic  oppo- 
nent, is  by  no  means  gratifying  to  my  taste,  nor  to  my  feelings.  I  have 
already  suffered  many  instances  of  this  species  of  rhetoric  to  pass  with- 
out any  notice,  hoping  that  a  proper  sense  of  the  dignity  of  the  church 
he  represents,  would  elevate  him  above  such  unworthy  modes  of  defend- 
ing a  religious  proposition.  Being  disappointed  in  these  hopes,  I  am  con- 
strained, for  once,  to  notice  his  course.  Had  the  subject  of  his  valorous 
achievements  last  week  been  the  question  of  debate,  or  were  the  display 
of  a  captious  temper  his  supreme  aim,  then,  indeed,  there  would  have 
been  much  more  pertinency  and  propriety  in  the  speech  which  you  have 
just  now  heard. 

A  person  so  sensitive  of  praise,  and  so  much  devoted  to  his  own  dear 
self,  as  to  be  always  talking  of  himself  in  such  a  style,  had  better  turn 
his  attention  to  the  proverbs  of  Solomon,  on  the  ways  and  means  of  pro- 
moting his  own  glory.  Solomon  delivers  some  sage  remarks  on  that  subject, 
■which  I  would  commend  to  him  as  a  beautiful  text  for  a  useful  sermon. 
It  is  happily  expressed  in  the  following  apposite  terms :  "  Let  another 
praise  thee,  and  not  thine  own  mouth  ;  a  stranger,  and  not  thine  own  lips." 

There  is  something,  too,  in  this  invidious  comparison  of  churches  and 
communities,  which  savors  a  little  of  the  same  ruling  passion — and  which 
neither  christian  morality,  nor  a  high  sense  of  christian  courtesy,  com- 
mends.   I  have  not  made  one  allusion  to  the  comparative  attainments,  vir- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  305 

tues,  or  excellencies,  personal  or  social,  in  our  respective  communities.  I 
have  never  contrasted  Presbyterians  and  Disciples,  in  any  one  point  of 
view,  in  this  discussion.  In  speaking  of  the  great  mass  of  uneducated 
mind — mere  flesh  and  blood,  brought  info  a  community  by  the  operation 
of  infant  affusion,  I  had  no  special  reference  to  Presbyterians,  more  than 
to  Congregationalists,  Methodists,  or  Episcopalians.  Nay,  indeed,  I  had 
especial  reference  to  that  great  mother  of  ignorance  and  superstition,  who 
annually  brings  under  her  priesthood  some  three  millions  of  speechless 
babes,  by  the  operation  of  a  few  drops  of  water,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross. 

Any  one  who  desires  to  appreciate  the  truth  of  these  remarks,  I  com- 
mend to  the  history  of  Old  Spain  and  New  Spain,  of  Italy  and  Portugal, 
lands  not  much  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Protestantism  A  more  beau- 
tiful bky  spreads  not  itself  over  a  more  polluted  land  than  that  which 
looks  down  upon  Italy,  the  very  home  of  infant  rantism ;  and  the  sink 
of  European  pollutions.  Any  one  who  desires  to  know  what  have  been 
the  operations  of  the  unhallowed  alliance  of  church  and  state,  and  of  in- 
fant membership,  the  main  pillar  of  it,  had  better  make  himself  master 
of  Italian,  Spanish,  and  Portuguese  history.  But  to  ascertain  its  opera- 
tions at  home,  we  have  documentary  evidence  enough  to  show,  that  it 
tends  rather  to  the  carnalizing  and  secularizing,  than  to  the  purificatioa 
or  elevation  of  the  church's  character.  Of  the  multitudes  of  baptized 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  how  few  ever  approach  the 
Lord's  table !  How  many  baptized  infidels  are  there  in  the  bounds  of 
all  the  Pedo-baptist  communities !  Of  the  nominal  members  of  the 
christian  profession,  perhaps  one  half  are  the  veriest  sinners  in  Christen- 
dom. And  does  not  Pedo-baptism  claim  its  own  children,  initiated  and 
dedicated  by  this  rite?  does  she  not  claim  them,  I  say,  as  members  of 
her  churches ! !  Now,  I  admit,  that  of  those  who  make  the  christian 
confession,  on  their  own  responsibility,  some  apostatize  and  return  to  the 
world.  But  what  is  their  number,  compared  with  the  sprinkled  myri- 
ads all  over  the  land,  that  are  living  without  God,  without  Christ,  and 
without  hope — and,  consequendy,  without  either  righteousness  or  holi- 
ness !  Only  think,  one  branch  of  the  Pedo-baptist  church  baptizes,  as 
she  calls  it,  one  hundred  millions  every  three  and  thirty  years !  The 
•'mother  cliurch,"  as  she  calls  herself,  the  mother  church  of  this  church 
of  Pedo-baptist  communities,  gains  more  by  infant  baptism,  in  making 
members,  than  all  the  other  parties  combined.  The  whole  Lutheran 
community,  the  largest  branch  of  Protestantism,  sprinkles  only  thirty 
millions  in  thirty-three  years.  The  Greek  church  immerses  very  many 
millions  in  the  same  time.  All  these  are  made  members  of  Christ^s 
church  by  this  rite,  in  the  esteem  of  the  respective  communities  that 
practice  it.  What  an  immense  weight  of  carnality,  sensuality,  and  of 
varied  wickedness,  would  be  severed  from  the  christian  profession  by  the 
annihilation  of  this  rile  of  infant  initiation ! 

Luther,  no  doubt,  intended  an  entire  reformation  of  the  church,  but 
was  prevented.  Eckius  withstood  him — and,  as  the  pope's  representa- 
tive, opposed  the  incipient  reformation.  No  living  man  can  now  say 
how  far  these  efforts  retarded  that  glorious  revolution.  The  case  was  as 
I  represented  it — Luther  aimed  at  the  reformation  of  the  church  from  all 
errors.  Eckius  used  the  same  logic  and  rhetoric  against  him,  as  yon 
have  heard  urged  against  me  by  my  too  imitative  opponent;  and  to  a 
good  degree  prevented  the  progress  of  that  soul-redeeming  principle,  that 
questions  every  thing  but  the  Bible. 

20  2c2 


306  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

He  would  make  capital  out  of  that  sacramental  host  to  whom  I  alluded 
the  other  evening;  as  if  it  was  chiefly  or  wholly  composed  of  Pedo-bap- 
tists!  The  gentleman,  it  seems,  knows  of  no  church  but  the  Pedo-bap- 
tist.  There  were  no  persecuted  ones  in  tlie  valleys  between  the  moun- 
tains of  Europe  in  those  days  of  proscription !  No  Piedmontese — no 
Waldenses — no  Albigenses — no  Vaudois — no  Cathari — no  remonstrants 
against  popery — no  church  but  that  of  Rome  or  of  Constantinople  ! ! 

But  Mr.  R.  says  1  blamed  him  for  going  ahead !  No ;  I  blame  him 
rather  for  not  going  into  the  argument.  What  is  the  point?  What  does 
he  mean  !  Already  he  begins  to  speak  of  circumcision  and  the  arguments 
formerly  drawn  from  circumcision,  and,  of  course,  from  the  covenants — 
as  a  matter  for  which  he  does  not  care,  to  quote  his  own  elegant  style, 
"  a  single  straw."  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  or  not !  Has  he  really 
abandoned  circumcision ;  or  does  he  only  desire  to  appear  to  place  no  em- 
phasis upon  it,  for  the  sake  of  effect ;  or  of  turning  my  attention  away 
from  the  main  stay  of  the  whole  theory  of  infant-membership  !  What 
does  it  mean!  If  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  is  abandoned;  if  the  tradition 
of  the  church  is  abandoned  ;  and  if  circumcision  is  about  being  abandoned, 
too,  I  shall  have  easy  work  of  it — and  infant-membership  will,  indeed, 
hang  upon  "a  straw  !"  I  cannot  think  that  he  will  abandon  father  Cal- 
vin, the  great  founder  of  Presbyterian  infant  affusion. 

But  I  blame  him,  too,  for  going  into  the  Old  Testament !  Not  at  all. 
I  blame  no  man  for  going  into  the  Old  Testament.  I  wish  he  would  go 
into  it  thoroughly.  I  only  blame  him  for  abandoning  the  New,  and  going 
into  the  Old  to  find  what  his  creed  calls  "  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." 

Unless  to  kill  time,  I  know  not  why  the  gentleman  deals  so  much  in 
this  kind  of  logic.  But  instead  of  proving  that  God  made  but  one  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  or  of  disposing  of  my  argument  already  delivered,  he 
is  now  asking  me  to  prove  again  that  there  were  two  covenants  made  with 
father  Abraham.  Well,  then,  I  must  tell  him  the  story  a  second  time. 
Paul  to  the  Romans,  9  chap,  says — "  To  the  Israelites  pertain  the  adop- 
tion, and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the 
service  of  God,  and  the  promises."  There  was,  then,  besides  the  law 
and  the  promises,  a  plurality  of  covenants  given  to  Israel.  This  only 
proves  a  plurality  of  covenants.  And  to  find  out  the  amount  of  this  plu 
rality  I  go  into  the  history  of  the  Jews,  beginning,  of  course,  with  the 
founder  of  the  religion,  or  the  father  of  the  faithful.  God  made  but  one 
covenant  with  all  Israel,  at  Horeb ,  therefore,  that  being  also  named,  and 
covenants  besides,  we  are  obliged  to  look  for  a  history  of  those  transac- 
tions in  the  Abrahamic  family,  designated  by  that  name.  I  have,  then, 
clearly  distinguished  and  documented  with  proof  no  less  than  three  cove- 
nants, made  with  Abraham ; — two,  based  on  the  first  promise,  and  one, 
on  the  second.  The  one  on  the  second,  is  that  which  concerns  us,  be- 
cause Paul  calls  it  ^'^  the  gospel,  in  its  origin,"  and  the  first  indication  of 
gentile  justification — Galatians  iii.  8.  This  is  the  gospel  covenant,  call- 
ed, by  the  same  apostle  and  in  the  same  epistle,  "  the  covenant  concern- 
ing Christ."  The  covenant  is  made  out,  denominated,  and  even  dated 
by  the  same  apostle.  He  says  it  was  made  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
before  the  law — chap.  iii.  15.  He  says — "  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the 
manner  of  men  ;  though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be  confirmed, 
no  man  disannuleth,  or  addeth  thereto.  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made.     He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ;  but 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  397 

as  of  one,  even  to  thy  seed,  which  is  the  Christ."  Now  then,  I  say,  that 
the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God,  in  Christ,  the  law.  which 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  non-effect.  Nothing  can  be  more  clearly  expressed. 
Here  is  a  covenant  named,  described,  dated.  We  can  have  its  date  most 
accurately  traced.  Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  the  two 
promises  were  given  him ;  one,  concerning  the  Messiah,  as  aforesaid — 
and  one,  concerning  his  own  family,  with  a  reference  thereunto.  He 
was  one  hundred  years  old  when  Isaac  was  born.  Isaac  was  sixty  when 
Jacob  was  born,  and  Jacob  told  Pharaoh,  when  he  went  down  into  Egypt 
with  his  family,  that  he  was  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  old.  Now  add 
these  respective  sums  of  254-60+130=215.  Now,  sir  Isaac  Newton's 
chronology,  arch-bishop  Usher's,  the  commonly  received  chronology, 
make  the  whole  sojourning  in  Egypt  215  years — which  two  sums  ex- 
actly make  430  years,  from  the  covenant  concerning  the  Messiah — the 
gospel  covenant,  to  have  transpired  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  as  Paul 
expressly  declares. 

We  have,  then,  one  covenant  indisputably  made  out  and  dated.  We 
shall  now  look  for  a  second.  This  we  find  amply  delineated  in  the  15th 
chapter  of  Genesis,  about  ten,  or  twelve  years  at  most,  after  the  former. 
This  covenant,  as  I  have  already  stated,  had  respect  to  the  promised  in- 
heritance. It  was  made  to  define,  and  secure  the  patrimony  of  the  sons 
of  Abraham  in  the  line  of  the  promised  seed.  While  confirming  it  over 
sacrifice,  the  Lord  informed  the  patriarch,  that  his  posterity  should  be  so- 
journers, strangers  and  oppressed,  for  four  hundred  years.  In  the  fourth 
generation  they  shall  come  to  this  land  again,  for  the  cup  of  the  Amorites 
is  not  yet  full.  "  In  that  same  day,"  says  Moses,  "  the  Lord  made  a 
covenant  with  Abraham,  saying.  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land, 
from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates."  Can 
any  language  more  definitely  designate  the  making  of  a  covenant  on  a 
certain  day  than  this  ?  Examine  Gen.  xv.  7 — 21.  I  have  fixed  this  cov- 
enant in  the  86th  year  of  Abraham  ;  because  immediately  after  it  we  are 
informed  of  the  birth  of  Ishmael,  who  was  thirteen  years  old  at  the  date 
of  the  covenant  of  circumcision ;  to  which  I  next  invite  your  attention. 

It  will  require  no  proof,  I  presume,  to  any  one  acquainted  with  ancient 
patriarchal  history,  that  the  covenant  styled  by  Stephen,  "  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,"  was  made  one  year  before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  in  the 
ninety-ninth  year  of  Abraham,  twenty-four  or  twenty-five  years  after  the 
'•  covenant  concerning  Christ."  We  have  all  the  dates  given,  the  cove- 
nants detailed  in  the  17th  of  Genesis,  and  even  down  to  Acts  vii.  8,  de- 
nominated as  follows  :  "  And  he  gave  him  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
and  then  Abraham  begat  Isaac,  and  circumcised  him  the  eighth  day." 
We  have,  then,  delineated  three  distinct  covenants  made  with  Abraham 
during  the  period  of  five  and  twenty  years  ;  and  no  man  can  convert  these 
three  into  one  covenant.  The  parties  were  always  the  same,  but  the 
stipulations,  pledges,  seals,  objects,  and  dates,  are  just  as  difierent  as  any 
three  transactions  ever  made  between  one  and  the  same  two  persons.  I 
trust  ray  friend  will  more  seriously  and  religiously  approach  the  subject. 
Let  us  have  some  argument,  some  demonstration  ;  let  him  take  some  other 
time  to  trifle.  He  now  represents  the  dignity,  gravity,  piety,  and  learn- 
ing of  the  Presbyterian  church.  I  respect  and  treat  him  in  that  character  ; 
otherwise  we  should  not  have  condescended  to  this  discussion. 

He  has  said  the  Mormons  immerse !     What  a  profound   discovery ! 


308  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

What  cloes  it  prove !  Romanists  sprinkle  as  well  as  Presbyterians  !  And 
what  does  that  prove  ?  Better  meet  my  proposition.  Better  discuss  the 
question  whether  circumcision  conveyed  spiritual  biessings,  or  was  the 
sign,  or  the  seal,  of  a  gospel  covenant.  I  am  prepared  to  reason  with 
him  on  such  a  subject,  on  any  thing  relevant  to  the  points  on  hand.  I 
have  said  that  circumcision  was  neither  the  conveyance,  the  sign,  or  the 
seal  of  any  spiritual  privilege,  to  those  who  were  its  proper  subjects — 
mark  me,  its  proper  subjects.  What  did  circumcision  convey  to  its  pro- 
per subject?  Of  what  was  it  the  sign  to  him?  How  adroitly  does  the 
gendeman  get  out  of  the  difficulty  !  He  might  as  logically  have  invited 
you  to  examine  the  first  chapter  of  the  Maccabees,  as  to  have  asked  what 
does  immersion  convey  to  a  Mormon?  Is  a  man  with  a  new  Bible  in 
his  hand,  a  proper  subject  of  christian  immersion  !  He  might  as  well  ask 
me,  what  would  immersion  convey  to  an  unenlightened  Indian  ?  Will 
his  brethren  feel  proud  of  this  defence  of  their  infant  baptism?  When 
asked  what  scriptural  blessings  circumcision  conveyed  to  a  proper  sub- 
ject, such  as  Ishmael,  Esau,  and  all  the  household  of  Abraham,  men, 
boys,  and  children  of  eight  days,  his  sage  and  shrewd  response  is — What 
does  immersion  convey  to  a  Mormon  !  Thus  making  a  Mormon,  be- 
lieving the  lying  tales  of  an  infamous  imposter,  as  proper  a  subject  of 
immersion  as  was  any  son  of  Abraham.  I  ask  again,  were  not  the  Ish- 
maelites,  the  Edomiles,  and  all  that  nation  that  died  in  the  wilderness,  and 
that  which  perished  in  Jerusalem — were  they  not  all  fit  subjects  of  circum- 
cision ? 

I  have  never  said,  nor  intended  to  say,  nor,  by  any  fair  construction, 
could  be  made  to  say,  that  God  ever  "  entered  into  covenant  with  impie- 
ty." I  am  ashamed  at  this  gentleman's  recklessness  of  assertion.  Did 
any  one,  in  this  great  concourse,  save  Mr.  Rice,  hear  me  say  any  thing 
that  could,  by  fair  construction,  be  so  interpreted  ?  (I  fear  I  shall  have 
to  descend  to  an  exposition  of  my  friend,  as  the  best  means  of  exposing 
his  arguments.)  I  said  that  God  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham  concern- 
ing his  flesh.  That  Abraham's  flesh  was  precious  to  him,  no  matter  who 
•wore  it  for  the  sake  of  tJie  seed,  the  blessing  of  the  nations  that  was  in  it. 
God  approved  the  faith  of  Abraham;  constituted  it  the  model  faith;  and 
to  seal  it,  gave  him  the  sign  of  circumcision.  But  that  was  a  "  covenant 
in  his  flesh,"  till  out  of  it  should  come  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the 
flesh:  "In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This 
promise  suggested  circumcision,  not  before  Ishmael,  but  just  before  Isaac 
was  born.  God  is  determined  to  identify  and  preserve  this  flesh ;  com- 
manding fathers  to  brand  their  sons  before  they  knew  any  thing  about  it, 
while  they  were  yet  as  passive  as  a  stone ;  that  the  world  might  recog- 
nize it,  and  know  that  God  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  forever ;  and 
that  his  word  standeth  fast  for  a  thousand  generations. 

There  is  no  Pedo-baptist,  as  it  appears  to  me,  that  has  written  or  spo- 
ken with  much  light  or  discrimination,  on  this  great  fact  in  the  Jews' 
religion,  viz  :  That  flesh,  and  neither  faith  nor  piety,  qualified,  not  only 
for  membership,  but  for  every  holy  office  in  the  Jeivs'  religion.  Of 
Levi,  with  whom  was  the  urim  and  the  thummim,  Jacob  said :  "  Cursed 
be  his  anger,  for  it  was  fierce,  and  his  wrath,  for  it  was  cruel.  I  will 
scatter  him  in  Jacob  and  divide  him  in  Israel."  And  of  him  Moses  said ; 
"The  sons  of  Levi  shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments  and  Israel  thy  law: 
they  shall  put  incense  before  them,  and  whole  burnt  offerings  on  thine  al- 
tar."    There  was  no  tribe  of  the  twelve  that  had  less  pietv  than  the  Le- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  309 

vites  (a  good  type  of  the  great  mass  of  the  priesthood,  who  count  after 
the  Levitical  order.)  But  there  was  neither  moral  nor  spiritual  qualifica- 
tions necessary  to  any  office.  Aaron's  first  born  son,  if  he  had  a  complete 
animal  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  though  he  were  as  wicked  as  Hophne 
and  Phineas,  as  Annas  or  Caiaphas,  might  legitimately  officiate  in  that 
institution.  Priests  were  the  sons  of  priests.  High  priests  were  the 
sons  of  high  priests,  as  were  Levites  the  sons  of  Levites.  What  clearer 
or  more  convincing  demonstration,  i\\zi flesh,  and  neither  faith  nor  piety, 
was  contemplated  in  the  Jews'  religion?  The  Spirit  of  God,  too,  occa- 
sionally attended  their  ministry.  Even  the  wicked  Caiaphas  was  visited 
with  an  oracle.  The  Spirit  came  upon  him,  and  "  he  prophesied,  being 
high  priest  that  year."  He  was,  then,  a  good  high  priest,  though  a 
wicked  man.  Tiie  genius  of  that  dispensation  allowed  such  a  state  of 
things.  When  Joseph,  or  Nicodemus,  was  pleading  the  cause  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  council  that  condemned  him,  Caiaphas,  we  learn,  admitted 
the  plea  of  his  innocence,  and  replied,  "  It  is  better,  [notwithstanding  in- 
nocent he  be,]  that  one  man  should  perish,  and  not  that  the  whole  nation 
should  be  destroyed."  This  he  said  because  high  priest  that  year,  and 
it  intimated  that  he  should  die,  not  to  save  the  Jewish  nation  only,  but 
the  Gentiles  also.  No  wonder  that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Messiah 
preached  a  new  religion,  a  new  repentance,  a  new  birth,  and  that  flesh 
must  give  place  to  faith,  and  blood  to  piety.  In  Christ's  kingdom,  "To 
as  many  as  received  him,  gave  he  privilege  to  become  the  sons  of  God  ; 
even  to  them  that  believed  on  his  name:  born  not  of  flesh,  nor  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God." 

"  God  entered  into  covenant  with  impiety  !  !  "  What  an  unfounded 
imputation !  If  the  gentleman,  in  my  presence,  and  in  your  hearing,  can 
thus  pervert  language,  misconstrue  and  misinterpret  my  words,  Avhat  con- 
fidence can  any  one  repose  in  him,  as  a  commentator  upon  the  arguments 
of  those  whom  he  opposes  ?  If  in  ray  presence,  much  more  in  my  ab- 
sence, might  I  not  expect  my  arguments  and  sayings  to  be  tortured  into 
whatever  his  cause  or  his  party  may  religiously  require  at  his  hands  ;  I 
say  again,  God  made  three  covenants  with  Abraham,  one  all  spirit,  one  all 
flesh,  and  one  all  property.  The  flesh  and  the  land  went  together.  The 
epirit  reaches  beyond  flesh — beyond  land — beyond  time — to  an  inheri- 
tance incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that  endureth  forever.  All  nations, 
by  faith,  inherit  the  latter  ;  while  to  the  Jews  alone  belonged  both  the 
flesh  of  Abraham  and  the  soil  of  Canaan. 

The  gentleman  has  introduced  Andrew  Fuller.  He  is  fond  of  the 
Baptists.  Well,  he  makes  good  selections.  Gale  was  Arminian,  Car- 
son is  Calvinian,  and  Fuller  was  mediator.  I  am  much  pleased  with 
them  all.  I  agree,  probably,  as  much  with  him  as  with  the  others.  The 
gentleman  may  read  as  much  as  he  pleases  from  them  all.  I  hear  all, 
but  vow  to  none.  Still  his  reading  from  Fuller  will  be  quite  as  accepta- 
ble to  me  as  any  thing  he  can  himself  say. 

My  friend,  Mr.  R.,  too  often  adverts  to  the  business  of  last  Saturday 
evening.  Calvin's  words  are  quoted  in  my  debate  with  McCalla ;  I  have 
not  with  me  his  treatise  on  the  Acts.  The  words  are — "  The  church 
did  grant  liberty  to  herself,  since  the  beginning,  to  change  the  rites  some- 
what, excepting  the  substance."  Does  Mr.  Rice  say  tiiat  these  are  not 
the  words  of  Calvin  "  in  our  language  ?  " 

I  have  lost  too  much  time  in  noticing  minor  matters.  Still  I  have  re- 
sponded to  every  thing  of  any  weight  or  importance  in  the  evidence  ad- 


310  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

duced  in  favor  of  infant  subjects.  He  leads  the  way — I  follow.  While 
he  affords  any  thing  better,  I  will  not  respond  to  trifles.  The  public,  I 
doubt  not,  will  understand  this  argument,  and  ultimately  come  to  proper 
conclusions.  I  have  brought  down  the  history  of  covenants,  so  far  as  to 
contradistinguish  the  old  and  the  new.  The  covenant  of  flesh,  and  the 
covenant  of  spirit,  the  law  and  the  gospel,  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
church,  and  the  constitution  of  the  christian. 

I  said,  in  my  last  speech,  no  person  was  made  a  member  of  the  Jewish 
state  by  circumcision — or,  in  other  words,  that  circumcision  was  not  the 
door  into  it.  Mr.  R.  says  it  was.  Has  he  proved  it  ?  Proselytes  came 
in  partially  that  way.  But  the  question  is  about  the  family  of  Abraham. 
Was  circumcision  to  them  the  door?  By  no  means.  There  was  no 
Jewish  church  till  four  hundred  years  after  the  institution  of  circumcision. 
Consequently  the  door  would  have  been  of  no  use.  The  advocates  of 
circumcision  as  the  door,  are  mechanically  and  theologically  at  fault. 
They  have  a  door  reared  up  without  a  wall,  standing  by  itself,  without  a 
house  attached  to  it,  for  four  hundred  years  ;  and  they  have  all  the  seed 
of  Abraham  born  in  the  house,  and  yet  coming  in  by  the  door !  ! 

I  do  hope  my  friend  will  concentrate  his  mind  upon  some  main  point 
of  argument,  after  he  has  disposed  of  the  objections  and  reasons  I  have 
offered  against  his  assumption. — [Time  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  20 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  racE's  third  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  manner  of  my  speaking  must  be  a  very  myste- 
rious affair.  There  is  something  in  my  ad  captandum  style  so  difficult 
of  comprehension,  that  the  gentleman  thinks  it  will  be  necessary  for  hin» 
to  explain  it  to  the  audience !  They,  it  would  seem,  are  incapable  of 
forming  a  correct  judgment  concerning  it !  It  requires  as  much  explana- 
tion as  the  Bible  !  In  this  debate  the  gentleman  cannot  excite  me  ;  though 
he  continue  his  efforts  till  the  going  down  of  the  sun.  I  always  conduct 
such  discussions  in  good  temper.  I  can  even  argue,  and  occasionally 
smile ;  but  I  cannot  so  forget  what  is  due  to  this  audience,  nor  so  far  dis- 
regard the  rules  of  courtesy,  as  to  charge  the  gentleman  with  "  licentious- 
ness of  the  tongue."  I  have  no  occasion  to  use  language  of  this  charac- 
ter. He  is  an  older  man  than  I,  and  I  can  permit  him  to  indulge  his  feel- 
ings in  this  manner. 

I  do  not,  in  this  discussion,  represent  any  denomination  of  christians, 
in  an  ecclesiastical  sense.  So  far  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel  is  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  church  by  which  he  is  sent  forth  to  defend  the  truth,  I 
appear  here  as  a  representative,  but  no  further.  And,  thus  far,  I  am 
happy  to  know,  that  my  brethren  are  not  ashamed  of  my  defence  of  their 
views.  I  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  existence  and  of  the  propriety  of 
Solomon's  admonition,  to  which  the  gentleman  refers ;  and  I  am  also 
aware  that  there  are  some  occasions  which  require  a  man  to  speak  in 
self-defence.  I  should  not  have  made  the  remarks  which  have  given  him 
offence,  if  he  and  his  friends  had  not  proclaimed  it  over  the  land,  that  I 
must  be  endorsed  before  he  would  condescend  to  meet  me  in  debate.  It 
looks  rather  badly,  I  should  think,  that  the  gentleman  who  called  for 
endorsers  of  his  opponent,  has  made  so  unsuccessful  a  defence  of  his 
principles ! 

He  did  not  intend,  he  says,  to  draw  a  contrast  between  Presbyterians 
and  Immersionist^,  but  had  allusion  to  the  corruptions  of  popery.     But  S 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  311 

deny,  that  infant  baptism  caused  any  of  the  corruptions  of  popery.  He 
has  ascribed  certain  effects  to  a  certain  cause.  How  did  I  reply  to  him  ? 
I  proved  that  the  cause  has  existed  in  divers  places  for  centuries  without 
producing  the  effects.  He  asserts,  that  infant  baptism  is  the  cause  of  the 
corruptions  which  have  overrun  large  portions  of  the  church  of  Christ; 
but  I  proved,  (and  he  does  not  deny  it,)  that  infant  baptism  has  long  ex- 
isted in  the  Pedo-baptist  churches  of  this  and  other  countries,  and  has 
produced  no  such  evil  effects.  I  have  instituted  no  invidious  compari- 
sons ;  but  I  have  proved,  tliat  he  has  egregiously  erred  in  seeking  the 
true  cause  of  the  cori'uptions  of  the  church. 

Infant  baptism  does  not,  as  the  gentleman  strangely  imagines,  give  the 
pope  his  power  over  the  human  mind.  If  Gregory  XVI.  were  now  to 
send  forth  his  decree,  that  no  infant  should  hereafter  be  baptized  in  his 
spiritual  dominions ;  would  he  not  retain  his  despotic  power  over  them 
all  ?  Would  not  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal  and  Austria  still  prostrate  themselves 
before  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  ?  So  long  as  his  claim  to  infallibility,  and  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  credited,  so  long  will  he  wield  an 
unlimited  power  over  the  intellects  and  consciences  of  parents,  and, 
of  course,  over  those  of  the  rising  generation.  No — infant  baptism  never 
introduced  one  error  into  the  church.  The  secret  of  the  pope's  power  is 
not  in  infant  baptism,  but  in  his  claim  to  be  infallible,  to  intei'pret  God's  will 
to  man  as  he  may  choose,  to  impose  human  tradition  as  articles  of  faith, 
to  open  and  shut  the  gates  of  heaven.  These,  not  infant  baptism,  are  the 
true  sources  of  the  tyrannical  power  of  Rome. 

The  gentleman,  by  tlie  way,  speaks  of  Calvin  as  the  founder  of  Pres- 
byterianism.  I  venture  to  assert,  that  Calvin  never  did  exercise  in  the 
Presbyterian  church  a  power  so  extensive  as  Mr.  Campbell  exerts  over 
his.  Calvin  was  a  great  and  good  man,  but  the  Presbyterian  church  has 
never  adopted  all  his  views.  I  presume  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove, 
tliat  Presbyterianism,  at  least  in  all  its  important  features,  is  much  older 
than  Calvin. 

He  does  not  find  fault  with  me,  he  says,  for  going  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  for  appealing  to  it  improperly — for  going  contrary  to  the  West- 
minster assembly  of  divines,  who  say,  that  baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the 
New  Testament.  There  are,  as  I  have  before  stated,  two  distinct  ques- 
tions connected  with  the  subject  under  discussion,  viz  :  1.  What  charac- 
ters are  entitled  to  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ?  2.  By  what 
ordinance  shall  they  be  introduced  into  its  fellowship  ?  The  Westminster 
divines  never  did  say,  that  to  find  an  answer  to  the  first,  we  are  to  con- 
fine ourselves  to  the  New  Testament.  They  do  say,  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament gives  the  answer  to  the  second.  Precisely  in  accordance  with 
their  teaching,  I  go  to  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  organization  of  the 
church,  to  find  the  law  of  membership,  and  to  the  New  to  ascertain 
the  ordinance  by  which  membersliip  shall  be  recognized.  The  gen- 
tleman has  told  us,  that  he  was  once  a  Presbyterian,  and  that  he  did 
with  great  care  and  labor  examine  this  whole  subject;  and  yet  he  evi- 
dently does  not  understand  some  of  the  most  prominent  doctrines  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  i  He  is  cJiarging  me  with  going  contrary  to  its 
teachings,  when,  as  every  well-instructed  Presbyterian  knows,  I  am 
defending  precisely  the  principles  it  inculcates  ! ! !  I  told  you,  a  day  or 
two  since,  that  I  doubted  whether  he  ever  was  a  genuine  Presbyterian ; 
and  now  my  doubts  are  confirmed. 

He  has  labored  to  prove,  that  God  made  with  Abraham  two  covenants. 


312  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  a  mere  national  transaction.  I 
called  upon  him  to  point  to  the  passage  of  Scripture  that  speaks  of  two 
covenants  with  Abraham.  He  has  appealed  to  Rom.  ix.  4,  "  Who  are 
Israelites,  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  cove- 
nants, and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  pro- 
mises." I  have  replied,  that  Paul  does  not  say,  these  covenants  were 
made  with  Abraham.  The  gentleman  says,  the  covenants  are  distinct 
from  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai ;  and,  of  course,  they  were  made  with 
Abraham.  But  are  not  the  covenants  in  this  passage  as  distinct  from  the 
promises,  as  from  the  giving  of  the  law  ?  So  he  would  succeed  in  prov- 
ing, according  to  his  logic,  that  God  made  with  Abraham  covenants  with- 
out promises,  and  that  he  made  to  the  Israelites  promises  without  a  cove- 
nant!  Can  you  conceive  of  a  covenant  without  a  promise? 

But  let  us  turn  again  to  the  chapter  of  Genesis,  where  he  imagines  that 
he  finds  two  covenants.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  we  find  three  distinct  pro- 
mises, viz.  1st.  A  promise  of  a  numerous  natural  offspring:  "And  I  will 
make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name 
great."  2nd.  A  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  to  him  and  his  seed: 
^'  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  father's 
house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  show  thee.''''  "And  (verse  7)  the  Lord 
appeared  unto  Abram,  and  said.  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land." 
3rd.  A  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  through  the  Messiah  :  "And  in  thee 
shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This  promise,  Paul  the 
apostle  says,  contains  the  gospel,  Gal.  iii.  8.  In  the  fifteenth  chapter  we 
find  precisely  the  same  promises  repeated.  In  the  fourth  verse  is  the 
promise  of  a  son,  Isaac ;  and  the  fifth  reads  thus :  "And  he  brought 
him  forth  abroad,  and  said.  Look  now  toward  heaven,  and  tell  the  stars, 
if  thou  be  able  to  number  them.  And  he  said  unto  him,  so  shall  thy  seed 
be."  This  promise  includes  both  his  natural  and  his  spiritual  seed ;  and 
tlie  seventh  verse  contains  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  In  the 
seventeenth  chapter  we  find  precisely  the  same  promises  very  distinctly 
reiterated,  and  sealed  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  by  circumcision.  1.  The 
promise  of  a  numerous  natural  seed  is  found  in  verses  2  and  6 ;  2.  The 
promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  is  found  in  verse  8 ;  and  3.  The  promise 
of  a  numerous  spiritual  seed,  through  Christ,  in  the  5th  verse.  So  Paul 
explains  it  in  Rom.  iv.  16. 

Now  observe,  in  the  12th  chapter  we  find  these  promises,  first  made; 
but  no  sign  or  seal  was  appointed.  In  the  15th  we  find  them  repeated; 
but  still  no  seal  is  affixed  to  them.  In  the  17th,  the  very  same  promises 
are  reiterated,  ratified,  and  sealed  by  circumcision,  appointed  to  be  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant.  Now,  can  you  believe  that  God  made  two 
covenants  with  Abraham,  each  emhxzcmg  precisely  the  same  promises? 

You  make  a  bargain  to-day,  for  example,  with  your  neighbor,  selling- 
him  a  farm.  The  next  week  the  bargain  is  again  talked  over,  and  the 
week  following  writings  are  drawn,  and  a  deed  is  given.  Would  it  be 
true  to  say,  that  you  had  made  three  contracts  ?  Precisely  so  God  made 
certain  promises  to  Abraham :  then,  a  few  years  after,  repeated  them ; 
and  still  a  few  years  later,  reiterated  and  sealed  the  very  same  promises. 
Will  any  one  believe,  with  these  facts  before  him,  that  God  made  with 
Abraham  more  than  one  covenant? 

I  have  said,  that  in  the  Scriptures  we  never  read  of  covenants  (in  the 
plural)  made  with  Abraham,  but  of  the  covenant.  In  confirmation  of  this 
assertion,  let  me  read  1  Chron.  xvi.  15 — 17,  "Be  ye  mindful  always  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  313 

his  covenant,  the  word  which  he  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations; 
even  the  covenant  which  he  made  with  Abraham,  and  of  his  oath  unto 
Isaac  ;  and  hath  confirmed  the  same  to  Jacob,  for  a  law,  and  to  Israel  for 
an  everlasting  covenant,"  &c.  Evidently  the  inspired  writer  knew  of 
but  one  covenant  with  Abraham.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible 
which  speaks  of  more  than  one. 

The  gentleman  is  quite  dissatisfied  at  my  answer  to  his  question  con- 
cerning the  circumcision  of  the  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites.  He  inquired, 
by  way  of  proving  that  circumcision  conveyed  no  spiritual  blessing,  what 
blessing  it  conveyed  to  those  descendants  of  Abraham.  I  inquired  of 
him,  what  spiritual  blessing  was  conveyed  by  immersion  to  the  Mor- 
mons. But  he  says,  he  asked  what  spiritual  blessing  was  conveyed  to 
those  who  were  proper  subjects  of  circumcision.  The  Edomites  and 
Ishmaelites  were  as  truly  apostates,  as  are  the  Mormons.  They  did  not 
pretend  to  keep  covenant  with  God,  and  were,  therefore,  never  recognized 
as  a  people  in  covenant  with  him.  Is  it,  then,  surprising,  that  circum- 
cision, though  strictly  a  religious  ordinance,  conveyed  no  spiritual  bless- 
ing to  apostates?  Does  christian  baptism  impart  spiritual  blessings  to 
such  persons?  My  reply  to  the  gentleman's  query  was,  then,  appropriate 
and  conclusive. 

He  tells  us,  he  did  not  say,  that  God  entered  into  covenant  with  wicked 
persons,  but  that  he  entered  into  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  which  did  not 
require  piety  in  his  decendants  or  those  embraced  in  it.  But  the  difficulty 
is  not  to  be  escaped  in  this  way,  for  God  said  to  Abraham — "And  I  will 
establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee, 
in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee, 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep 
my  covenant,  therefore,  thou  a)id  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations," 
Gen.  xvii.  So  it  appears,  that  not  only  Abraham,  but  his  posterity,  were 
embraced  in  the  covenant,  and  were  all  required,  as  truly  as  was  Abra- 
ham, to  keep  covenant  with  God.  Could  they  do  this  without  piety? 
And  who  has  not  read  in  the  Scriptures,  that  the  Jews  were  repeatedly 
punished  and  finally  sent  in  captivity  to  Babylon,  because  they  broke 
God's  covenant  ?  If,  as  the  gentleman  strangely  asserts,  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  did  not  require  piety  ;  how  happened  it  that  for  their 
impiety  the  Jews  were  so  sorely  punished  ?  Do  you  not  remember 
how  frequently,  in  the  Old  Testament,  God  represents  himself  as  the 
husband  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  their  rebellion  as  the  unfaithfulness 
of  a  wife  who  abandons  her  lawful  husband,  and  disregards  her  mar- 
riage vows  ? 

But  the  apostle  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  has  forever  settled 
this  question.  He  not  only  declares,  as  I  have  proved,  that  without  true 
piety  circumcision  is  worthless,  but  he  further  says:  "For  he  is  not  a 
Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  out- 
ward in  the  flesh  ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circum- 
cision is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise 
is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  Now  if  Judaism  was  nothing  but  a  national 
aflfair,  and  circumcision  only  a  national  mark  ;  how  could  Paul  say,  he 
is  not  a  Jew,  who  is  one  outwardly  ?  And  if  circumcision  did  not  re- 
quire piety,  how  could  he  say,  that  that  is  not  circumcision  which  is  out- 
ward in  the  flesh  ?  Could  a  Jew  possess  that  circumcision  of  the  heart, 
in  the  spirit,  whose  praise  is  not  of  man,  but  of  God,  and  yet  have  no 
piety  ? 

2D 


314  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Just  here,  then,  is  a  striking  analogy  between  baptism  and  circumcision. 
For  he  is  not  a  christian  who  is  one  outwardly ;  and  baptism  is  not  the 
mere  application  of  water.  The  outward  profession  and  the  external 
ordinance  are  worthless  without  the  inward  baptism  of  the  heart.  The 
gentleman  will  admit  the  propriety  of  this  reasoning  from  circumcision 
to  baptism ;  since  he  has  himself  done  so  in  his  Millennial  Harbinger. 
When  some  of  his  friends  complained  of  him  for  admitting  that  there 
might  be  christians  among  "  the  sects  ;"  he  replied  ;  "As  the  same  apostle 
reasons  on  circumcision,  so  we  would  reason  on  baptism :  '  Circum- 
cision,' says  the  learned  apostle,  '  is  not  that  which  is  outward  in  the 
flesh ;'  that  is,  as  we  apprehend  the  apostle,  it  is  not  that  which  is  out- 
ward in  the  flesh ;  but  '  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit, 
and  not  in  the  letter,  [only,]  whose  praise  is  of  God,  and  not  of  man,' 
So  is  baptism.  It  is  not  outward  in  the  flesh  only,  but  in  the  spirit 
also.  We  argue  for  the  outward  and  the  inward — the  outward  for  men, 
including  ourselves — the  inward  for  God  ;  but  both  the  outward  and  the  in- 
ward for  the  praise  both  of  God  and  of  a  man."  New  Series,  vol.  i.  p.  507. 

There  was,  then,  an  outward  and  an  inward  circumcision,  as  there  is 
an  outward  and  an  inward  baptism  ;  and  circumcision  as  positively  re- 
quired holiness,  as  does  baptism.  Hence  the  exhortation  to  the  Jews, 
"  Circumcise  the  foreskin  of  your  hearts.  "  Unconverted  Jews,  like  un- 
converted professors  of  Christianity,  had  the  outward  sign,  but  had  not 
the  inward  grace — the  thing  signified. 

The  gentleman  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  that  Caiaphas,  the  high 
priest,  was  a  worthy  member  of  the  Jewish  church ;  the  very  man  who 
sustained  the  office  of  high  priest,  and  in  God's  name  condemned  the 
glorious  Messiah  who  was  promised  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant !  ! !  How 
does  he  prove  this  startling  proposition  ?  Why,  he  tells  us,  Caiaphas 
spoke  on  a  certain  occasion  by  inspiration.  But  did  not  Balaam,  the 
wicked  prophet,  do  the  very  same  thing,  when,  instead  of  cursing  God's 
people  as  he  designed  for  the  sake  of  money,  he  was  constrained  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  to  bless  them  ?  And  did  this  prove,  that  he  was  wor- 
thy of  a  place  in  the  Jewish  church  ?  No  more  did  the  prophecy  un- 
designedly uttered  by  the  wicked  Caiaphas,  prove  him  a  worthy  member 
of  the  Jewish  church.  The  truth  is,  the  whole  Jewish  nation  was  ex- 
communicated by  God  for  the  sin  of  unbelief,  and  were  scattered  abroad 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  So  untrue  is  the  declaration,  that  piety  was 
not  required  in  order  to  membership  in  the  Jewish  church. 

Mr.  Campbell  denies  that  circumcision  was  a  door  of  entrance  into  the 
Jewish  church,  and  tells  us  that  the  Jews  were  born  in  the  church. 
This  he  presents  as  quite  a  difficulty  ;  since,  if  infants  were  born  in  the 
church,  they  could  not  enter  it  by  circumcision  or  by  baptism.  He  will 
not,  I  presume,  deny  that  circumcision  was  a  door  of  entrance  to  prose- 
lytes; for  the  law  says — "  And  when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with  thee, 
and  will  keep  the  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised, 
and  then  let  him  come  near  and  keep  it  ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is 
born  in  the  land  :  for  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof.  One 
law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto  the  stranger  that  so- 
journeth  among  you,"  Exod.  xii.  48,  49.  So,  I  presume,  we  shall  have 
three  circumcisions  ;  for  the  gentleman  makes  circumcision  one  thing  to 
Abraham — another  to  his  posterity,  and  yet  another  to  proselytes  !  To 
Abraham,  he  says,  it  was  a  sign  and  seal ;  to  his  posterity  only  a  sign, 
not  a  seal ;  and  to  the  proselyte  it  was  a  door  of  entrance — a  rite  for  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  315 

recognition  of  membership  !     If  this  is  not  making  three  circumcisions, 
it  looks  very  much  like  it. 

The  truth  is,  that  circumcision  was,  both  to  Abraham  and  to  his  pos- 
terity, a  sign  and  seal — a  mark  which  distinguished  them  from  others  as 
in  covenant  with  God,  and  a  seal  of  that  covenant.  The  children  of  the 
Jews  were,  by  birth,  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  church — they  were  mem- 
bers by  right ;  but  they  were  not  members  in  propria  forma — formally, 
until  circumcised.  So  when  an  adult  is  received,  on  profession  of  his 
faiih,  by  the  proper  officers  of  the  church,  he  is  a  member  of  the  church 
by  right;  but,  until  baptized,  he  is  not  a  member  in  form — entitled  to 
all  the  privileges  of  the  church.  If  a  man  be  elected  to  the  presidency 
of  these  United  States,  the  voice  of  the  people  gives  him  a  right  to  the 
office  ;  but  he  cannot  enter  upon  its  duties  until  he  is  formally  inaugurated. 
Just  so  the  children  of  believing  parents  have,  by  birth,  a  right  to  mem- 
bership in  the  church  ;  but  that  membership  must  be  recognized  by  the 
appointed  ordinance. 

I  do  not  admit  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  made  with  Abraham  re- 
lated merely  to  \he  flesh;  for  it  made  him  the  father  of  all  believers.  Nor, 
so  far  as  the  requirement  of  true  piety  is  concerned,  was  there  more  of 
flesh  under  the  Old,  than  under  the  New  Testament.  Let  us  now  review 
the  argument,  and  see  what  progress  we  have  made.  I  have  given  you 
a  definition  of  the  church,  to  which  Mr.  C.  does  not  object.  I  have  proved 
that  it  was  organized  in  Abraham's  family ;  that  God,  by  positive  law, 
made  the  children  of  believers  members  of  it ;  that  our  Savior  did  not 
exclude  them,  and  the  New  Testament  contains  no  law  for  depriving 
them  of  their  membership.  The  gentleman  has  not  found  any  such  law. 
I  have  proved  that  God  has  had  but  one  church  on  the  earth — that  under 
both  dispensations  it  is  the  same  ecclesiastical  body.  This  argument  was 
based  on  principles  which  cannot  be  successfully  controverted,  and  on 
facts  that  cannot  be  disputed.  Since,  then,  God  put  the  children  of  be- 
lievers into  the  church  by  positive  law,  and  never  excluded  them,  they 
must  be  permitted  to  remain. 

The  gentleman  is  very  much  mistaken  in  supposing  that  I  am  almost 
through  with  my  evidence.  I  have  a  great  deal  more,  a  part  of  which  I 
will  now  present.  Having  proved  that,  under  both  dispensations,  the 
church  worshiped  and  served  the  same  God,  obeyed  the  same  moral 
law,  and  received  and  trusted  for  salvation  in  the  same  gospel — I  proceed 
to  remark : 

5,  That,  under  both  dispensations,  the  church  enjoys  her  blessings  by 
virtue  of  the  same  covenant — the  covenant  with  Abraham.  We  have  al- 
ready seen  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  contains  some  three  distinct  prom- 
ises viz  : — 1st.  Of  a  numerous  natural  seed  ;  2d.  Of  the  land  of  Canaan  ; 
3d.  That  in  Abraham's  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed. 
The  two  first  have  been  fulfilled.  The  third  is  now  being  fulfilled  ;  but, 
as  all  the  families  of  the  earth  have  not  yet  been  blessed  in  Christ,  the 
promise  is  not  entirely  fulfilled.  Of  course  the  covenant  cannot  be  abro- 
gated, till  all  the  promises  contained  in  it  are  fulfilled. 

For  example,  I  purchase  a  farm,  and  give  the  vendor  my  note,  binding 
myself  to  pay  him  in  three  instalments.  When  the  first  payment  is 
made  I  am  credited  by  the  amount ;  but  he  holds  the  note.  The  second 
is  made  and  I  am  credited  ;  but  he  yet  holds  the  note  until  the  last  pay- 
ment is  made,  and  the  whole  debt  cancelled.  So  of  the  three  promises 
contained  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  two  are  fulfilled  ;  but  the  third  is 


316  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM, 

fulfilled  only  in  part.  The  covenant  must,  therefore,  remain  till  the  period 
of  its  entire  fulfillment,  which  will  not  be  until  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  shall  be  blessed — till  time  shall  end. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  further  evident,  from  the 
fact,  that  it  was  confirmed  in  Christ.  So  teaches  Paul  in  Gal.  iii.  17  : 
"  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant,  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God,  in 
Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot 
disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect."  Again:  this 
covenant  contained  the  gospel.  "And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,"  Gal.  iii.  8.  Now, 
I  ask,  what  more  can  be  said  of  the  new  covenant,  as  it  is  called,  than 
that  it  is  confirmed  in  Christ,  and  contains  the  gospel? 

Again  :  justification,  according  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  is  gospel  jus- 
tification. "  So  then,  they  which  be  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham ;"  Gal.  iii.  9.     Paul  teaches  the  same  doctrine  in  Romans  iv.  1 — . 

Finally — it  is  because  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
that  believers  are  now  called  Mraharn' s  seed.  "And  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,"  GaL 
iii.  29.  Christians  are  never  called  Noah's  seed,  or  Enoch's  seed,  or 
David's  seed ;  but  they  are  called  Abraham's  seed.  Is  it  not,  then,  evi- 
dent that  they  sustain  a  relation  to  Abraham,  which  they  do  not  sustain 
to  any  other  man  that  ever  lived  ?  But  if  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  no 
longer  in  existence,  where  is  the  link  that  binds  us  to  Abraham  1  And 
how  can  it  be  true,  as  Paul  teaches,  that  that  covenant  constituted  him  the 
father  of  all  believers,  Jews  and  Gentiles  ? 

Now  mark  this  fact:  the  Abrahamic  covenant  originally  embraced  pro- 
fessed believers  and  their  children ;  and  since  it  has  never  been  altered, 
it  includes  them  still,  and  they  have  the  right  to  its  seal — baptism. 

But  I  will  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant has  passed  away ;  though  it  is  a  most  important  fact,  that  in  the 
Scriptures  it  is  never  called  an  old  covenant,  nor  is  it  ever  said  to 
HAVE  PASSED  AWAY.  But  admitting,  for  argument's  sake,  that  it  has  pass- 
ed away,  I  will  prove  the  identity  of  the  church  under  the  old  and  new 
dispensations,  upon  this  admission.  The  apostle,  Avriting  to  the  Hebrews, 
says,  "For  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith.  Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Is- 
rael, and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I 
made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  &c.  Now,  supposing  this  to  be,  liter- 
ally,  a  new  covenant,  and  not,  as  I  believe,  new  in  its  mode  of  adminis- 
tration, with  whom  was  it  made?  With  a  new  church?  No,  but  with 
the  OLD  CHURCH — the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah.  So  take 
either  view  of  the  subject,  the  church  is  the  same. 

Now  observe,  it  is  a  fact,  that  into  this  church  God  did  put  the  chil- 
dren of  believers ;  and  it  is  a  fact,  that  he  has  never  excluded  them. 
They,  therefore,  have  still  a  right  to  membership ;  and,  of  course,  to  bap- 
tism, the  initiatory  rite. — [Time  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  20— 1|  o'clock,  P.M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  third  reply.] 
Mr.  President — I  have  not  said  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  has 
become  old.     The  ultimate  and  final  development  of  that  covenant,  in  its 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  317 

national  form,  at  Mount  Sinai,  has  become  old  and  vanished  away.  But 
the  covenant,  pregnant  with  blessings  to  the  gentiles,  through  Christ, 
yet  lives. 

I  do  not  feel  it  either  my  duty,  or  my  honor,  to  violate  the  rules  of  de- 
corum, because  Mr.  Rice  assumes  to  himself  the  right  to  dispense  with 
them ;  because  of  the  inalienable  rights  and  immunities  of  orthodoxy.  I 
shall,  however,  occasionally  take  notice  of  these  indications  for  the  benefit 
of  society ;  and  will  only  endeavor  that  by  this  device  he  will  not  escape 
from  his  frequent  embarrassments,  without  your  observation  also.  Why 
all  this  tirade  and  declamation  which  you  have  just  now  heard  !  Has  not 
his  cause  hitherto  been  characterized  by  details  a  little  too  egotistic  for 
this  meridian  ?  Few  men  have  displayed  higher  talents  in  the  science 
of  boasting,  than  the  specimens  the  gentleman  gave  us  on  Saturday 
evening. 

I  did  this  morning  speak  of  the  corrupting  influence  of  infant  baptism. 
This  has  been  a  prolific  theme  for  the  gentleman,  and  he  would  rather 
expatiate  on  this,  because  it  suits  his  peculiar  taste,  than  prove  the  truth 
of  his  proposition.  He  would  have  it,  however,  that  this  is  not  the  great 
cause  of  corruption  in  Pedo-baptist  churches.  How,  then,  have  the  Pe- 
do-baptist  churches  of  former  limes  become  so  corrupt?  How  does  the 
gentleman  explain  this  matter?     We  all  want  light  on  this  subject. 

The  system  of  Pedo-baptism  has  operated  in  this  way.  Take,  for  ex- 
ample, the  oldest  of  Pedo-baptist  churches.  An  infant  is  presented  to 
the  priest.  It  is  sprinkled,  anointed,  and  crossed.  It  is  said  to  be  chris- 
tened. It  is  understood  by  the  parents  that  they  are  now  more  solemnly 
bound  to  teach  it  the  faith  and  traditions  of  the  church,  and  to  save  it  from 
heresy,  by  all  possible  means.  The  child,  soon  as  it  is  capable  of  learn- 
ing, is  taught  that  it  is  in  Christ's  true  church,  in  which  there  is  salvation 
for  all,  and  out  of  which  there  is  salvation  for  none.  It  grows  up  in  this 
belief,  and  feels  itself  secure  of  reprobation,  while  it  continues  in  a  church, 
in  which  accident,  and  not  choice,  directs  its  destiny. 

I  need  not  attempt  to  describe  the  character  of  such  members  of  the 
church.  They  differ  in  no  respect  from  surrounding  society.  This  is  as 
true  of  many  thousands  of  sprinkled  Protestants,  as  it  is  of  sprinkled  Ro- 
manists. True,  the  Romanists  generally  instil  their  principles  with  more 
assiduity  and  success,  than  do  the  Protestants.  They  impart  less  light, 
encourage  more  credulit)^  and  speak  with  more  authority. 

A  gentleman  of  the  west  told  me  that  a  Catholic  boy,  of  some  seven  or 
eight  years  old,  had  been  specially  entrusted  to  his  care,  in  Baltimore,  to 
conduct  him  to  Wheeling.  His  attention  to  the  boy  had  so  won  his  affec- 
tions, that  as  they  were  approaching  Wheeling,  the  lad,  accosting  him, 
said, — Are  you  a  Protestant,  sir?  Yes,  replied  the  gentleman,  I  am  a 
Protestant.  I  am  very  sorry  for  that,  replied  the  child.  When  you  die 
you  will  go  to  hell.  Why  do  you  say  so,  asked  the  gentleman.  Both 
my  mother  and  the  priest  say  that  all  Protestants  will  go  to  hell — was 
the  reason  given.  This  may  be  regarded  a?  a  strong  case,  but  it  is  a  true 
one,  and  demonstrates  the  tendency  of  the  system.  It  may  not  always 
work  so  successfully  or  so  fatally  ;  but,  more  or  less,  it  works  mischiev- 
ously in  innumerable  instances.  Catholic  parents  do  their  work  more 
faithfully  than  most  of  the  Protestants ;  and  the  consequence  is,  it  is  gen- 
erally more  difficult  to  convert  a  Romanist  to  any  Protestant  profession, 
than  a  Protestant  to  the  Roman  persuasion. 

The  gentleman  did  not  precisely  quote  the  passage  from  the  ninth  of 

2d2 


318  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  Romans,  on  which  he  says  I  rely  for  a  plurality  of  covenants.  That 
he  evaded  the  point  in  the  passage,  must  have  been  clear  to  the  convic- 
tion of  every  person  in  this  house  who  has  ever  examined  the  passage. 
He  acknowledges  that  there  were  three  promises,  and  that  these  promises 
were  often  repeated.  But  Paul  speaks  both  of  covenants  and  promises-^ 
and  if  the  gentleman  will  go  to  Gen.  xii.  3,  he  will  not  find  in  that  trans- 
action one  word  about  land.  When  God  covenanted  with  Abraham,  in 
Urr,  of  Chaldea,  he  never  mentioned  inheritance  or  land  of  promise,  to 
him.  The  gentleman  cannot  find  but  two  promises  in  that  whole  aff'air, 
as  reported  by  Moses.  The  promise  of  Canaan  was  made  in  Canaan, 
and  a  covenant  was  confirmed  over  dead  bodies  in  Canaan  in  ratification 
of  its  provisions.  This  is  incontrovertibly  fatal  to  my  friend's  assump- 
tions. The  case,  he  honors,  by  comparing  it  to  two  men  making  a  bar- 
gain. They  often  meet  together  and  talk  about  it  a  little  now  and  then, 
and  after  a  long  time  of  stipulation  and  re-stipulation,  they  finally  agree 
upon  several  items.  They  then  write  it  out,  call  witnesses,  sign,  seal, 
and  deliver  it.  But  can  tlie  gentleman  shew  any  indications  of  such  a 
policy  between  God  and  Abraham  ?  No.  God  says,  and  it  is  done.  He 
promises,  and  Abraham  believes.  He  stipulates,  and  Abraham  acqui- 
esces. Abraham  left  Urr,  of  Chaldea,  on  two  promises.  God  gave  him 
another  in  Canaan — and  after  twenty-four  years  travels  he  gave  him  an- 
other. All  these  are  called  covenants  by  inspiration.  And,  indeed,  all 
God's  promises  are  covenants,  to  be  acquiesced  in  by  those  to  whom  they 
are  tendered.  Some,  however,  are  emphatically  so  called.  The  cove- 
nant concerning  the  Messiah,  based  on  the  second  promise,  was  confirm- 
ed by  an  oath.  The  covenant  concerning  the  inheritance,  by  sacrifices. 
The  covenant  of  circumcision,  consisted  in  the  act  of  recognition.  The 
third  covenant  is  marked  by  every  circumstance  common  to  those  trans- 
actions of  a  public  and  general  character  amongst  men.  There  were 
parties,  stipulations,  re-stipulations,  seals  and  confirmation.  God  pro- 
pounded it ;  Moses  negotiated  it ;  the  chosen  tribes  acceded  to  it.  It  was 
publicly  read — fairly  transcribed,  witnessed  to,  and  ratified  by  blood,  visi- 
bly and  audibly.  Can  any  one  suppose  that  the  cases  of  the  Edomites 
and  the  Ishmaelites,  as  brought  forward  by  me,  were  either  inapposite  or 
irrelevant?  Though  thus  cast  out  at  last,  were  not  Ishmael  and  Esau  and 
their  sons  lawfully  circumcised,  and  were  they  not  proper  subjects?  It 
cannot  be  successfully  denied.  What  spiritual  blessings,  I  must  yet  ask, 
were  bestowed  on  them  through  their  circumcision? 

Why  now  seek  to  ofi'-set  these  cases,  fairly  and  legitimately  brought 
forward,  by  allusions  to  Mormons,  and  apostates  of  every  grade  and 
character  ?  Is  it  not,  obviously,  unfair  to  bring  up  cases  essentially  dissimi- 
lar to  those  adduced  by  us  ?  I  have  brought  up  true  and  legal  subjects  of 
circumcision — persons  possessing  all  the  qualifications  the  law  required. 
I  have,  indeed,  instanced  by  name,  a  ie\y  persons  well  known  to  us  by 
fame,  to  whom  I  might  add  all  the  sons  of  Keturah.  What  covenant  was 
sealed  to  all  these  ?  Were  these  similar  to  Mormons  and  apostates  ?  If 
millions  apostatized  from  the  Jewish  religion,  that  is  nothing  to  the  fact 
of  their  having  been  proper  subjects  of  circumcision,  at  the  time  of  their 
circumcision.  The  persons  named  by  Mr.  Rice  were  never  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism.  He  cannot,  then,  escape  from  the  difficulty  by  this 
attempt. 

His  next  eff'ort  is  to  show,  that  circumcision  becomes  uncircumcision, 
if  the  circumcised  persons  do  not  keep  the  law ;    but  what  does  that 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  319 

prove  in  this  case  ?  No  one  denies  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  law,  and 
no  one  believes  that  circumcision,  or  any  other  observance,  v^^ill  profit 
the  person  who  does  not  conform  to  the  requisitions  in  the  case.  But 
the  question,  ivhat  spiritual  blessings  did  circumcision  convey?  is  yet 
unanswered.     The  gentleman  has  not  yet  named  one.     He  cannot. 

But  there  is  the  "  circumcision  of  the  heart."  To  this  he  flies  for 
succor.  But  is  that  a  spiritual  blessing,  belonging  to  circumcision,  pro- 
mised to  all  the  subjects  of  it?  He  cannot  avow  such  an  opinion.  Words 
soon  become  figurative.  The  cutting  off  of  a  small  piece  of  flesh,  soon 
came  to  indicate  the  separation  of  fleshly  lusts  and  passions  from  the 
heart.  This  circumcision  of  the  heart  is  what  was  promised  by  the  pro- 
phets, and  what  is  enjoyed  under  the  gospel.  "  Christians,"  says  Paul, 
"  are  the  true  circumcision ;"  the  anti-type  of  the  fleshly  or  typical  cir- 
cumcision. "  They  worship  God  in  the  spirit,  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus, 
and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh  "  But  who  will  say  that  such  were 
the  spiritual  blessings  connected  with  Jewish  circumcision  ? 

Baptism  passed  into  a  metaphor  in  a  few  years.  Jesus  said  "  I  have  a 
baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accom- 
plished." Was  this  the  spiritual  meaning  of  baptism?  There  was  also 
the  "baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  was  that  the  spiritual  blessing  of  bap- 
tism, or  is  it  not  another  metaphor  ?  What  popular  term  is  it  that  we  do 
not,  now-a-days,  to  say  nothing  of  the  ancients,  immediately  turn  into 
metaphor.  Even  proper  names  are  not  exempted  from  this  law  of  lan- 
guage. We  have  even  Macadamized  roads,  Washington  republicans, 
and  political  Swartouters.  How  many  metaphors  are  found  in  the  New 
Testament  taken  from  the  death  of  the  Messiah  ? — Crucify  the  flesh, 
crucified  with  Christ,  buried  with  him,  risen  with  him,  &;c. 

But  in  ascertaining  the  literal  rite  of  circumcision,  and  the  benefits 
thereby  conferred,  why  bring  up  the  spiritual  and  allegorical  sense  ? 
What  is  the  question  before  us  ?  Spiritual  or  literal  baptism  ?  Spiritual  or 
literal  circumcision?  Why  confound  them  ;  or  why  suppose  that  because 
two  words  have  been  used  figuratively  to  represent  certain  states  or  pri- 
vileges, that  the  things  properly  and  unfiguratively  represented  by  those 
terms,  are  the  same  in  substance  or  in  effect  ?  That  some  resemblance 
between  these  two  ordinances  exists,  as  well  as  between  every  thing 
Jewish  and  Christian,  all  men  of  sense  and  information  admit.  But  that 
admission  involves  not  the  consequence  that  the  one  has  come  in  the 
place  of  another,  or  occupies  the  same  ground,  or  secures  the  same  re- 
sults. We  also  use  the  same  epithets  in  speaking  of  different  institutions, 
without  involving  any  such  substantial  or  consequential  identity.  We 
say  the  true  circumcision,  the  true  baptism,  the  outward  and  the  inward 
baptism,  circumcision,  the  true  Jew  and  the  true  christian,  the  true  pass- 
over  and  the  true  Canaan,  (fee,  without  involving  identity. 

I  have  asked  for  specifications  of  the  spiritual  blessings  connected  with 
the  circumcision  of  a  Jew — but  I  have  asked  in  vain.  I  have  solicited  a 
discussion  of  the  only  reference  to  this  subject  yet  submitted,  viz.  "  The 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  The  gentleman  too  well  understands 
the  difference  between  this  phrase  and  the  one  in  the  book,  to  hazard  an 
investigation  of  it.  Any  one  who  reflects  on  the  sentence — "  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  oi the  faith  which  he  had,  before  he  was  circumcised;" 
and  the  general  phrase,  "  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith"  cannot 
possibly  but  appreciate  the  sophism,  passed  upon  a  community,  by  the 
substitution  of  the  latter  for  the  former. 


320  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Suppose,  for  example,  it  were  said  by  an  historian,  that  Gen.  Wash- 
ington received  the  presidency  of  the  United  States,  a  seal  of  the  patriot 
ism  which  he  displayed  in  the  revolutionary  war ;  and  some  commenta 
tor  should  thence  argue,  or  represent  the  presidency  of  the  United  States 
as  a  seal  of  the  patriotism  displayed  in  the  revolutionary  war  by  every  in- 
cumbent;  would  any  one  say  he  was  a  sound,  logical  commentator?  As 
logical  and  sound  as  he  who  says,  that  circumcision  is  to  any  one,  or  to 
every  one,  what  it  was  to  Abraham.  But  to  apply  this  to  infants  shocks 
all  common  sense. 

I  have  challenged  Mr.  Rice  to  prove,  that  the  seal  of  circumcision,  so 
called,  is  ever  spoken  of  but  once  in  the  Bible  ;  or  ever  so  applied,  ex- 
cept in  the  solitary  case  of  Abraham.  Mark  Paul's  singular  style  in  this 
instance :  "  He  received  the  sign  of  circumcision."  Did  he  say,  "a  seal 
of  righteoKsness"  or  of  "  the  righteousness  of  faith  ?"  No,  he  did 
not.  He  said,  "  it  was  a  seal  of  (a  special  righteousness,)  the  righteous- 
ness of  THE  faith  which  he  (Abraham)  had  while  yet  uncircumcised. 

Abraham  had  a  very  singular  and  exalted  faith.  It  was  a  model  faith, 
and  of  transcendent  value.  To  confirm  that  faith,  and  stamp  upon  it  the 
Divine  approval,  God's  own  pj'obatum  est,  it  was  expedient  to  make  him 
a  grand  covenantee — to  give  him  the  "  covenant  of  circumcision,"  and 
make  him  the  spiritual  father  of  all  believers,  in  attestation  of  the  value 
of  the  faith  which  he  had  while  in  uncircumcision.  Circumcision  was, 
then,  a  solemn  seal  or  approval  of  this  special  faith — setting  it  forth  as  a 
model  faith,  stamped  by  the  Divine  signet.  It  was,  then,  a  Divine  mark. 
To  the  descendants  of  Abraham  it  never  was  a  seal — it  was  but  a 
sign. 

In  adverting  to  the  case  of  Caiaphas,  Mr.  R.  makes  the  wrong  issue 
again.  I  said  that  it  was  as  high  priest  he  prophecied  ;  but  he  will  have 
him  to  prophecy  as  Balaam  did,  or  as  Balaam's  ass,  probably — (for  it 
might  have  introduced  the  ass,  in  this  connection  of  things,  with  as  much 
pertinency  as  Mr.  R.  has  introduced  many  other  things.)  Did  Balaam 
prophecy  because  he  was  high  priest?  He  spake  by  the  Spirit,  for 
another  reason  and  for  another  purpose.  The  New  Testament  gives  the 
reason  why  and  how  he  uttered  the  oracle — "This  he  said  not  of  hin:>- 
self,  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophecied  that  Jesus  should 
die  for  that  nation,  and  not  for  that  nation  only."  Loud  as  a  voice  from 
heaven  these  words  demonstrate  that  the  office  was  as  sacred  as  ever— - 
though  the  officer  was  instigated  by  Satan. 

I  am  sorry  to  be  doomed,  in  the  prosecution  of  any  argument,  to  have 
to  notice  so  many  matters,  so  irrelevant,  and  so  little  interesting.  I  may 
pass  over  something,  nay,  I  must  pass  in  silence  various  such  matters. 
I  might  spend  a  month  in  this  way,  and  then  not  reply  formally  to  every 
thing  the  gentleman  may  throw  out.  I  will  keep  my  eye  on  all  matters 
that  may  afl'ect  the  real  issue.    Others  may  stand  for  what  they  are  worth. 

The  gendeman  has,  then,  so  far  utterly  failed  to  point  out  any  spiritual 
privilege  connected  with  circumcision — and,  I  presume,  will  indeed  be 
as  much  perplexed  and  embarrassed,  to  show  that  his  infant  baptism 
secures  any  thing  more  to  its  subjects,  than  did  circumcision  secure  to 
Jacob  or  Esau,  Isaac  or  Ishmael. 

But  he  says,  that  probably  they  had  faith  before  they  were  circum- 
cised. Grant  that  sometimes  they  had — the  fathers  of  proselyte  families 
for  example.  What  then  ?  Was  circumcision  a  seal  from  God  in  illus- 
tration  of  the  peculiar  character  of  the  faith  of  each  individual  prose- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  32I 

lyte  ?  Who  ever  heard  such  logic  ?  What  does  the  term  seal  mean  ? 
A  confirmative  mark,  or  a  mark  approbatory  ?  We  have  seals  to  bonds, 
and  we  have  seals  to  diplomas  and  credentials.  Surely  the  gentleman 
does  not  properly  understand  the  word  seal  in  this  case,  if  he  make  it 
represent  to  every  proselyte  that  God  gives  this  as  a  proof  of  the  genu- 
ineness and  excellency  of  his  faith  ! !  Will  Mr.  Rice  say,  that  circum- 
cision was  to  each  believing  proselyte,  a  mark  approbatory  of  his  particu- 
lar belief? 

Again — the  logic  is  still  more  evidently  at  fault  in  another  particular. 
It  is  a  sophism  of  the  most  palpable  character  to  argue  from  a  special  to 
a  general  law  or  fact.  And  would  it  not  be  arguing  from  a  special  to  a 
general  law  or  fact,  to  say  that  circumcision  was  to  a  thousand,  what  it 
was  to  one  individual  of  a  thousand?  In  the  Jewish  history,  the  number 
of  proselytes,  it  is  presumed,  in  all  time,  did  not  average  one  to  a  thous- 
and born  within  the  covenant.  Now,  who  would  reason  on  any  other 
subject  in  this  way?  Who  would  affirm  that  circumcision,  as  a  Divine 
institution,  took  its  character  from  one  subject  in  a  thousand,  rather  than 
from  the  nine  hundred  and  ninty-nine  ?  Such,  however,  is  the  logic  of 
all  Pedo-baptists  that  found  their  usage  on  Calvin's  assumption.  Better 
take  the  Roman  Catholic,  or  the  Episcopalian,  or  any  other  ground  than 
this;  for,  as  it  appears  to  me,  this  is  superlatively  the  most  untenable  of 
them  all. 

It  behooves  my  friend  to  pay  more  attention  to  the  fact,  that  circum- 
cision was  not  the  door  into  the  Jewish  church  ;  that  Jews  brought 
forth  Jews  ;  that  natural,  and  not  supernatural,  birth  was  the  wide  door 
into  the  Jewish  churcli.  Why  then  call  baptism  the  door  ?  The  palpa- 
ble fact  already  suggested,  is  unanswered  and  unanswerable,  viz  :  that 
circumcision  was  administered  to  Jewish  infants,  not  to  bring  them  into 
the  church  of  Abraham,  but  because  they  Avere  in  it.  How  then  could 
it  be  a  door?  Is  not  the  gentleman  now  obliged  to  give  up  circum* 
cision,  or  to  afHrm  that  we  are  born  members  of  Christ's  church,  just  as 
we  are  born  into  the  world  ?  And  whence  comes  the  necessity  of  the  sec- 
ond or  new  birth  ?  When  my  friend  shall  have  proved,  that  circumcision 
was  a  door  into  a  house  four  hundred  years  before  the  house  was  built ; 
that  when  the  house  was  built,  and  the  children  born  in  it,  they  still  had 
to  come  in  by  the  door  of  the  house,  he  will  have  gained  a  victory  over 
reason  and  palpable  fact,  hitherto  unachieved  by  all  his  predecessors. 
This,  too,  is  the  main  gist  of  his  discussion  of  baptism  in  room  of  cir- 
cumcision ! 

The  radical  misconception  of  all  Pedo-baptists  is,  that  the  Jewish  com- 
monwealth and  the  christian  church  are  built  on  the  same  principle ;  and 
that  that  principle  is  flesh.  That  if  faith  be  at  all  necessary,  it  is  not 
personal  faith,  nor  personal  conviction — it  is  hereditary  faith.  And  yet 
they  cannot  see,  that  circumcision  is  at  war  with  them  on  one  side,  while 
they  imagine  it  favorable  on  the  other.  It  shows  that  the  nature  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  parental  faith,  or  immediate  ancestral  belief,  is  a  perfect  dream. 
No  child  descended  from  a  Jew,  was  ever  inhibited  from  circumcision  be- 
cause his  parents  were  both  reprobates.  Not  one  instance  can  be  shown. 
There  is  some  policy  on  tiie  part  of  my  friend,  in  seeming  to  disparage 
circumcision,  while,  nevertheless,  building  on  it.  In  Judaism  rights  to 
ordinances  were  hereditary  ;  in  Christianity  they  are  personal.  It  is  now, 
therefore, /oi7/t  and  noi  flesh  ;  then  it  was  flesh  and  not  faith.  When 
shall  my  Pedo-baptist  friends  learn  this  lesson  ? — Christianity  is  a  per- 
21 


322  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM, 

sonal  affair.  Those  called  sons  of  God,  are  all  bom  again.  The  sons 
of  Abraham  were  born  of  the  flesh,  and  therefore,  only  once  bom. 
Christians  are  born  of  tlie  Spirit  after  they  are  born  of  the  flesh. 
Will  my  friend  pay  no  attention  to  such  declarations  as  these.  To  as 
many  as  (and  to  no  more  than)  received  him,  he  gave  the  privilege  of 
becoming  the  sons  of  God ;  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  who  were 
born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but 
of  God."  Why  should  not  these  words  of  the  Messiah,  along  with 
those  spoken  to  Nicodemus,  decide  this  subject  forever  ?  Did  he  not  say 
to  the  ruler  of  Israel,  "  You  must  be  horn  again?''''  You  cannot  enter 
into  my  church,  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  of  which  I  speak,  Nicode- 
mus, unless  you  are  "  born  from  above,  born  of  water  and  of  Spirit." 
Nicodemus,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that 
WHICH  IS  BORN  OF  THE  SPIRIT  IS  SPIRIT."  You  must  bc  borti  again. 
Mr.  Rice  says,  you  need  not  be  born  again  to  get  into  the  church  :  but 
you  may  be  born  again  after  you  get  into  it !  But  unfortunately  for  you, 
my  friends,  Mr.  Rice  is  but  a  mere  professor  of  the  faith,  and  neither  a 
lawgiver  nor  king  in  Israel.  He  can  never  dispose  of  this  case  of  Nico- 
demus. No  one  can  imagine  two  societies  founded  upon  more  opposite 
principles  than  faith  and  flesh,  or  spirit  and  flesh.  Now  when  we  look  at 
two  societies,  pure  and  unmixed,  built  upon  the  two  principles,  we  shall 
see  a  very  different  result.  In  the  one,  "  all  know  the  Lord,  from  the  least 
to  the  greatest ;"  all  have  God's  law  written  in  their  hearts  ;  all  enjoy  his 
favor  and  protection;  all  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  In  the 
other,  it  is  a  kingdom  like  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  France — every  thing 
that  liveth  and  moveth  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  !  Allow  the  members 
in  each  to  be  sincere  in  their  profession,  Avhen  existing  and  contemplated 
apart  from  each  other,  the  difference  is  no  less  striking ;  because  the  great 
majority  in  every  Pedo-baptist  community  are  necessarily  unconverted 
persons. 

My  friend  has  several  times  called  for  help  this  morning,  in  the  form 
of  a  request  to  furnish  some  evidence  from  the  Bible,  that  the  old  Jewish 
state  of  things  has  been  done  away,  and  substituted  by  another.  I  shall 
certainly  attend  to  this  request  as  a  matter  of  generosity.  It  is  his  place 
to  show  that  Christianity  is  but  a  continued  and  improved  form  of  Juda- 
ism, and  not  a  7iew  institution,  built  upon  a  new  and  better  foundation 
than  the  mere  flesh,  blood,  and  bones  of  father  Abraham. 

Before  I  set  down,  I  shall  advert  for  a  moment  to  the  two  institutions. 
Paul  contrasts  them  in  good  style,  2  Cor.  3d  chapter.  The  one  that  is 
"  done  away,"  and  the  one  "  that  remaineth  ;"  the  letter  and  the  spirit ; 
the  law  and  the  gospel.  The  Jewish  institute  was  necessarily  tempora- 
ry and  preparatory.  It  was  confined  to  one  nation  and  people.  Its  pro- 
per boundaries  were  Palestine.  Judea,  Jerusalem,  and  its  temple,  were 
the  theatre  of  all  its  glories.  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  humanity 
It  was  intended  for  the  whole  human  race.  It  excludes  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free.  It  throws  the  wide  arms  of 
its  philanthropy  around  the  whole  human  race.  It  embraces  with  equal 
cordiality,  "  the  frozen  Icelander  and  the  sun-burned  Moor."  It  pays  no 
homage  to  sceptered  royalty,  to  ancient  heraldry,  to  castes,  ranks,  or  con- 
ditions of  men.  It  invites  all,  makes  provisions  for  all,  and  tenders  the 
same  conditions  to  all.  It  addresses  every  man  as  responsible  for  him- 
self. It  recognizes  the  most  perfect  free  agency  and  responsibility.  It 
proposes  the  same  conditions  to  the  prince  and  the  beggar.     It  demands 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  323 

from  all,  faith,  repentence,  and  unreserved  obedience.  It  must  have  the 
same  voluntary  devotion  to  God,  as  w^as  manifested  in  the  free  and  volun- 
tary devotion  of  the  Messiah  to  the  salvation  of  man.  He  freely  came 
down  from  heaven  to  earth,  and  we  must  freely  ascend  from  earth  to 
heaven.  A  christian  people  are  essentially  a  free  people :  they  are, 
indeed,  the  only  free  people.  The  son  of  God  makes  nren  free  indeed. 
No  one  can  be  physically  or  metaphysically  brought  into,  or  cast  out  of, 
Christ's  church.  We  must  know  the  Messiah,  believe  in  him,  acqui- 
esce in  his  mission,  reverence  his  official  fullness  and  glory,  and  adore 
his  person  as  God  with  us.  We  must  solemnly  bow  to  his  authority, 
submit  to  his  government,  walk  in  his  ways,  and  follow  his  example. 
Then,  and  only  then,  can  we  claim  the  honor  of  the  christian  name, 
and  of  a  place  in  the  church  of  the  living  God,  "the  pillar  and  the  sup- 
port of  the  truth."  There  is,  too,  an  inexpressible  pleasure  in  act- 
ing for  one's  self  in  making  the  christian  profession.  The  feeling 
of  our  own  responsibility,  and  of  our  coming,  under  a  sense  of  it, 
into  a  new  and  an  everlasting  relation  to  God,  to  angels,  and  to  men. 
We  feel  a  thousand  times  more  awful  pleasure  and  high  dignity,  treating 
in  our  own  person  with  our  Redeemer,  without  any  interfering  earthly  me- 
diator or  negotiator.  It  is  the  highest  enjoyment  of  personal  liberty  ever 
attained  by  mortal  man,  to  have  the  privilege  of  signing  the  covenant 
•with  his  own  hand,  and  vowing  with  his  own  lips,  eternal  allegiance  to 
him  that  has  redeemed  him,  and  tendered  to  him  an  everlasting  life, 
through  his  death,  by  a  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  seeking  for 
glory,  honor,  and  immortality. — [_Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 

j^MR.  rice's    fourth    ADDRESS.] 

Mr.  President — Before  proceeding  immediately  to  the  subject  under 
discussion,  I  wish  to  read  from  Calvin  the  passage  to  which  Mr.  Camp- 
bell has  so  repeatedly  referred,  in  which  he  represents  him  as  having 
claimed  the  right  to  change  the  ordinances  appointed  by  Christ.  He 
read,  from  his  Debate  with  McCalla,  the  following  passage,  taken  pro- 
fessedly from  Calvin's  Commentary  on  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles :  "  The  church  did  grant  liberty  to  herself,  since  the  begin- 
ning, TO  CHANGE  THE  RITES  SOMEWHAT,  excepting  the  sub- 
stance." And  he  called  on  me  to  say,  whether  these  are  not  the  words 
of  Calvin.  I  answer,  they  are  not.  He  has  quoted  from  Calvin  only  a 
part  of  a  sentence,  without  its  connection ;  and  he  has  given  a  very  in- 
correct translation  even  of  this  fragment.  I  have  here  Calvin's  Com- 
mentary on  the  Acts,  from  which  I  take  leave  to  read  the  whole  sentence, 
with  its  connection.  After  admitting  what  I,  of  course,  do  not  admit,  that 
immersion  was  the  general  practice  in  the  apostolic  age,  he  thus  remarks : 

"  Cseterum,  non  tanti  esse  nobis  debet  tantillum  ceremonise  discrimen  ut 
Ecclesiam  propterea  scindamus,  vel  rixis  turbenius.  Pro  ipsa  quidem  bap- 
tismi  ceremonia,  quatenus  nobis  a  Christo  tradita  est,  centies  potius  ad 
mortem  usque  digladiandum,  quum  ut  earn  nobis  eripi  sinamus  :  sed  quum 
in  aquse  symbolo  testimonium  habemus  tam  ablutionis  nostrae,  quam  novae 
vitee :  quam  in  aqua,  velut  in  speculo,  sanguinem  nobis  suum  Christus 
repriEsentat,  ut  munditiem  inde  nostram  petamus :  quum  docet  nos  Spiritu 
8U0  refingi,  ut  mortui  peccato,  justitiaj  vivamus  ;  nihil  quod  ad  baptismi 
eubstantiam  faciat,  deesse  nobis  certum  est.  Q,uare  ab  initio  libere  sibi 
permisit  ecclesia,  extra  banc  substantiam,  ritus  habere  paululum  dissimiles  : 
nam  alii  ter,  alii  autem  semel  tantum  mergebant,' "  &c. — Com.  on  Acts  viii 


324  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

"But  so  small  a  difference  of  the  ceremony  ought  not  to  be  considered  oy 
us  of  so  great  moment,  that  on  that  account  we  should  divide  the  church,  or 
disturb  it  with  dissensions.  As  to  the  ceremony  itself  of  baptism,  in  so 
far  as  it  was  delivered  to  us  by  Christ,  it  were  a  hundred  times  better  that 
we  perish  by  the  sword,  than  permit  it  to  be  taken  from  us  :  but  when  in 
the  symbol  of  water  we  have  the  testimony  as  well  of  our  cleansing  as  of 
our  new  life  :  when  in  water,  as  in  a  mirror,  Christ  represents  to  us  his 
blood,  that  thence  we  may  seek  purification  :  when  he  teaches  us  to  be 
renewed  by  his  Spirit ;  that  being  dead  to  sin,  we  may  live  to  righteous- 
ness :  it  is  certain  that  we  lack  nothing  which  appertains  to  the  substance 
of  baptism.  Wherefore  from  the  beginning  the  church  has  freely  allowed 
herself  beyond  [extra]  this  substance  to  have  rites  a  little  dissimilar:  for 
some  immersed  thrice,  but  others  only  once.  Wherefore  there  is  no  reason 
why,  in  things  not  really  essential,  we  should  be  too  illiberal :  only  let  them 
not  pollute  the  simple  institution  of  Christ  by  adventitious  pomp." 

You  perceive  that,  though  Calvin  admits  what  I  think  is  not  true,  he 
does  not  claim  for  the  church  any  power  to  change  what  Christ  has  de- 
termined concerning  the  ordinances.  On  the  contrary,  he  maintained,  as 
I  have  before  stated,  that  our  Savior  did  not  prescribe  any  particular  mode 
of  baptizing,  but  left  that  matter  to  be  determined  by  circumstances. 
Whilst  I  do  not  agree  with  Calvin  in  all  he  has  said  on  this  subject,  I  am 
unwilling  to  have  misrepresentations,  so  injurious  to  the  reputation  of  a 
great  and  good  man,  pass  uncorrected.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  this  piece 
of  a  sentence,  incorrectly  translated  and  published  by  Mr.  Campbell,  has 
made  many  false  impressions.  I  have  a  Baptist  author  who  refers  to  the 
same  passage,  thus :  "  The  church  (that  is,  Presbyterianism,)  hath  granted 
to  herself  the  liberty  to  change  the  ordinances,  except  the  substance,  that 
is,  the  words  !"  I  think  I  have  given  the  precise  words  of  the  author.  This 
is  a  specimen  of  the  perversions  of  authors  which  often  are  imposed  on 
the  public. 

I  wish  to  present  to  the  minds  of  the  audience  the  ground  over  which 
we  have  passed.  As  a  strong  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism,  I  have  stated  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  wise  and 
the  good,  of  all  ages,  have  believed  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
And  since  the  Bible  is  a  plain  book,  especially  on  important  points,  it  is 
not  probable  that  such  immense  multitudes  have  misunderstood  its  teach- 
ings on  a  subject  so  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  visible  church. 

I  turned  to  the  commission,  and  showed  that  it  is  not  a  commission  to 
commence  a  new  organization,  but  to  extend  the  limits  and  privileges  of 
the  existing  church;  that  it  specifies,  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
neither  adults  nor  infants ;  that  disciples  were  to  be  made  by  baptizing 
and  teaching;  and  that  it  does  not  say  that  teaching  must,  in  all  cases, 
precede  baptism.  It  is  admitted,  that  all  who  are  entitled  to  membership 
in  the  church,  ought  to  receive  baptism.  The  great  question,  then,  is, 
who,  according  to  the  law  of  God,  are  entitled  to  membership  in  the 
church  of  Christ?  To  determine  this  question,  we  go  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  church. 

A  church  I  defined  to  be  a  body  of  people,  called  out  from  the  world, 
for  the  service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  and  a  door 
of  admission,  or  a  rite  by  which  membership  may  be  recognized.  This, 
it  is  not  denied,  is  a  correct  definition  of  the  church  of  Christ.  We  findl 
in  the  family  of  Abraham,  precisely  such  a  people — a  people  separated 
from  the  world,  for  the  service  of  the  true  God ;  with  ordinances  of  di- 
vine appointment,  and  an  initiatory  rite,  to  wit:  circumcision — distin- 
guishing them  from  all  other  people,  as  being  in  covenant  with  God.   From 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  325 

that  time  onward,  God  speaks  of  them  as  "  My  people."  Believers  and 
their  children,  were  put  into  this  church  by  positive  law,  and  there  they 
remained  till  the  time  of  giving  the  commission  by  our  Savior.  There  is 
no  law  excluding  them.  Since,  then,  we  have  put  them  in  by  positive 
law,  I  call  upon  my  friend  to  put  them  out  by  a  law  as  clear  and  positive. 

I  have  shown,  most  conclusively,  that  the  church  of  Christ  is  the  same 
which  was  organized  in  the  family  of  Abraham.  You  remember  the  il- 
lustration of  the  principle  of  identity,  drawn  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Kentucky.  Now,  I  will  produce  three  times  as  much  evidence  to  prove 
that  the  christian  church  is  the  same  body  that  was  organized  in  tiie 
family  of  Abraham,  as  can  be  produced  to  prove  that  the  commonwealth 
of  Kentucky  is  the  same  political  body  that  existed  under  that  name  forty 
years  ago.  Under  both  dispensations,  the  church  serves  the  same  God, 
obeys  the  same  moral  law,  and  trusts  for  salvation  in  the  same  gospel ; 
all  the  prominent  doctrines  of  which  are  contained  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  christian  church,  I  have  proved,  is  enjoying  her  blessings  under  the 
same  covenant,  of  which  two  promises  have  been  fulfilled  ;  but  the  great 
promise  is  yet  only  in  part  fulfilled — a  covenant  confirmed  in  Christ  and 
containing  the  gospel ;  a  covenant  which  is  never  called  old,  and  which, 
in  the  Scriptures,  is  never  said  to  pass  away  ;  a  covenant  which  makes 
Abraham  the  father  of  all  believers.  It  is  new  only  in  the  mode  of  its 
administration. 

But,  I  might  go  even  as  far  as  my  friend  desires,  and  admit  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  has  passed  away,  and  yet  sustain  my  argument :  for 
I  have  shown  from  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  (ch.  viii.)  that  a  new 
covenant  (even  if  literally  new)  was  to  be  made  with  the  same  people — 

THE  SAME    CHURCH. 

Now,  believers  and  their  children  were  put  into  this  church  by  positive 
law,  and  there  is  no  law  to  exclude  the  one  or  the  other.  There  is,  therefore, 
just  as  much  authority  for  excluding  believers,  as  for  excluding  children. 

I  wish  now  to  notice  some  few  objections,  urged  by  my  worthy  friend, 
in  his  last  speech  on  yesterday.  I  must  confess,  however,  that  I  was  at 
a  loss  to  know  what  he  was  trying  to  prove. 

He  attempted  to  show  that  there  were  several  covenants  made  with 
Abraham.  To  this,  I  replied,  that  the  Bible  speaks  of  but  one  covenant 
with  Abraham.  The  following  passages  are  conclusive  on  this  point : — i- 
Exodus  ii.  24 :  "  And  God  heard  their  groaning,  and  God  remembered 
his  covenant  \v\\\\  Abraham,  with  Isaac,  and  with  Jacob,"  &c.  Acts  of' 
the  Apostles  iii.  25  :  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And 
in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 

Here  the  word  covenant  is  used  in  the  singular  number;  and  there  is 
not  a  passage  in  the  Bible  which  speaks  of  more  than  one  covenant  with 
Abraham.  The  same  promises,  as  we  have  seen,  were  contained  in  the 
I2lh,  I5th,  and  17th  chapters  of  Genesis.  The  promises  first  made  in 
the  12lh  and  15th,  were  ratified  and  sealed  by  circumcision,  as  recorded 
in  the  17th.  Now,  to  have  three  covenants,  and  the  same  promises  in 
each,  would  be  marvellous  indeed  !  It  is  true,  my  friend  said,  there  was 
no  land  promised  in  the  12th  chapter;  but  what  says  the  first  verse  ? — 
"  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy 
father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  show  thee,"  And  when  he  reach- 
ed the  land,  the  promise  was  repeated,  so  that  in  each  of  these  three 
«hapters  we  find  the  same  promises. 

2E 


326  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

But  I  do  not  care,  so  far  as  my  argument  is  concerned,  if  my  friend 
finds  half  a  dozen  covenants  with  Abraham  ;  for  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision contains  the  promise  of  spiritual  blessings,  which  was  the  great 
promise,  I  will  read  a  few  verses  in  the  seventeenth  chapter,  which,  I 
think,  will  convince  every  one  that  such  is  the  fact :  "  I  will  make  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly."  Again,  in 
the  fifth  verse:  "Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram,  but 
thy  name  shall  be  Abraham  ;  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made 
thee."  With  this  last  verse  we  will  compare  the  language  of  Paul,  in 
Rom.  iv.  16,  17  :  "  Therefore,  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  of  grace  ; 
to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed  :  not  to  that  only 
which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
who  is  the  father  of  us  all,  (as  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of 
many  nations.")  Here,  you  observe,  the  apostle  refers  to  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  as  containing  the  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  to  the  gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews.  Again,  Gen.  xvii.  7  :  "  1  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee — to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee."  What  more  do  we  want,  than  that  he  should  be  our 
God,  and  the  God  of  our  seed?  and  that  we  should  be  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, and  be  blessed  with  him  ?  We  have,  then,  the  promise  of  spiritual 
blessings  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  We  are,  therefore,  under  the 
same  covenant,  which  was  sealed  by  circumcision,  and  which  made  Abra- 
ham the  father  of  all  believers.  Take  away  that  covenant,  and  how  is 
Abraham  my  father  any  more  than  Enoch  or  Noah  ? 

The  second  objection  was,  that  circumcision  was  not  a  door  of  entrance 
into  the  church.  Now,  I  will  read  to  you  the  language  of  the  great  An- 
drew Fuller  upon  this  subject — a  man  who  did  not  intend  to  favor  our 
views, — vol.  V.  p.  155: 

"  This  ordinance  was  the  mark  by  which  they  [Abraham  and  his  seed] 
were  distinguished  as  a  people  in  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and  which  bound 
them  by  a  special  obligation  to  obey  him.  Like  almost  all  other  positive 
institutions,  it  was  also  pre-figurative  of  mental  purity, '  or  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh.' " — Lecture  on  Gen.  xvii. 

What  is  baptism  ?  Is  it  not  the  ordinance  which  distinguishes  chris- 
tians as  a  people  in  covenant  with  Jehovah  ?  by  which  they  are  bound  ta 
him,  and  obliged  to  obey  him?  All  who  received  circumcision  were  pe- 
culiarly bound  to  serve  God ;  and  so  are  all  who  receive  christian  baptism. 
I  remark  again  ;  in  Ex.  xii.  48,  we  are  particularly  informed  how  gentile 
proselytes  m4ght  enter  the  church,  if  they  wished  to  partake  of  the  passo- 
ver.  All  the  males  of  the  family  were  required  first  to  be  circumcised. 
Compare  this  with  Gal.  v.  3  :  "  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is 
circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  He  has  all  the 
privileges,  and  he  is  bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  the  law  ;  and  that 
is  door  enough  for  me. 

But  my  friend's  next  objection  is,  that  the  church  was  not  organized 
till  the  Israelites  arrived  at  Mount  Sinai.  To  prove  this,  he  quotes  the 
language  of  Stephen,  in  Acts  vii.  38  :  "  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church 
in  the  wilderness,  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him,"  &c.  Stephen, 
it  is  true,  speaks  of  the  church  in  the  wilderness  ;  but  he  does  not  inti- 
mate that  it  was  organized  in  the  wilderness.  His  argument  is,  there- 
fore, wholly  without  force. 

But  the  gentleman  has  told  us,  that  a  constitution  was  adopted,  and  that 
all  were  called  upon  to  vote  for  it ,  and  this  was  the  national  organizatioiu 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  327 

Paul,  however,  teaches  a  very  different  doctrine.  He  sa3's,  "  Wherefore 
then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added,  because  of  transgression,"  &c.  Paul 
does  not  represent  the  law  as  the  constitution,  nor  does  he  say  any  thing 
of  an  organization  of  the  church.  He  says,  "  The  law  was  added/^  To 
what  was  it  added  ?  Of  course,  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  for  it  could 
be  added  to  nothing  else.  The  law  at  Sinai  was  an  additional  enactment 
for  the  benefit  of  a  church  already  organized,  designed  to  answer  a  spe- 
cific purpose,  till  Christ  should  come. 

Circumcision,  the  genUeman  insists,  did  not  require  piety  in  those  who 
received  it.  Then  did  God  enter  into  covenant  with  wicked  men  without 
requiring  them  to  abandon  their  sins  I  It  will  not  do  to  confine  the  cov- 
enant to  Abraham ;  for  it  is  certain  that  God  entered  into  covenant  with 
him  and  his  seed  in  their  generations.  If,  then,  those  who  were  cir- 
cumcised, were  not  required  to  be  pious  ;  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that 
God  made  a  covenant  with  the  wicked,  and  did  not  require  them  to  serve 
him  !  Believe  it  who  can  !  Paul,  as  I  have  proved,  says,  "  Circumcision 
profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law,"  but  not  otherwise.  The  law,  as  ex- 
pounded by  our  Savior,  requires  man  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart, 
soul,  mind  and  strength,  and  his  neighbor  as  himself.  Could  the  Jews 
observe  such  a  law,  and  yet  possess  no  piety? 

But  the  gentleman  talks  about  Jigurative  circumcision,  and  appeals  to 
the  corruption  of  the  Jewish  church  at  the  advent  of  our  Savior  and 
afterwards,  to  sustain  his  untenable  position.  It  is  true,  the  Jewish 
church  was,  to  a  great  extent,  apostate,  when  our  Savior  appeared  on 
earth.  Yet  there  were  some  pious  souls,  here  and  there  an  aged  Simeon 
and  an  Anna,  who  waited  for  "  the  consolation  of  Israel ;"  and  they  re- 
ceived him  with  open  arms.  And  notwithstanding  the  corruption  of  the 
mass,  he  still  granted  to  those  who  received  him,  the  privileges  of  sons. 
But  if  the  Jewish  church  became  very  corrupt,  is  it  not  also  true  that  the 
christian  church  has  been  almost  inundated  with  error  and  impiety?  You 
might  as  logically  maintain,  therefore,  that  baptism  does  not  require  piety, 
as  that  circumcision  did  not. 

The  gentleman  has  mustered  in  fearful  array j?/(fem  arguments,  to  prove 
that  baptism  did  not  come  in  place  of  circumcision.  On  that  subject,  as 
I  have  repeatedly  said,  I  feel  very  little  concern.  I  will  now,  I  think,  sat- 
isfy the  audience,  that  the  defence  of  infant  baptism  does  not  require  me 
to  prove,  that  baptism  came  instead  of  circumcision.  I  have  proved  that 
the  children  of  believers  have  a  right  to  membership  in  the  church  ;  that 
God  did,  at  the  organization  of  his  church,  put  believers  and  their  children 
in  together.  This  point  is  setded.  It  is  also  an  indisputable  fact,  that 
under  the  Old  Testament  adults  and  infants,  parents  and  children,  en- 
tered the  church  by  the  same  door — had  their  membership  recognized  by 
the  same  ordinance.  If  children  have  still  the  right  to  a  place  in  the 
church,  it  is  certain  that  they  have  the  right  to  enter  by  the  door.  Under 
the  former  dispensation  there  was  but  one  door,  through  which  all  en- 
tered. Under  the  present  dispensation  there  is  but  one ;  and  all  who 
have  a  right  to  membership,  must,  of  course,  enter  through  it.  You  may 
tell  me  the  door  is  not  now  precisely  where  it  was  formerly.  Very  well : 
I  care  not  whether  it  is  on  this  side  of  the  house,  or  on  that.  Children 
have  the  right  to  enter;  and  if  you  will  find  a  door  for  adults,  I  will  find 
one  for  their  children;  for  they  have  always  entered  by  the  door.  Whilst, 
therefore,  I  can  prove,  that  baptism  answers  the  same  ends  under  the  new 
dispensation,  tliat  were   answered  by  circumcision   under  the   old ;    I 


328  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

am  not  concerned  to  do  it;  for  the  defence  of  infant  baptism  requires  it 
not. 

There  is  only  one  more  point  in  the  gentleman's  speech  which  I  wish 
to  notice.  He  has  told  us  how  much  infant  baptism  tends  to  corrupt  the 
church  ;  but  I  have  appealed  to  \\\e  fact,  which  he  will  not  dispute,  that 
the  Pedo-baptist  churches  that  have  long  practiced  the  baptism  of  infants, 
are  quite  as  pure  as  the  purest  Anti-pedo-baptist  churches.  He  has  rep- 
resented infant  baptism  as  the  secret  of  the  pope's  tyrannical  power ;  but 
he  has  not  proved,  nor  can  he  prove,  that  such  is  the  truth.  He  told 
us  an  anecdote  of  a  little  Romish  boy,  who,  whilst  on  a  journey,  became 
greatly  attached  to  a  gentleman  to  whose  care  he  was  committed  ,•  but  on 
ascertaining  that  he  was  a  Protestant,  he  told  him,  he  would  certainly  go 
to  hell.  When  asked  how  he  knew  ;  he  replied  that  his  mother  told  him 
so.  And  this  occurrence  is  held  up  before  the  audience  as  demonstrative 
of  the  horrors  of  infant  baptism  !  It  is,  of  course,  clear  as  light  to  the 
gentleman's  mind,  that  the  Popish  mother  never  would  have  instilled  such 
errors  into  the  mind  of  her  child,  if  he  had  not  been  baptized  !  !  The 
water  of  baptism  produced  this  sad  effect !  !  !  It  is  a  little  remarkable, 
that  sometimes  apparently  opposite  courses  of  conduct  seem  to  lead  to 
the  same  results.  I  recently  heard  of  a  little  girl  belonging  to  the  gentle- 
man's church,  who  made  to  an  old  lady  of  another  church  just  such  a 
remark  as  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Romish  boy !  Shall  we  hold  up  this 
case  and  say,  behold  the  fruits  of  immersion  ?  The  simple  truth  is,  that 
children  very  naturally  imbibe  the  errors  of  parents,  whether  baptized  or 
not.     Such  anecdotes  are  poor  arguments — very  poor. 

The  audience  must  now  judge  for  themselves,  whether  Mr.  Campbell 
has  answered  any  one  of  my  arguments.  I  have  put  children  into  the 
church  by  positive  law ;  and  I  have  called  upon  him,  so  far  in  vain,  to 
produce  the  law  for  putting  them  out — for  depriving  parents  and  children 
of  privileges  which  God  in  his  mercy  has  given  them.  If  he  can  pro- 
duce a  "thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  it,  I  will  agree  to  put  them  out;  but  I 
must  protest  against  the  attempt  to  exclude  them  by  far-fetched  inferences, 
contrary  to  every  principle  of  law. 

I  have  several  more  arguments,  which  demonstrate  yet  more  fully  the 
identity  of  the  church  under  the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensations  ;  but  I 
shall  have  quite  sufficient  time  to  present  them.  The  only  difference,  so 
far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned,  is  to  be  found  in  the  passing  away  of  the 
civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of  the  Jews,  added  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
for  a  particular  end,  and  for  a  limited  time.  And  as  no  man  in  his  senses 
would  maintain,  that  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  is  not  the  same 
political  body,  because  certain  temporary  laws  expired  at  the  end  of  the 
period  to  which  they  were  limited ;  so  no  man  can  consistently  contend, 
that  the  passing  away  of  the  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation, annihilated  the  church  of  God.  He  might  as  well  assert,  that  I 
am  not  the  same  man,  because  I  have  put  on  a  new  coat ! 

The  truth  is,  that  God  has  never  inculcated  but  one  religion.  The  re- 
ligion of  the  heart — the  great  matter,  after  all — was  the  same  in  Abra- 
ham's day  as  now.  External  ordinances  have  changed,  but  the  church 
is  the  same — true  piety  is  unchanged.  The  religious  exercises  of  Abra- 
ham, of  David,  and  of  all  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament,  correspond 
substantially  with  the  experience  of  all  christians.  The  saints  of  the  foi-mer 
dispensation  looked  forward  through  prophecies  and  sacrifices  to  a  Savior 
to  come.     The  saints,  under  the  new  dispensation,  look  back  through 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  329 

inspired  history,  and  the  sacraments,  to  a  Savior  who  has  come.  The 
eyes  of  all  have  been  fixed  upon  the  same  glorious  object;  and,  through 
him,  upon  the  same  blessed  heaven.  Ordinances  have  been  changed  ;  but 
the  conditions  of  salvation — faith,  repentance,  and  holy  living,  have  been 
to  all  the  conditions  of  salvation. 

Having  now  put  the  children  of  believers  in  the  church,  by  clear  and 
positive  law,  I  shall  wait  for  the  gentleman  to  produce  the  law  for  exclud- 
ing them. — l^Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 10^  o'clock,  Jl.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fourth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  have  often  had  occasion  to  observe  and  remark,  that 
a  man  can  assert  and  deny  more  in  half  an  hour,  than  he  can  prove  in  a 
whole  year.  To  review  in  special  detail  the  points  which  my  friend 
says  he  has  proved,  and  those  which  he  means  to  prove,  as  now  stated, 
it  will  require  more  time  than  has  been  allotted  to  the  discussion  of  this 
proposition.  All  that  was  said  yesterday,  has  been  repeated  this  morn- 
ing. Indeed,  I  believe  that  all  that  has  been  said  now,  was  said  by  my 
friend  in  his  first  speech.  It  is  not  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  I  will 
merely  reiterate  as  well  as  he,  especially  as  I  have  much  new  matter  yet 
to  offer.  It  is  necessary  to  advance  into  the  main  points  of  evidence 
and  argument,  upon  which  ultimately  this  subject  must  rest  in  the  minds 
of  this  community. 

My  friend  began  by  reading  to  you  a  passage  out  of  Calvin,  and  his 
translation  of  it ;  to  which  I  will  first  advert,  lest  my  silence  be  construed 
into  an  admission  that  I  did  not  read  the  whole  section,  but  suppressed 
some  part  of  it  from  improper  motives.  I  did  not,  nor  do  I  usually  in 
debate,  read  the  whole  section  or  passage  from  which  I  may  quote  a  fact 
or  an  argument ;  but  what  I  do  read,  I  read  in  the  full  light  of  its  own 
context,  and  intend  that  it  shall  fully  contain  a  fair  and  honest  representa- 
tion of  the  mind  of  the  writer.  In  this  instance,  I  contend  that  I  have 
done  so  to  the  letter.  I  will  put  the  question — I  will  ask,  whether  what 
was  read  this  morning  does,  in  the  part  quoted  or  in  the  whole,  in  the 
least  change  the  sense  of  what  I  read  on  yesterday  ?  This  manoeuvre 
seems  to  be  intended  for  efiect — to  make  you  believe  that  I  left  out  some- 
tliing  of  great  importance,  or  changed  the  sense.  If  the  gentleman  will 
give  me  the  book  from  which  he  has  translated  this  passage,  I  will  show 
that  there  is  not  in  it  a  single  idea  repugnant  to  what  I  have  read.  Cal- 
vin does  claim  that  the  church  has  taken  this  liberty,  extra  the  substance. 
No  Presbyterian  supposed  that  the  church  is  bound  to  walk  by  the  exact 
letter,  but  may  change  and  modify  the  ordinances  according  to  expedi- 
ency. In  my  view,  indeed,  the  Presbyterians  have  always  done  so;  and 
in  some  instances  much  more  grossly  than  in  the  case  now  before  us. 
They  have  rites  "  a  little  dissimilar,"  as  Mr.  Rice  reads  it.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  I  should  read  the  whole  page  from  an  author,  when  a 
shorter  extract  will  give  the  whole  spirit  and  force  of  his  argument. 

My  friend  says  he  has  "put  children"  into  the  church,  according  to 
law.  I  suppose  he  means  infants  ;  for  we  are  all  children.  He  certainly 
believes  that  infants  ought  to  be  in  the  church  with  their  parents.  We 
all  believe  that  children  ought  to  be  in  the  church  as  soon  as  they  know 
the  Lord.  But  that  is  not  the  argument.  It  is.  Are  the  offspring  of  profes- 
sing parents,  soon  as  born,  by  virtue  of  their  parentage, — because  of  their 
being  of  the  same  flesh  and  blood,  entitled  to  be  in  the  church  ?     Is  the 

2  E  2 


330  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

infant  born  of  a  Presbyterian  father  or  mother,  by  virtue  of  that  natural 
birth,  that  accident,  necessarily,  and  by  Divine  authority,  a  member  of  the 
church  of  Christ? 

The  gentleman  is  certainly  throwing  dust  in  your  eyes.  Who  denies 
that  children  should  be  in  the  church  ?  The  question  is  as  to  whether 
the  infant  progeny  are  born  members  of  Christ's  church,  because  their 
parents  were  professors  of  the  faith  ?  If  he  should  speak,  as  he  has  been 
speaking,  through  a  thousand  years,  or  through  as  many  volumes  as  com- 
poses the  Vatican  library,  it  would  not  reach  this  question  at  all.  I  ask 
him  to  show,  by  one  single  passage,  where  infants  are  placed  in  Christ's 
church  ?  He  cannot  do  it.  There  is  not  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in 
the  New,  one  single  passage  indicating  any  such  thing. 

As  I  intend  to  occupy  a  part  of  this  day  in  answering  minor  matters, 
having  nothing  else,  indeed,  to  answer,  I  will  now,  in  order  that  you,  may 
have  the  whole  subject  before  you,  read  a  passage  from  Gal.  iii.  accom- 
panied with  a  remark  or  two.  I  do  it  rather  to  exhibit  the  unfortunate 
obliquities  in  the  reasoning  of  my  opponent,  than  because  of  the  validity 
of  the  argument,  or  the  importance  of  the  point  in  issue ;  for  I  had  rather 
charge  it  to  an  unhappy  obliquity,  than  to  any  disposition  on  his  part  to 
sophisticate  or  interpolate  the  sacred  text.  My  friend  says  "  the  law  was 
added  to  the  covenant."  But  the  apostle  does  not  happen  to  say  so.  It 
is  not  so  written  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the  New.  I  have  the  Bible 
before  me,  and  I  say  the  law  was  not  added  to  the  covenant.  "It  was 
added  to  the  pro7nise.^^  Now  this  promise  had  reference  to  a  single 
point — that  of  possessing  the  land  of  Canaan.  It  was  not  added  to  the 
covenant,  for  that  would  be  to  add  the  law  to  itself,  or  a  covenant  to  itself. 
The  argument  proves  this  beyond  a  doubt.  Need  I  show  that  the  Jews 
never  inherited  Canaan  by,  or  in  consequence  of,  their  own  works  ? 
They  were  on  their  way  to  the  promised  inheritance  before  the  law  was 
promulged.  Therefore,  the  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  inheritance. 
The  law,  indeed,  was  added  to  the  promise,  concerning  the  inheritance. 
It  was  solemnly  covenanted  to  Abraham's  family  four  hundred  years  be- 
fore the  law  was  given.  Hence,  the  addition  of  the  law  gave  no  addi- 
tional right  to  the  inheritance.  "  For  if  the  inheritance  came  by  the  law," 
says  Paul,  "  it  is  no  more  of  promise."  But  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by 
promise.  The  addition  of  the  law  was,  therefore,  for  a  different  purpose, 
for  reasons  stated  by  the  apostle. 

I  now  design  requesting  your  especial  attention  to  a  passage  in  Gal.  iv.; 
I  shall  read  it :  "  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth  again  until 
Christ  be  formed  in  you,  I  desire  to  be  present  with  you  now,  and  to 
change  my  voice  ;  for  I  stand  in  doubt  of  you.  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire 
to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  law  ?  For  it  is  written,  that  Abra- 
ham had  two  sons,  the  one  by  a  bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free  woman. 
But  he  who  was  of  the  bond-woman  was  born  after  the  flesh."  My  friend 
asks  for  a  repudiation  of  the  old  covenant,  and  infant  membership.  I  in- 
tend to  assist  him  with  an  argument  from  this  passage.  Here  is  the 
first  point  in  the  argument :  "  But  he  Avho  was  born  of  the  free  woman 
was  by  promise."  Here,  then,  are  two  births  ;  the  one  by  virtue  of  the 
flesh,  the  other  by  virtue  of  a  promise.  Now,  says  Paul,  these  things  are 
an  allegory.  "  For  these  are  the  two  covenants  ;  the  one  from  the  Mount 
Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar ;  for  this  Agar  is 
Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which  now  is,  and  is 
in  bondage  with  her  children.     But  Jerusalem,  which  is  above,  is  free, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  33I 

which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.  For  it  is  written,  "  Rejoice,  thou  barren, 
that  bearest  not ;  break  forth  and  cry,  thou  that  travailest  not ;  for  the  de- 
solate hath  many  more  children  than  she  which  hath  an  husband.  Now 
we,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise.  But  as,  then, 
he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh,  persecuted  him  that  was  born  after  the 
spirit,  even  so  it  is  now.  Nevertheless,  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Cast 
out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son ;  for  the  son  of  the  bond-woman  shall 
not  be  heir  with  the  son  of  the  free  woman.  So  then,  brethren,  we  are 
not  children  of  the  bond-woman,  but  of  the  free." 

That  I  may  place  the  precept  of  repudiation  fairly  before  you,  and  con- 
clusively show  that  the  children  of  the  flesh  are  no  longer  "  counted  for 
the  seed"  I  shall  require  your  particular  attention  to  an  analysis  of  this 
much  neglected  passage.  The  four  principal  tropes  in  this  allegory  are 
Hagar,  Ishmael,  Sarah,  Isaac,  a  sort  of  dramatis  personse,  were  it  a  sce- 
netic  representation.  These  two  women  represent  two  covenants — the 
consummated  covenants  of  which  I  have  spoken  ;  the  one  from  Horeb, 
the  other  from  Jerusalem.  The  two  sons  of  one  father,  Abraham,  repre- 
sent the  children  of  the  two  covenants  ;  Ishmael  the  Jews,  and  Isaac  the 
christians.  Now,  the  question  is,  in  how  many  points  do  the  two  women 
represent  the  two  covenants,  and  the  two  sons  the  two  kinds  of  children 
under  these  institutions  ?  They  represent  them  in  the  four  following  par- 
ticulars :  1.  In  the  conception  of  their  offspring.  Hagar's  was  wa^Mra/, 
Sarah's  was  supernatural.  Hagar  was  a  young  woman,  Sarah  was  sup- 
erannuated ;  and,  as  Paul  says,  as  "  good  as  dead."  Hence  the  births,  or 
offspring,  were  essentially  different.  That  of  Hagar  was  according  to 
the  Jlesh,  that  of  Sarah  according  to  the  spirit.  The  birth  of  Ishmael 
was  natural,  that  of  Isaac  was  as  much  above  nature,  as  the  conception 
of  the  Messiah,  on  the  part  of  Mary,  was  supernatural,  in  one  point  of 
view. 

2.  In  the  condition  of  their  offspring.  Hagar  was  a  slave,  and  Sarah  a 
free  woman.  Now  the  issue  always  follows  the  mother,  when  contem- 
plated according  to  property.  If  the  mother  he  free  the  offspring  is  free — 
if  a  slave,  her  oflispring  is  a  slave.  Hence  Ishmael  was  a  slave,  and  Isaac 
was  free  born. 

3.  In  the  spirit  of  their  offspring.  Not  only  in  personal  freedom,  as 
respected  condition,  but  in  the  spirit  of  freedom.  There  is  a  free,  gener- 
ous, noble,  and  magnanimous  spirit ;  and  there  is  a  slavish,  low,  and 
mean  spirit,  which  is  homogenous  with  the  condition.  Isaac  was  do- 
cile, pious,  and  elevated  above  the  flesh — a  spiritual  man.  Ishmael  was 
selfish,  envious,  and  rude — an  animal  man. 

4.  In  the  inheritance  of  their  oflspring.  Hagar  had  no  property,  not 
being  the  proper  wife  of  Abraham.  She  had  only  a  slave's  portion- 
bread  and  water.  Hence  a  loaf  of  bread  and  a  bottle  of  water  constituted 
her  whole  fortune,  and  Ishmael's  inheritance.  But  Isaac  was  an  only 
son  of  his  mother,  and  also  in  the  marriage  covenant.  He  was  the  only 
child  of  Abraham  by  Sarah,  and  the  rightful  heir  of  his  vast  estate.  But 
in  one  point  of  comparison,  under  the  allegory,  the  contrast  is  most  strik- 
ing, viz.  the  casting  out  of  the  bond-woman  and  her  son,  and  the  perpe- 
tual enjoyment  of  the  inheritance  at  home,  by  Isaac. 

We  now  have  sufficient  specifications  and  dates,  not  only  to  give  a  clear 
and  unambiguous  precept  of  that  precise  meaning,  sought  after  by  Mr. 
Rice,  but  also  to  sanction,  as  well  as  to  illustrate,  and  even  farther  develop, 
the  views  and  conceptions  given  on  this  proposition.   There  are,  then,  two 


332  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

church  covenants.  The  two  women,  says  Paul,  are  the  "  two  covC' 
nants.^^  These,  then,  are  well  defined  covenants.  The  one  is  from 
Mount  Sinai — "Agar  in  Arabia,"  the  Jewish  church  covenant  beyond  a 
doubt;  the  other  is  from  "Jerusalem  above,"  the  new  christian  constitu- 
tion or  covenant,  first  promulged  and  sealed  in  Jerusalem.  "  This  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood,"  said  Jesus  in  Jerusalem.  Hence  the  "  word 
of  the  Lord  went  forth  from  Jerusalem  "  to  all  the  world.  The  christian 
church  is  married  to  the  Lord,  through  this  new  covenant,  as  certainly  as 
the  Jewish  church  was  by  the  former  covenant.  "I  was  an  husband  to 
you,"  says  the  Lord. 

Need  I  farther  show,  that  the  children  of  Israel,  compared  to  Ishmael, 
were,  as  church  members,  only  '^  born  of  the  flesh?"  Is  it  not  indis- 
putable 1  Paul  says,  the  first  covenant  children  Avere  born  "  after  the 
FLESH,"  and  the  second  covenant  children  are  born  "  o/Ver  ^/ie  Spirit." 
This  single  passage,  this  most  graphic  allegory,  these  most  appropriate 
tropes  and  images,  it  seems,  go  all  the  length  and  breadth  of  my  views 
of  the  proposition  now  before  us.  While  we  have,  in  our  Testaments, 
this  illustration  of  the  objects  of  the  two  institutions,  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian, my  friend's  notions  of  church  identity  and  infant  membership,  found- 
ed on  ancient  covenants,  have  not  one  inch  of  ground.  Old  Testament 
or  New. 

The  two  principles  oi  flesh  and  Spirit,  natural  and  supernatural  birth, 
are  now  clearly  shown  to  be  the  diflerential  character  of  the  two  institu- 
tions. We  have,  then,  two  communities,  under  two  very  distinct  consti- 
tutions, of  very  diflerent  spirit,  character,  and  circumstances.  On  these 
we  have  no  time  to  expatiate.  He  that  vi^as  born  after  the  flesh  perse- 
cuted him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit,  is,  however,  a  point  so  promi- 
nently characteristic  of  the  two  communities,  as  to  be  worthy  of  notice. 
It  occasioned  the  rejection  of  Ishmael  from  the  privileges  of  Abraham's 
family,  and  elicited  that  identical  precept  for  which  Mr.  R.  inquires — 
"Cast  out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son,"  "for  the  son  of  the  bond- 
woman shall  not  inherit  with  the  son  of  the  free  woman."  "  So  then," 
says  Paul,  "brethren,  we  are  children,  not  of  the  bond-woman,  but  of 
the  free."  Christians  are  under  a  new  covenant,  have  a  new  spirit,  and 
are  heirs  of  a  better  inheritance  than  that  of  the  old  covenant. 

Abraham,  the  prince  and  distinguished  patriarch,  was  called  upon,  by 
Divine  authority,  to  hearken  to  Sarah  and  cast  out  the  bond-woman  and 
her  son.  That  a  king,  so  rich  in  gold  and  silver,  in  flocks,  and  herds, 
and  servants ;  so  generous  too,  should  have  given  her  no  more  for  her- 
self and  her  son,  than  one  loaf  of  bread  and  one  bottle  of  water,  is  not 
to  be  explained  upon  any  other  principle  than  that  God  intended  it  to  be 
an  allegoric  representation  of  the  difference  between  these  two  covenants ; 
two  births,  two  spirits,  two  characters,  two  inheritances,  as  well  as  a  sol- 
emn warning  to  those  who  will  cleave  to  the  letter  rather  than  to  the 
Spirit — to  the  Old  Testament  rather  than  to  the  New. 

Let  him,  then,  who  will  be  under  that  covenant,  follow  Hagar  into  the 
desert.  Let  him  contemplate  her,  poor  and  homeless,  parched  with  thirst, 
without  bread,  her  son  almost  dying  under  a  shrub  for  lack  of  the  com- 
forts of  life — let  him  listen  to  her  complaints,  and  survey  her  wretched 
condition,  and  ask  why  all  this  suffering,  almost  under  the  eye  of  Abra- 
ham. And  when  he  learns  that  all  this  happened  for  an  example  to  those 
who  will  cleave  to  the  old  order  of  things  rather  than  to  the  new,  and 
seek  to  confound  and  identify  things  which  God  has  separated,  let  him 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  333 

at  once  desist  from  a  course  of  action  so  dishonorable  to  the  Divine  wis- 
dom, and  so  fatal  to  himself. 

The  gentleman  has  now  the  precept  sought,  and  I  feel  that  my  pledge  is 
redeemed.  And  should  he  ask  for  a  second,  he  shall  have  it  as  soon  as 
he  shall  have  disposed  of  this  allegory,  and  the  argument  deduced  from 
it.  I  presume,  however,  that  this  will  be  so  satisfactory  to  him,  that  he 
will  not  ask  for  another,  pending  the  present  proposition. 

I  wish  the  gendeman  would  dipense  with  the  sowing  of  assertions  in 
this  broad-cast  style,  and  make  an  issue  upon  some  point  or  other.  He 
may  have  the  allegory,  or  the  covenants,  or  the  identity,  if  he  will  only 
debate  them.  I  will  risk  my  cause  upon  such  an  issue.  In  this  way  of 
scattering  assertions,  no  opportunity  is  afforded  to  test  or  decide  any  thing. 
A  person  of  very  little  address  can  assert  more  in  half  an  hour,  than  he 
can  prove  in  an  age. 

Mr.  R.  argues  that  the  Jewish  and  christian  churches  are  identical. 
But  he  seems  to  confound  similarity  and  identity.  They  are,  indeed, 
very  different  predicaments.  There  is  some  similarity  between  a  man 
and  a  tree — but  much  more  between  a  man  and  a  monkey,  yet  they  are 
not  identical,  [a  laugh.]  He  argues  for  the  identity  of  the  church,  and 
its  rights  of  membership  in  all  ages.  But  when  I  asked  him  for  the 
door  by  which  infants  entered  during  the  first  2000  years,  he  could  not 
tell,  but  concluded  that  if  I  should  tell  how  adults  entered  he  might  then 
find  a  door  for  infants.  Well,  I  will  now  try.  Adults  entered  God's 
church,  so  far  as  he  had  any  on  earth,  during  the  first  4000  years,  by 
faith  and  obedience,  or  if  he  prefer  the  phrase,  by  an  active  and  operative 
belief  of  God's  testimonies  and  promises. 

A  beautiful  passage  in  Isaiah,  in  prospect  of  the  calling  of  the  gentiles, 
seems  clearly  to  refer  to  this  transaction.  It  was  designed  to  show  that 
finally  the  children  of  Sarah  would  greatly  outnumber  those  of  Hagar : 
that  is,  that  the  spiritual  children  of  Sarah  and  Abraham  would  incompar- 
ably transcend  their  fleshly  progeny.  I  shall  paraphrase  as  I  read  it.  It 
immediately  follows  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  foretold  in  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  is  here  quoted  and  applied  by  Paul  to  the  offspring 
of  Sarah.  "  Rejoice,  thou  barren,  (Sarah)  that  bearest  not ;  break  forth 
and  cry,  thou  that  travailest  not,  for  the  desolate  (deserted  for  Hagar)  has 
many  more  children  than  she  (Hagar)  who  had  a  (Sarah's)  husband." 
Hence  we  boast  of  Sarah,  the  mother  of  us  all. 

I  will  give  you  a  sample  of  his  argument  for  identity.  He  says  that 
the  .Tewish  and  Chrisuan  churches  are  the  same,  because  they  have  the 
same  moral  code.  Massachusetts  colony  for  a  time  adopted  the  law  of 
Moses  for  her  law.  Was  Massachusetts  and  the  Jewish  church,  there- 
fore, identical  ?  They  have,  also,  adopted  the  same  code  of  morality  in 
Kentucky :  but  is  this  commonwealth  and  the  chrisUan  church  identical  ? 
Upon  that  principle,  Free  Masonry  and  Christianity  are  identical ;  because 
they  have  adopted  something  in  common. 

But  again — the  same  God  reigns  over  both  churches.  Does  not  the 
same  God  reign  over  Kentucky  and  Jerusalem  ?  The  same  God  reigns  over 
the  Ottoman  empire  and  the  United  States ;  are  they,  therefore,  the 
same  people  ?  He  also  argues  die  identity  of  the  ancient  and  modern 
churches,  because  they  have  the  same  gospel.  But  this  is  noi  strictly 
true  :  they  have  not  the  same  gospel,  unless  upon  the  principle,  that  France 
and  England  have  the  same  language,  because  they  have  the  same  alpha- 
bet.    The  christian  gospel  is  not  that  the  Messiah  is  to  come;  yet  that 


334  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

was  the  Jewish  gospel.  Paul  calls  the  promise  concerning  Canaan,  a 
gospel — so  says  Dr.  McKnight — just  as  we  have  a  gospel  concerning  a 
rest  in  heaven.  We  have,  then,  two  gospels:  the  one  earthly,  fleshly; 
the  other,  heavenly.  My  friend  says  that  both  churches  have  the  same 
ordinances.  I  should  like  to  see  him  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  ordinances  are  the  same.  Is  baptism  and  circumcision 
identical  ?  Is  the  passover  and  Lord's  supper  identical  ?  He  says  they 
have  the  same  king.  Not  exactly  the  same  king  !  Messiah  is  now  king. 
All  power  and  authority  in  this  universe,arenowin  his  hands.  It  was  not 
so  in  the  Jewish  church.  There  was  a  change  in  the  government  when 
the  Messiah  was  exalted.  Who  was  it  that  placed  the  crown  upon  the  head 
of  the  exalted  Messiah  ?  Who  placed  him  upon  the  throne,  and  said, 
"  Reign  in  the  midst  of  thine  enemies?"  It  was  that  God  that  governed 
the  Jews — the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob.  But  he  made 
Jesus  Christ  the  rightful  Sovereign  over  heaven  and  earth ;  over  all  au- 
thorities, principalities,  and  powers.  Peter  said,  "  Let  all  the  house  of 
Israel  know  that  Jesus  is  Lord  and  Christ."  Therefore,  it  is  not  strictly 
true,  that  the  government  is  in  the  same  person,  and  in  the  same  hands 
now,  that  administered  it  during  the  Jewish  theocracy.  Jesus  was  not 
then  born,  much  less  king.  My  friend  says,  the  Mediator  is  the  same. 
Moses  was  the  mediator  between  God  and  the  people.  Gal.  iii.  19, 
"  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added  because  of  transgres- 
sions, till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  was  made ;  and  it 
was  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator."  In  the  hand  of  the 
mediator,  Moses.  Is  Moses  and  the  Messiah  the  same  ?  Paul  to  the 
Hebrews,  says,  "  Having  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry  than  Moses 
and  Aaron,  he  is  the  mediator  of  a  better  covenant." 

Christ's  church  is  a  spiritual  community — a  community  of  persons  in- 
telligent, believing,  loving,  fearing  and  serving  God  in  the  hope  of  eternal 
life.  They  are  possessed,  every  one,  of  God's  Spirit,  else  they  are  not 
his.  The  church  is  the  temple,  the  house  of  the  living  God,  the  dwelling 
place  of  the  Most  High.  It  is  not  a  community  of  speechless  babes  and 
carnal,  sensual  men.  Its  members  are  all  born  again,  born  of  the  Spirit, 
born  of  God. 

I  have  one  question  to  ask,  itself  a  full  refutation  of  the  assumed  iden- 
tity of  the  two  institutions,  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian.  Was  not  Nic- 
odemus  a  proper,  an  honorable,  an  official  member  of  Mr.  Rice's  Jewish 
identical  christian  church?  And  did  not  the  Master  say  to  him — Nico- 
demus,  unless  you,  sir,  "  are  born  again" — or  from  above,  "  you  cannot 
enter  into  my  kingdom,  or  church,  as  almost  universally  understood? 
Did  not  John  the  Baptist  come  preaching  the  necessity  of  faith,  repent- 
ance, and  baptism,  to  the  Jewish  people  ;  even  to  prepare  tliem  for  admis- 
sion into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Did  not  John  tell  the  Jews  that  Abra- 
hamic  descent  would  now  profit  nothing ;  that  they  must  not  think  that, 
having  Abraham  to  be  their  father,  would  avail  any  thing,  without  a  new 
faith,  a  real  reformation — a  new  birth  ? 

I  have  shown  that  some  six  or  seven  of  his  points  have  no  identity.  I 
would  be  willing  to  rest  the  whole  controversy  upon  his  ability  to  make 
them  out  points  of  identity.  If,  now,  he  will  stake  the  whole  case  upon 
a  thorough  syllogistic  canvassing  of  identity,  I  will  meet  him  upon  that 
single  question.     I  predict  that  he  will  not  do  it. 

As  I  have  said  before,  I  am  willing  to  take  any  number  of  points.  It 
is  his  method  to  say  that  he  has  proved,  or  will  prove  so  and  so  ;  but 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  335 

there  is  not  much  light,  conviction,  or  evidence  in  such  promises  and  as- 
sertions. I  will  show,  at  the  proper  time,  as  I  have  already  in  part,  that 
the  churches  are  not  at  all  identical,  even  in  his  own  specifications  ;  that 
in  his  examples,  he  has  failed  to  prove  any  identity  ;  nay,  I  have  showed 
that  they  had  not  the  same  constitution  ;  that  they  had  not  the  same  laws, 
came  subjects,  same  observances,  same  promises,  &;c.  &c. 

How  much  better  is  Presbyterian  flesh  and  blood  than  Jewish — than 
Roman  Catholic  flesh  and  blood  ?  Why  should  Protestants  demand  for 
their  flesh  and  blood,  what  they  would  not  extend  to  a  Jew,  a  Mussul- 
man, or  a  pagan  ?  "  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men," 
Why  prefer  one  child  of  the  flesh  to  another — baptize  one  and  repudiate 
another ! ! 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  New  Testament  begins  with  a  repudia- 
tion of  national  and  fleshly  descent,  of  all  family  aristocracies  in  religion. 
♦'  Think  not,  men  of  Israel,  to  say  that  you  have  a  covenanted  father 
Abraham  !"  A  proclamation  of  repentance  is  made  to  all  men.  Did  they 
not  baptize  all  the  circumcised  Jews  that  repented  ?  What  comes  of  cir- 
cumcision as  the  door  now?  Two  doors  into  Christ's  house  ! !  one  by 
circumcision  and  one  by  baptism.  This  is  an  insuperable  argument 
against  identity.     No  man  can  dispose  of  it. 

There  is,  indeed,  but  one  door  into  the  world,  and  but  one  door  into 
Christ's  church.  There  is  no  back  nor  side  door  into  either.  Men  can- 
not cut  doors  into  Christ's  house  just  when  and  where  they  please.  Re- 
member, the  King  himself  has  said,  "  Ye  must  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit."  You  must  repent,  and  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentance. 
You  must  come  to  him,  believe  on  him,  receive  him,  or  he  will  not  give 
you  the  privilege  of  becoming  children  of  God.  So  John  the  Harbinger, 
the  Messiah  himself,  and  his  apostles,  preached  to  the  Jewish  church,  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel. — [^Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 11  o'clock,^.  M 
[mr.  rice's  fifth  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  decidedly  object  to  Mr.  Campbell's  quotation  from 
Calvin,  for  two  important  reasons.  1st.  He  has  given  part  of  a  sentence 
without  its  connection  ;  and  2d.  The  part  he  has  given  is  very  incorrect- 
ly translated,  so  as  to  make  the  impression  that  Calvin  claims  for  the 
church  the  authority  to  change  the  ordinances  appointed  by  Christ ;  when 
in  truth  he  only  maintains  that  the  mode  was  not  prescribed. 

So  far  as  the  gentleman's  side  of  the  question  is  concerned,  it  may 
be  true,  that  there  has  been  no  debating.  Such  is  certainly  the  fact,  if 
by  debating  be  understood  the  making  of  a  fair  issue  on  the  points  in 
controversy.  I  think  it  likely  that  many  will  be  of  opinion  that  he  has 
left  my  most  important  arguments  untouched.  He  would  fain  have  me 
confine  myself  to  some  few  points.  It  would,  no  doubt,  be  of  great  ser- 
vice to  his  cause,  if  he  could  exclude  a  large  portion  of  the  evidence 
bearing  on  the  question.  I  prefer,  however,  concentrating,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, the  whole  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  relative  to  it,  and  if  he  fails  to 
answer  my  arguments,  I  cannot  help  it. 

He  tells  you  that  I  am  throwing  dust  in  your  eyes,  by  using  the  word 
children  instead  of  infants.  Does  he  really  believe  that  any  one,  even  the 
most  ignorant,  misunderstood  me  1  The  genfleman,  who  does  not  speak 
for  present  effect,  seems  to  think  that  the  audience  cannot  understand  me. 
I  am,  however,  disposed  to  presume  somewhat  upon  their  intelligence. 


336  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

He  calls  on  me  to  show  where  the  children  of  believers  were  put  into 
the  church  under  the  new  dispensation.  But  I  call  on  him  to  prove  that 
the  new  dispensation  has  put  them  out.  I  have  put  them  into  the  only 
church  that  ever  did  exist  on  the  earth  ;  and  let  hira  prove,  if  he  can,  that 
the  passing  away  of  the  ceremonial  law  did  put  them  out.  If  he  cannot 
do  this,  (and  I  say,  he  cannot,)  he  must  let  them  still  enjoy  their  privi- 
leges. 

The  law,  my  friend  says,  was  not  added  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant ; 
but  to  the  promise  with  reference  to  the  land  of  Canaan.  Yesterday  I 
thouglit  he  had  three  covenants,  and  that  this  was  one  of  them.  Let  me 
turn  to  the  Scripture  (Gal.  iii.)  which  he  read  upon  the  subject.  The  fact  is, 
that  Paul  does  not  mention  the  land  of  Canaan  in  this  whole  chapter.  He 
is  writing  against  false  teachers,  who  sought  to  be  justified  by  the  deeds 
of  law ;  and  he  proves  that  even  Abraham  did  not  pretend  to  be  justified 
by  the  law,  but  by  faith  ;  that  he  is  introducing  no  new  doctrine,  but  is 
teaching  that  which  was  believed  by  the  father  of  the  faithful  himself. 
Gal.  iii.  11  :  "  But  that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  law,  in  the  sight  of 
God,  is  evident ;  for  the  just  shall  live  by  faith.  And  the  law  is  not  of 
faith  ;  but  the  man  that  doeth  them  [the  deeds  of  the  law]  shall  live  in 
them."  Verse  13  :  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law;  being  made  a  curse  for  us  :  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree  :  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  through  faith."  Does  this  prove  that  Paul  was  speaking  of  the 
land  of  Canaan  ?  So  far  from  it,  the  apostle  is  teaching,  that  we  receive 
not  only  justification,  but  a  promise  of  the  Spirit,  through  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  according  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  But  I  will  read  a  lit- 
tle farther  :  verse  15:  "Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men  ; 
though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man  disan- 
nuUeth  or  addeth  thereto."  Again,  verse  16:  "  Now  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  of 
many;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ."  Compare  with 
this  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  in  the  Heb.  xi.  8 :  "  By  faith,  Abraham 
when  he  was  called  to  go  out  into  a  place  which  he  should  after  receive 
for  an  inheritance,  obeyed  ;  and  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither  he 
went.  By  faith  he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange 
country,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him 
of  the  same  promise:  for  he  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations, 
whose  builder  and  maker  is  God."  This  was  the  bright  inheritance  to 
which  Abraham  and  his  children  were  looking.  Again,  Gal.  iii.  19  : 
"  Wherefore,  then,  serveth  the  law  ?  it  was  added  because  of  transgres- 
sions ;  till  the  seed  [Christ]  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made."  The  law  was  added — added  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which 
is  the  subject  of  Paul's  whole  discourse.  The  land  of  Canaan  is  not 
once  mentioned  in  the  epistle.  The  law  at  Sinai  was,  therefore,  neither 
the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  church,  nor  an  addition,  simply,  to  the 
promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  but  an  addition  to  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, made  for  a  specific  purpose,  till  Christ  should  come. 

I  am  quite  pleased,  that  the  gentleman  has  introduced  the  passage  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians;  for  it  establishes  most  con- 
clusively the  very  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending.  I  will  read  from 
the  twentieth  verse : 

"  I  desire  to  be  present  with  you  now,  and  to  change  my  voice ;  for  I 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  337 

stand  in  doubt  of  you.  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye 
not  hear  the  law  T  For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had  two  sons  ;  the  one 
by  a  bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free  woman.  But  he  who  was  born  of  the 
bond-woman  was  born  after  the  flesh  ;  but  he  of  the  free  \voman  was  by 
promise.  Which  things  are  an  allegory  ;  for  these  are  the  two  covenants  ; 
the  one  from  the  Mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar. 
For  this  Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which 
now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is  from 
above  is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.  For  it  is  written.  Rejoice  thou 
barren  that  bearest  not ;  break  forth  and  cry,  thou  that  travailest  not :  for  the 
desolate  hath  many  more  children  than  she  which  hath  a  husband.  Now 
we,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise.  But  as  then  he 
that  was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted  him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit, 
even  so  it  is  now.  Nevertheless,  what  saith  the  Scripture  !  Cast  out  the 
bond-woman  and  her  son  :  for  the  son  of  the  bond-woman  shall  not  be  heir 
with  the  son  of  the  free  woman.  So  then,  brethren,  we  are  not  children  of 
the  bond-woman,  but  of  the  free." 

Here  we  have  distinctly  presented,  the  two  covenants ;  the  one  with 
Abraham,  which  is  represented  by  Sarah  and  Isaac;  and  the  other  at 
Sinai,  represented  by  Agar  and  Ishmael.  The  Jews  who  clung  to  the 
law  given  at  Sinai,  as  a  temporary  addition  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
and  rejected  the  Messiah  promised  in  that  covenant,  were  in  bondage. 
Christ  "came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not."  The  glorious 
Redeemer,  the  seed  promised  to  Abraham,  had  appeared  in  Judea ;  but 
the  great  body  of  the  Jews  rejected  him,  and  turned  to  seek  justification 
and  salvation  in  the  types  and  shadows  of  the  Levitical  law.  They, 
in  consequence  of  their  apostasy  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  were  in 
bondage.  Yet  the  promised  Messiah  was  not  rejected  by  all  the  Jews. 
The  olive-tree  still  had  some  living  branches.  The  great  majority  were 
broken  off  because  of  unbelief;  but  many  who  received  the  Divine  Sa- 
vior, remained.  Those  who  despised  him  and  trusted  in  the  law,  were 
cut  off;  as  Agar  and  Ishmael  were  removed  from  Abraham's  family. 
Those  who  received  him,  still  constituted  his  church,  the  Jerusalem  which 
is  from  above,  the  mother  of  us  all. 

That  such  is  the  true  meaning .  of  the  passage,  is  made  perfectly  clear 
by  the  quotation  given  by  the  apostle  from  Isaiah  liv.  1.  I  will  read  sev- 
eral verses,  that  the  connection  may  be  understood: — "  Sing,  O  barren, 
thou  that  didst  not  bear  ;  break  forth  into  singing,  and  cry  aloud,  thou  that 
didst  not  travail  with  child :  for  more  are  the  children  of  the  desolate, 
than  the  children  of  the  married  wife,  saith  the  Lord.  Enlarge  the  place 
of  thy  tent,  and  let  them  stretch  forth  the  curtains  of  thine  habitations : 
spare  not,  lengthen  thy  cords,  and  strengthen  thy  stakes :  for  thou  shalt 
break  forth  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left ;  and  thy  seed  shall  inherit 
the  gentiles,  and  make  the  desolate  cities  to  be  inhabited.  Fear  not,  for 
thou  shalt  not  be  ashamed :  neither  be  thou  confounded,  for  thou  shalt 
not  be  put  to  shame :  for  thou  shalt  forget  the  shame  of  thy  youth,  and 
shalt  not  remember  the  reproach  of  thy  widowhood  any  more." 

I  was  somewhat  amused  to  hear  the  gentleman  quote  this  prophecy  as 
an  address  to  Sarah — Rejoice,  0  barren  Sarah  !  Whence  he  derives  his 
authority  for  this  singular  interpretation,  I  know  not,  unless  he  considers 
Sarah  the  church.  God  did  not  represent  himself  as  the  husband  of  Sa- 
rah, but  as  the  husband  of  the  church. 

This  prophecy  is  certainly  addressed  to  the  church  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation. It  was  intended  to  comfort  her  in  a  period  of  prevailing 
wickedness,  and  approaching  calamity,  by  pointing  her  to  a  brighter  day 
22  2F 


338  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

in  her  future  history — a  day  when  her  children  should  be  greatly  multi- 
plied, and  she  should  infierit  the  gentiles. 

Here  is  an  unanswerable  argument  for  the  identity  of  the  church  under 
the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensations.  For  if,  as  Mr.  Campbell  contends, 
the  Jewish  church  ceased  to  exist  as  the  church  of  God,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  new  dispensation  ;  I  call  on  him  to  tell  us  when  these  prom- 
ises were  fulfilled.  When  did  the  Jewish  church,  to  which  they  were 
addressed,  lengthen  her  cords  and  strengthen  her  stakes  ?  When  did  she 
inherit  the  gentiles?  When  did  she  rejoice  in  the  multitude  of  her  chil- 
dren ?  It  is  certain  that  these  promises  were  never  fulfilled  under  the  old 
dispensation  ;  and  if  the  christian  church  is  not  the  same  church  under 
another  dispensation,  they  never  have  been,  and  never  can  be  fulfilled! 
When  the  apostles  went  forth  to  proclaim  to  the  gentiles  "  the  unsearch- 
able riches  of  Christ ; "  when  "  the  middle  wall  of  partition "  was 
broken  down ;  then  it  was  that  the  church,  which  had  for  centuries  been 
oppressed  and  afHicted,  began  to  lengthen  her  cords  and  strengthen  her 
stakes,  and  to  receive  the  gentiles  as  her  children.  I  am  gratified  that 
the  gentleman  turned  our  attention  to  this  most  interesting  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture. We  here  find  promises,  great  and  precious,  made  to  the  church  in 
the  days  of  Isaiah,  which  received  their  fulfillment  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation. Thus  we  have  evidence,  the  most  conclusive,  that  the  church 
is  the  same  under  both  dispensations. 

The  identity  of  the  church  under  the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensa- 
tions, is  also  clearly  proved  by  the  prophecies,  in  the  60th  chapter  of 
Isaiah  :  "  Arise,  shine,  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is 
risen  upon  thee.  For,  behold,  the  darkness  shall  cover  the  earth,  and 
gross  darkness  the  people :  but  the  Lord  shall  arise  upon  thee,  and  his 
glory  shall  be  seen  upon  thee.  And  the  gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light, 
and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising." 

When  did  the  gentiles  come  to  the  light  of  the  Jewish  church  ?  When 
did  kings  come  to  the  brightness  of  her  rising?  Was  it  under  the  old 
dispensation  ?  No :  it  was  when  the  gospel  went  forth  in  triumph  and 
glory,  from  nation  to  nation,  and  gathered  its  thousands  into  the  church 
of  the  Redeemer.  Then  it  was  that  the  gentiles  came  to  the  brightness 
of  her  rising.  Then  kings  shut  their  mouths,  for  that  which  they  had 
not  heard,  was  told  them. 

Again,  ver.  4 :  "  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about  and  see :  all  they 
gather  themselves  together,  they  come  to  thee :  thy  sons  shall  come  from 
far,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be  nursed  at  thy  side.  Then  thou  shalt  see, 
and  flow  together,  and  thy  heart  shall  fear,  and  be  enlarged  ;  because  the 
abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be  converted  unto  thee,  the  forces  of  the  gen- 
tiles shall  come  unto  thee." 

Now,  when  was  the  abundance  of  the  sea  converted  to  the  Jewish 
church  ?  and  when  did  the  gentiles  pour  into  it?  Here  are  promises  that 
could  not  be  fulfilled  under  the  Old  Testament.  The  christian  church, 
therefore,  is  the  same  which  received  the  promises  ;  or  if  not,  God  made 
promises  that  never  were  and  never  can  be  fulfilled  ! 

I  might  read  the  whole  of  this  chapter ;  but  allow  me  only  to  read  the 
verse  10:  "And  the  sons  of  strangers  shall  build  up  thy  walls,  and  their 
kings  shall  minister  unto  thee:  for  in  my  wrath  I  smote  thee,  but  in  my 
favor  have  I  had  mercy  on  thee."  Did  the  sons  of  strangers  (gentiles) 
ever  build  up  the  walls  of  Jerusalem?  Were  these  promises  ever  fulfilled 
to  the  church  ?     Never^  never :  unless  the  christian  church  is  identical 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  339 

with  the  Jewish.  And  certainly  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  church 
which  received  the  promises,  lived  to  see  their  fulfillment.  My  friend  has 
told  us,  that  Christ's  church  is  a  spiritual  church.  I  admit  that  it  is  a 
spiritual  church,  and  so  was  the  Jewish  church  intended  to  be  spiritual. 
Hence  no  adult  ever  entered  into  it,  according  to  God's  law,  without  pro- 
fessing to  be  a  believer ;  and  its  members  were  required  to  worship  God 
in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Nicodemus  was  not  a  worthy  member  of  that 
church. 

My  friend  says,  that  before  the  new  dispensation,  repentance  was  not 
preached.  David  said,  "  A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt 
not  despise."  God,  speaking  by  Isaiah,  said,  "  To  this  man  will  I  look, 
even  to  him  that  is  poor  and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  trerableth  at  my 
word."  What  did  Isaiah  say — 54th  chapter?  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake 
his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts :  and  let  him  return  unto 
the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will 
abundantly  pardon."  Were  not  repentance  and  reformation  then  taught 
as  conditions  of  salvation? 

I  will  answer,  very  briefly,  if  I  have  time,  some  of  my  friend's  further 
remarks.  In  relation  to  the  church  for  two  thousand  years  before  Abra- 
ham, he  asks,  if  there  was  a  church,  how  did  infants  get  in?  He  asserts 
that  adults  entered  by  faith.  I  desire  the  proof  of  this :  I  call  for  the 
proof  that  faith,  before  the  days  of  Abraham,  ever  constituted  an  individ- 
ual a  member  of  the  visible  church.  That  there  were  many  pious  people, 
and  that  they  exercised  faith,  is  certainly  true  ;  but  did  faith  constitute 
them  members  of  a  visible  church  ?  The  gentleman  cannot  find  a  church 
of  God,  in  which  the  children  of  believers  did  not  enjoy  the  same  privi- 
leges granted  to  believers,  so  far  as  they  were  capable.  If  he  will  show 
how  adults  entered  a  visible  church,  before  the  time  of  Abraham,  by  the 
Bible,  and  not  by  assertion,  I  will  attend  to  his  arguments. 

I  have  proved  that  the  church  is  the  same,  under  both  dispensations, 
from  the  fact,  that  she  receives  and  obeys  the  same  moral  laiv.  My 
friend  replies,  that  the  state  of  Kentucky  has  adopted  the  code  of  laws 
taught  by  Moses.  I  did  not  know  it;  and  I  very  much  doubt  whether 
the  state  of  Kentucky  professes  to  receive  and  obey  Moses'  law.  I  knew 
that  she  had  borrowed  a  great  deal  from  the  Bible  ;  but  that  she  had 
adopted  the  moral  law  of  God,  and  professed  to  be  governed  by  it,  is  one 
of  the  things  that  I  did  not  know.  I  am  equally  ignorant  of  the  fact,  if  it 
be  a  fact,  that  Massachusetts  ever  adopted  the  moral  law  as  a  rule  of  ac- 
tion. If  it  were  true,  however,  it  would  prove  that  there  is  a  sameness 
in  one  point. 

But,  the  gentleman  says,  if  I  had  maintained  that  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian churches  were,  in  many  respects,  similar,  he  would  have  admitted 
it.  I  said  precisely  what  I  meant,  and  what  is  literally  true.  Under  both 
dispensations  the  church  worships  and  serves  the  same  God — not  a  simi- 
lar God.  She  obeys  the  same  (not  a  simitar)  moral  law.  She  receives 
the  same  (not  a  similar)  gospel ;  and  she  enjoys  her  blessings  under  the 
same  (not  a  similar)  covenant.  I  am  not  speaking  of  similarities,  but  of 
identity. 

The  Free  Masons,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  have  adopted  the  moral  law. 
If  he  will  prove  that  there  are  as  many  and  as  important  points  of  same- 
ness between  the  Masons  and  the  christian  church,  as  I  have  shown  be- 
tween the  church  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  under  the  new,  I  will 
recognize  them  as  a  part  of  the  church  of  Christ.  But  he  will  not  at- 
tempt it. 


340  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

In  reply  to  the  fact  I  have  stated,  that  under  both  dispensations  the 
church  worships  and  serves  the  same  God,  he  says — the  same  God  reigns 
over  Kentucky  and  over  Jerusalem  !  Can  he  see  no  difference  between 
a  revolted  province  and  a  people  obedient  to  the  laws  of  their  sovereign  ? 
I  did  not  say,  simply,  that  the  same  God  controls  all  things,  under  both 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  6i<f  that  the  church  does,  in  fact,  wor- 
ship and  serve  the  same  God.  Do  not  all  the  nations  that  acknowledge 
the  queen  of  England  as  their  sovereign,  and  obey  the  laws  of  Great 
Britain,  constitute  one  kingdom,  even  though  oceans  roll  between  them  ? 
And  so  the  church  which  has,  in  all  ages,  worshiped  the  same  God, 
constitutes  one  spiritual  kingdom. 

Mr.  Campbell,  strangely  indeed,  denies  that  the  Jewish  church  had  the 
same  gospel,  any  more  than  France  and  England,  because  they  have  the 
same  alphabet,  have  the  same  language  !  Thus  he  flatly  contradicts  Paul, 
who  says,  the  gospel  was  preached  to  Abraham,  Gal.  iii.  8.  Again,  in  He- 
brews iv.  2,  he  says :  "  For  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached,  as  well  as 
unto  them  " — that  is,  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness.  But,  he  says,  the  gos- 
pel that  was  preached  to  them  was  \.\\epromise  of  Canaan.  Let  him  prove 
IT.  The  Greek  word  is  the  same  which,  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  used  to  denote  the  gospel  of  Christ;  and,  therefore,  it  devolves 
upon  him  to  prove,  that  in  this  instance,  it  has  an  uncommon  meaning — a 
meaning  it  has  not  in  another  instance  in  the  New  Testament. 

He  tells  you,  that  I  say,  the  church  has  the  same  ordinances  under  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  /  did  not  say  so.  On  the  contrary,  I  said 
precisely  the  opposite — that  the  ceremonial  law,  with  all  its  ordinances, 
has  passed  away,  and  given  place  to  a  few  simple  ordinances,  adapted  to 
the  extension  of  the  church  over  the  world.  What  could  he  have  been 
thinking  of? 

He  denies  that  the  church  under  both  dispensations  has  the  same  King  ! 
I  thought  there  was  but  one  true  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit !  He  denies,  too,  that  under  both  dispensations  the  church  had 
the  same  Mediator  !  and  he  tells  us,  Moses  was  mediator  under  the  Old 
Testament.  In  what  respect  was  he  mediator?  In  giving  the  law  Moses 
acted  as  a  daysman  between  God  and  the  people.  In  what  sense  was 
Christ  the  mediator  ?  He  stepped  between  offended  God  and  offending 
man  ;  and,  in  due  time,  laid  down  his  life  for  all  his  people,  in  all  ages, 
past  and  future.  Accordingly  Isaiah  says:  "AH  we,  like  sheep,  have 
gone  astray ;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  Christ  died  to  atone  for  the 
sins  of  those  who  lived  before,  as  well  as  of  those  who  should  live  after 
his  advent.  This  I  have  already  proved,  by  the  plain  declarations  of  Paul, 
in  Rom.  iii.  25,  and  Heb.  ix.  15.  Hence,  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  he 
is  spoken  of  as  "The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  It 
is,  therefore,  worse  than  vain  for  the  gentleman  to  deny,  that  under  both 
dispensations  the  church  has  worshiped  and  served  the  same  God,  obey- 
ed the  same  moral  law,  and  received  the  same  glorious  gospel. 

Not  a  Jew,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  ever  passed  into  the  church  of 
Christ  because  of  his  connection  with  Abraham.  But  adults  have  always 
entered  the  church  on  a  profession  of  faith.  I  desire,  however,  if  he 
pleases,  to  be  informed  when  the  apostles  received  christian  baptism.  I 
do  not  find  in  the  New  Testament,  that  any  one  of  them  except  Paul, 
who  was  converted  at  a  later  period,  was  baptized.  Mr.  Campbell  ad- 
mits that  John's  baptism  was  not  christian  baptism  ;  and  our  Savior,  we 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  341 

are  informed  by  John  the  apostle,  did  not  baptize.  Then  by  whom  were 
they  baptized  ? 

They  were  a  portion  of  the  branches  of  the  good  olive-tree,  that  were 
not  broken  off  because  of  unbelief.  They  were  in  the  church,  and  were 
never  excluded.  It  was,  therefore,  unnecessary  that  they  should  be 
grafted  in  again.  They  formed,  as  it  were,  the  connecting  link  between 
the  two  dispensations,  showing  the  identity  of  the  church  under  both. 
If  there  is  any  part  of  inspired  history  that  mentions  their  baptism,  I  have 
overlooked  it. 

It  is  true,  as  the  gentleman  says,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  a  spir- 
itual kingdom,  and  so  it  has  ever  been.  He  quotes  John  i.  11 — 13,  to 
prove,  that  whilst  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  spiritual,  the  Jewish  church 
was  fleshly.  "  He  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not. 
But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  :  which  were  born,  not  of 
blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God." 
Now  what  is  the  simple  truth  on  this  subject?  Christ  came  to  his  own  ; 
his  own  people,  his  church;  but  the  great  majority  of  them  had  become 
apostates,  and  they  rejected  him.  But,  amid  all  the  error  and  corruption 
that  prevailed,  there  were  still  some  who  were  born,  not  of  the  flesh,  but 
of  God.  Such  were  the  aged  Simeon,  and  Anna  the  prophetess,  and 
many  others.  Those  who  were  born  of  God,  possessed  true  piety — re- 
ceived him  with  open  arms  ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  defection  of  others, 
he  gave  to  them  the  privileges  of  children.  The  new  dispensation  was 
not  yet  introduced ;  and  yet  there  were  persons  who  were  born  of  God. 
This  passage  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  con- 
tending. For  if  Christ  had  no  church  till  the  new  dispensation,  how 
could  it  be  said,  "  he  caine  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not?" 

I  have  now  answered  the  gentleman's  arguments,  so  far  as  he  has  of- 
fered arguments,  and  have  presented  a  greater  number  in  fidvor  of  our 
views,  than  he  is  willing  to  examine.  He  does  not  forget  frequently  to 
charge  me  with  making  bold  assertions  ;  and  he  does  not  neglect  to  make 
many  such,  without  offering  the  slightest  proof.  He  asserted,  that  before 
the  days  of  Abraham,  adults  entered  a  visible  church  simply  by  faith.  I 
called  upon  him  for  some  little  evidence.  Has  he  produced  any  ?  No — 
and  he  never  will.  When  I  make  a  statement,  I  hold  myself  bound,  es- 
pecially if  it  is  questioned,  to  produce  the  proof.  Whether  the  evidence 
adduced  is  conclusive,  the  audience  must  judge.— [Z'ime  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — The  gentleman  errs  in  stating,  that  I  proposed  to  ex- 
plain the  whole  subject  of  casting  out  the  Jewish  church  and  the  covenant 
from  the  relation  which  they  once  sustained  to  Abraham's  God.  That  is 
just  as  unnecessary  to  my  argument,  as  my  friend's  disquisition  upon  Sa- 
rah, as  the  barren  woman  of  Isaiah.  His  is  the  rare  art  of  evading  argu- 
ments, by  extraneous  matters  and  false  issues.  What  I  have  said  of  Sarah 
and  her  progeny,  from  Isaiah,  as  quoted  by  Paul,  is  no  part  of  my  argu- 
ment, nor  at  all  necessary  to  it.  It  is,  however,  a  view  full  of  consolation, 
that  Sarah  has  become  the  mother  of  many  millions  more  than  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  flesh,  born  of  Hagar  ;  and  that  Abraham's  spiritual  progeny  bids 
fair  greafly  to  out-number  the  children  of  his  flesh.  Mr.  Rice  has  prudent- 
ly substituted  certain  declarations  and  declamations  concerning  the  calling 

2f2 


342  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM, 

of  the  gentiles  and  the  enlargement  of  the  church,  for  a  discussion  of  the 
allegory,  or  the  precept  for  casting  out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son.  I 
presumed  he  would  find  the  allegory  and  reasonings  of  Paul  upon  it,  un- 
answerable, and  certainly,  his  passing  it,  without  a  single  remark,  shows 
that  I  have  not  been  mistaken. 

Not  having  been  furnished  with  a  copy  of  Calvin's  comn)entary,  I  can- 
not say  whether  the  version  we  have  had  of  it,  is  literatim  et  punctti- 
atim,  according  to  the  text.  I  read  from  the  English  version.  I  know 
the  gentleman  quotes  Scripture  with  freedom,  and  I  presume  he  quotes 
Calvin  in  the  same  manner.  But  my  representation  of  Calvin's  views  on 
that  subject  is  not,  in  the  sense,  at  all  impaired  by  even  his  free  transla- 
tion of  the  passage,  nor  has  it  any  thing  at  all  to  do  with  the  question  now 
before  us.  "  The  church,"  he  says,  "  has  freely  allowed  herself  to  have 
rites  a  little  dissimilar  extra  the  substance."     Now  what  is  the  difference  ? 

I  spake  of  a  plurality  of  covenants  with  Abraham.  I  gave  chapter  and 
verse.  He  has  not  by  quotation,  or  argument,  attempted  a  refutation  of 
these  views.  They  stand  unanswered,  and  I  presume  he  considers  them 
unanswerable.  The  gentleman  made  some  effort  to  quote  Rom.  ix.  4, 
but  failed  to  give  the  verse  as  found  in  either  the  original  or  the  common 
version.  Paul  does  not  make  the  last  word  of  this  verse  exegetical  of  all 
the  items  in  it.  The  verse  gives  a  series  of  honors  and  emoluments  be- 
longing to  the  Jews.  "  To  them  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory, 
and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law  and  the  promises — whose 
are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  respects  the  flesh  the  Messiah  came — 
who  is  over  all  God  blessed  forever."  This  method  of  putting  in  some 
words  and  leaving  out  others,  I  cannot  approve — nor  do  I  approve  of  the 
transposition  of  words,  when  critically  quoting  averse  or  a  sentence  from 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  covenants  are  different  from  the  giving  of  the 
law,  and  from  the  promises.  Now  the  Jews,  besides  the  law,  had  no  cov- 
enants but  the  Abrahamie.  Therefore,  I  properly  quote  the  verse  to 
prove  2.  plurality  of  covenants  with  Abraham. 

He  also  read  a  passage  from  Gal.  iii.  in  order  to  prove  that  the  law  was 
added  to  the  covenant.  And  to  what  covenant  was  it  added  ?  The  law 
was  itself  a  covenant,  and  is  so  called.  The  very  ark  that  held  the  two 
tables  on  which  it  is  written,  is  called  "the  ark  ot  the  covenant,''^  and  the 
tables  themselves  are  called  the  "  two  tables  of  the  covenant."  The  law 
added  to  the  covenant!  The  covenant  added  to  the  covenant!  What 
does  the  gendeman  mean  ! !  The  old  covenant,  or  the  law,  was,  indeed, 
added  to  an  antecedent  promise  concerning  Canaan, — and  it  was  added  to 
the  promise  concerning  the  Messiah.  But  the  question  is  :  what  is  the 
promise  alluded  to  Gal.  iii.  18?  The  Messiah  or  the  inheritance  in  Ca- 
naan, emblem  of  the  rest  in  heaven!  Not  the  Messiah  :  for  Paul  imme- 
diately adds,  "  God  gave  the  inheritance  to  Abraham  by  a  promise,"  con- 
sequently, not  by  a  law  of  works ;  for,  as  the  same  writer  says  to  the  Ro- 
mans— "  The  promise  to  Abraham,  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the 
world,  (the  heir  of  Canaan,)  was  not  after,  or  through  the  law,  but  through 
the  righteousness  (or  obedience)  of  faith.  Now  the  facts  are,  as  every 
one  who  has  carefully  read  the  history  remembers : — God  promised  Ca- 
naan to  Abraham  at  a  very  early  period,  probably  soon  after  his  arrival  in 
it.  Certainly,  however,  he  confirmed  it  by  a  covenant  before  Ishmael 
was  born.  Ishmael  was  fourteen  years  old  when  Isaac  was  born — ma- 
king the  covenant  aforesaid  date  some  ten  to  twelve  years  after  the  call  of 
Abraham.     If  the  gentleman  means,  then,  that  the  law  was  added  to  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  343 

covenant,  concerning  the  inheritance,  he  may  have  it  so  for  any  thing  our 
debate  cares,  or  is  interested  in  the  discussion.  The  plurality  of  cove- 
nants with  Abraham  stands  as  erect  as  ever. 

By  a  singular  freak  of  imagination,  the  gentleman  was  borne  away  to 
heaven  and  the  eternal  inheritance,  and  was  found,  if  not  like  Philip  at 
Azotus,  at  least  in  the  11th  of  the  Hebrews — and,  by  expatiating  on  the 
heavenly  inheritance,  has  lost  himself  and  the  subject  so  far  as  not  to  hear 
Paul  in  the  same  passage  loudly  speaking — "  Tliese  all  (Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  Sarah,  just  now  named)  died  in  faitl),  not  having  received  the prO' 
raises  concerning  Canaan,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off  (400  years,)  were 
persuaded  of  them  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  pil- 
grims and  strangers  in  the  earth,"  (the  land  promised  them  for  an  inheri- 
tance,) all  of  which,  indeed,  was  a  type  of  heaven.  The  gentleman,  no 
doubt,  found  this  flight  to  the  eternal  inheritance,  an  happy  escape  from 
the  difficulties  which  environed  him.  But  all  this  is  his  proof  "  that  the 
infant  of  a  believing  parent,  is  a  proper  subject  of  christian  baptism  !"  He 
has  a  right  to  prove  this  point  just  as  he  pleases. 

You  will  please  to  remember,  however,  that  there  was  an  earthly  inher- 
itance, actually  and  formally  added  to  the  promise.  The  very  boundaries 
of  which,  northward,  and  southward,  and  westward,  and  eastward,  are 
given  by  the  Lord  himself  to  Abraham.  Which,  however,  being  a  type 
of  the  future  and  boundless  inheritance  of  heaven,  was  to  be  inherited,  not 
by  works  of  law,  but  by  the  righteousness  of  faith.  Hence,  fiuth  and 
grace  were  in  the  Abrahamic  family  anterior  to  law — the  only  point  we 
are  careful  now  to  maintain. 

It  was  important,  in  a  typical  institution,  that  there  should  be  an  exact 
correspondence  between  the  typical  scenes,  and  the  things  adumbrated 
by  them.  What  is  not  true  in  the  letter  could  not  be  tuie  in  the  type, 
nor  in  the  anti-type.  Moses  represented  the  law;  Israel  the  elect  of  all 
nations  ;  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  man's  slavery  in  sin  ;  their  redemp- 
tion by  the  first-born  of  Egypt,  and  the  blood  of  the  slain  lamb,  the  chris- 
tian ransom ;  their  escape  through  the  red  waters,  their  eating  the  manna, 
their  drinking  from  the  rock,  their  journey  through  the  wilderness,  their 
passing  Jordan,  &c.  Abraham's  walking  by  faith  in  a  land  not  his  own, 
and  dwelling  in  tents,  with  his  co-heirs,  on  a  soil  deeded  to  him  by  the 
Lord  of  the  whole  earth.  And  the  grace,  and  the  promises,  and  the  rich- 
ness of  the  inheritance,  all  were  unique ;  and  literally,  typically,  and  anti- 
typically  true.  He,  then,  that  confounds  one  letter,  one  type,  in  this 
primer  of  Divine  knowledge,  inflicts  a  great  misfortune  upon  those  who 
desire  to  understand  the  glorious  scheme  of  deliverance,  originated,  de- 
veloped, and  consummated  by  the  grace  of  God. 

I  shall  not  reiterate  my  labors  of  yesterday,  in  fixing  the  chronological 
dates  of  those  three  Abrahamic  covenants,  consummated  at  last  in  the 
old  church,  or  national  covenant,  ratified  and  confirmed  at  Horeb,  430 
years  after  the  original  promise  concerning  the  Messiah,  the  seed  of 
all  spiritual  blessings.  The  matter  appears  to  be,  satisfactorily  or  unsat- 
isfactorily, established  beyond  controversy.  When  assaulted,  I  shall  be 
forthcoming  with  new  resources.  The  time,  place,  and  circumstance  of 
any  transaction  is,  of  all  sorts  of  proof,  the  best. 

If  I  understood  Mr.  Rice's  account  of  these  aff'airs,  he  compares  the 
three  covenants  to  one  great  bond,  having  three  distinct  instalments;  one 
concerned  the  covenant  at  Horeb,  due  in  430  years — or  perhaps  the  land 
of  Canaan;  one  concerning  the  flesh  of  the  Messiah,  payable  at  some  in- 


344  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

d^'finite  future  period ;  and  one  to  be  paid  in  the  millenial  dispensations. 
Plow,  if  any  inspired  apostle  had  said  so,  I  should  have  had  no  objection 
'.o  it ;  yet  even  then  it  would  have  been  unintelligible  to  any  one  who  either 
understands  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  or  the  laws  of  bonds.  For  each 
one  of  these  transactions  is  positively  called  a  covenant /)er  se,  and  inde- 
pendent of  any  other  one ;  and  one  of  them  has  respect  to  blessings  not 
found  in  either  Canaan,  or  the  flesh  of  the  Messiah,  or  the  latter-day 
glory.  Not  one  of  these  has  the  gospel  in  it.  The  new  triune  or  triple 
bond  has  no  gospel  in  it  for  Jew  or  gentile.  Where  now  is  the  identity 
of  the  two  churches  ? 

But  finding  only  two  promises,  and  no  land  of  promise,  in  this  cove- 
nant of  Gen.  xii.  3,  on  reflection,  my  friend  perceived  that  to  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  subsequent  development,  he  must  get  some  land  into  it. 
And  what  was  the  expedient?  On  turning  over  to  Gen.  xii.,  and  reading 
down  a  few  verses,  he  meets  with  a  promise  made  to  Abraham,  in  the 
plains  of  Moreh,  in  the  land  of  Canaan — no  one  knows  how  long  after- 
concerning  the  country  in  which  Abraham  was  now  residing.  This  pro- 
mise concerning  the  land  of  Canaan,  was,  in  truth,  a  promise  of  the  in- 
heritance But  strange  to  tell,  the  gentleman  has  forgotten  that  "  the  cov- 
enant confirmed  of  God,  concerning  Christ,''''  and  reported  in  the  third 
verse  of  Gen.  xii.,  was  given  to  Abraham,  7iot  in  Canaan  at  all ;  but  in 
Urr  of  Chaldea!  and  so  the  fourth  and  fifth  verses  plainly  declare;  "So 
Abraham  departed  (from  Urr  of  Chaldea)  as  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  him, 
and  Lot  with  him  ;  and  Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  he  de- 
parted outof  Haran."  Some  time  after  this  he  arrived  in  Canaan,  and 
from  place  to  place  had  removed,  till  he  came  to  Moreh.  The  Lord  ap- 
peared to  him,  and  said,  ^^  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land.''''  What, 
sir,  could  not  be  proved  from  the  Bible  by  such  a  licence  of  interpolation, 
transposition,  and  annihilation  of  times  and  places  !!  I  have  never  heard 
a  more  glaring,  nor  a  weaker  effort,  to  interpolate  a  new  provision  on  an 
old  transaction.  I  shall  not  farther  expose  this  attempt ;  believing  that 
there  is  no  intelligent  or  attentive  person  present  who  does  not  tho- 
roughly comprehend  the  failure  of  my  ingenious  and  resolute  friend.  But 
my  duty  to  the  whole  community  commands  me  to  make  a  remark,  I 
could  wish  not  to  have  been  constrained  to  make  in  the  presence  of  this 
assembly.  It  is  this :  If  a  commentator  or  teacher  can  thus  foist  into  a 
solemn  covenant,  a  provision  so  diff"erent  in  time,  place,  and  significance, 
under  the  influence  of  partizan  prejudice  or  feelings,  how  shall  we  con- 
fide in  his  judgment  and  discretion,  in  other  cases,  as  a  biblical  expos- 
itor? 

I  may  again  remark,  that,  in  matters  of  such  high  magnitude,  it  is  all-im- 
portant that  we  be  governed  by  those  lines  of  separation  so  essential  to  cor- 
rect interpretation,  those  geographical  and  chronological  metes  and  boun- 
daries, which  are  providentially  introduced,  and  from  which,  sometimes, 
arguments  are  deduced,  even  by  inspired  writers  themselves.  In  one  verse 
we  are  told  that  Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  he  left  Haran. 
Fortunate  too,  it  seems  to  me,  was  it,  that  when  father  Jacob  appeared  be- 
fore Pharaoh,  the  monarch  asked  him  for  his  age.  For  from  the  answer 
made  by  the  patriarch  to  the  king,  we  ascertain  the  period  of  the  sojourn, 
both  in  Canaan  and  in  Egypt.  The  venerable  Jacob  responded  in  the 
most  apposite  terms,  saying;  "  The  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of  my 
pilgrimage  are  one  hundred  and  thirty  years."  From  these  dates  of  the 
call  of  Abraham,  of  the  birth  of  Isaac,  of  the  birth  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  345 

Jacob's  descent  into  Egypt,  we  are  able  to  make  out  the  items  of  those 
430  years  from  the  covenant  of  the  Messiah  to  the  giving  of  the  law. 
The  three  grand  transactions  are  forever  permanendy  fixed — the  covenant 
in  Chaldea,  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  the  covenant  at  Horeb.  The 
first  25  years  before  the  second,  and  the  second  405  years  before  the  third  ; 
the  three  together  occupying,  in  all,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years. 
Paul  founds  two  important  arguments  against  the  Judaizers  on  these  dates. 
To  the  Romans,  he  proves  that  circumcision  had  nothing  to  do  with  jus- 
tification; because  Abraham  was  justified  twenty-five  years  before  he 
was  circumcised,  as  they  knew,  and  that  the  promise  of  blessing  the  gen- 
tiles, through  faith,  could  not  be  vacated  or  disannulled  by  the  law  of 
works,  he  proves  to  the  Galatians,  from  the  fact  that  the  covenant,  prom- 
ising to  bless  the  gentiles,  was  confirmed,  and  immutably  too,  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the  covenant  of  peculiarity  to 
the  Jews.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  man  to  refute  this  argument. 
These  are  plain  historical  and  chronological  facts  and  documents,  which 
are  as  indestructible  as  the  universe,  and  shall  stand  for  ever.  To  con- 
found these  transactions  is  to  confound  law  and  gospel — the  covenant 
concerning  the  blessing  of  us  gentiles,  with  the  circumcision  and  the  Ca- 
naan provisions  for  the  Jews.  That  circumcision  that  Avas  contrary  to 
lis,  Jesus  Christ  took  out  of  our  way,  as  a  religious  solemnity,  nailing  it 
to  his  cross. 

Mr.  Rice  has  taken  the  ground  of  the  identity  of  these  two  institutions 
as  the  main  basis  of  his  argument.  It  is  the  most  untenable  gi'ound  in 
creation.  It  is  worse  than  proselyte  baptism,  or  tradition.  Circumcision 
has  been  thought  most  plausible,  and  now  we  have  it  transmuted  into 
identity.  He  must,  then,  tear  up  all  these  land-marks  by  the  root.  He 
must  annul  dates  and  places.  He  must  confound  law  and  gospel,  Jew 
and  Gentile,  flesh  and  Spirit.  It  is  a  hard  task.  And,  in  arguments  of 
this  kind,  the  proof  extends  to  every  single  point  of  comparison ;  for  a 
case  of  identity  is  the  most  difficult  case  m  law,  in  gospel,  in  ecclesias- 
tics, in  physics,  and  in  metaphysics.  Similarity,  the  gentleman  knows,  will 
never  do.     He  is  right — he  must  prove  identity  ;  and  that  is  impossible. 

Some  imagine,  and  amongst  them,  I  believe,  is  Mr.  Rice,  that  the 
promise  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,"  implies 
spiritual  blessings ;  and  if  so,  then  there  is  one  provision  in  the  covenant 
of  circumcision,  indicative  of  spiritual  blessings:  for  in  Gen.  xvii.,  "The 
Lord  said  to  Abraham,  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee."  Well,  it  is  so  written,  and  so  we  read  Gen.  xvii.  7.  Whether, 
however,  it  is  in  that  place  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  preamble  to  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision,  or  as  a  provision  in  it,  is  questionable — highly 
questionable.  But  I  shall  not  question  it  at  this  place,  nor  in  this  discus- 
sion. That  God  intended,  in  these  words,  to  take  the  twelve  tribes  under 
his  special  protection  and  providence,  is  admitted ;  and  that,  as  their  God, 
he  would  bless  them  with  corn,  and  wine,  and  oil,  and  all  earthly  good — 
giving  them  a  delightful  land,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  is  universal- 
ly understood  and  admitted.  But  that,  beyond  this,  anything  more  was 
intended  or  implied  in  these  words,  is  not  inferrible  from  any  thing  in  the 
Old  Testament — nor  from  the  words  themselves.  Indeed,  the  palpable 
fact  that  God  found  fault  with  them  and  that  institution,  promising  in  the 
next  to  convey  spiritual  blessings — to  write  his  laws  upon  their  hearts — 
and  to  make  them  know  him,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest  of  them,  is 
itself  enough  to  show,  indeed  to  prove,  to  all  persons  of  reflection,  that 


346  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  blessings  of  the  former  were  temporal,  and  those  of  the  latter,  spintu- 
al.  Here,  however,  I  am  reminded  of  a  complaint  made  against  me  by  my 
sensitive  friend,  for  calling  God  the  husband  of  Israel,  or  of  Sarah.  It 
will  be,  I  hope,  but  a  venal  offence  in  the  esteem  of  those  who  have  no- 
ticed that  God  himself  first  used  the  endearing  appellation.  "I  was," 
said  he,  "  an  husband  unto  them ;"  yet  they  broke  the  marriage  covenant. 
And  more  than  this,  all  their  apostasies  are  set  forth  under  the  imagery 
of  an  unfaithful  wife,  that  has  broken  her  covenant  with  her  husband. 
Jesus,  indeed,  calls  himself  the  bridegroom,  and  Paul  espoused  the 
church,  and  desired  to  present  her  a  chaste  virgin  to  the  Lord.  And  has 
not  God  promised  to  be  an  husband  to  the  widow,  as  well  as  a  father  to 
the  fatherless  ?  There  is  nothing,  then,  so  heinous,  nor  so  reprehensible 
in  my  allusions  to  God  as  an  husband  to  Sarah. 

Such  matters  as  these,  however,  fill  up  the  time  and  save  the  resources 
of  Mr.  R.,  which  I  presume  he  is  reserving  to  a  more  convenient  season, 
when  we  may  expect  him  to  prove  his  position  by  a  formidable  array  of 
New  Testament  arguments. 

But,  by  way  of  an  oftset  to  my  remarks  on  the  opening  of  the  New 
Testament  with  the  preaching  and  baptism  of  repentance,  for  remissian 
of  sins,  he  asks,  was  not  repentance  preached  to  the  Jews  ?  Now,  what 
does  this  mean  ?  I  said,  (in  order  to  prove  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
institutions  were  not  the  same  identical  church,)  that,  before  a  man,  who 
was  a  good  member  of  the  Jewish  church,  could  be  admitted  into  the 
Christian  church,  he  must  repent  of  his  sins  and  be  baptized.  Moreo- 
ver, I  asked  him  to  show  a  single  instance  of  a  son  of  Abraham  entering 
into  the  Christian  church,  without  repentance  and  baptism,  on  the  ground 
of  former  membership.  I  challenge  him  again  to  produce  a  single  case. 
He  cannot  do  it.  It  is,  therefore,  idle  to  talk  of  preaching  repentance 
under  the  old  dispensation — we  sometimes  preach  repentance  to  those  in 
the  church.  This  is  a  position  which  no  man  denies.  But  it  seems  to 
evince  the  extreme  sterility  and  barrenness  of  his  side  of  the  question, 
in  point  of  argument. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show,  that,  whatever  the  door  mto  the  Jewish 
church  might  have  been,  it  was  a  door  that  suffered  them  to  carry  in  too 
much  flesh ;  and,  therefore,  another  and  a  straiter  door  was  required. 
Jesus  has  spoken  something  of  the  straitness  of  the  gate  of  life,  and  of 
the  narrowness  of  the  way  leading  to  it. 

The  gentleman  has  again  adverted  to  my  remarks  upon  the  corrupting 
influence  of  infant  membership.  Does  he  wish  for  more  evidence  ?  He 
can  have  it  to  satiety.  What  would  corrupt  the  church  more,  than  to 
bring  all  the  world  into  it  without  a  change  of  heart?  And  will,  or  can 
Mr.  R.  show  that  this  is  not  his  aim,  or  the  tendency  of  the  views  he  in- 
culcates ?  Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  Mr.  Rice's  views  of  the  neces- 
sity of  infant  baptism  universally  obtained  ;  what  would  the  consequences 
be,  but  the  introduction  of  the  whole  community  into  the  church  ?  It 
would  cause  the  church  to  throw  her  arms  all  round  the  earth,  and  take 
into  her  bosom  every  thing  born  of  the  flesh.  Such  is  the  design  and 
tendency  of  the  doctrine.  It  would  make  the  doors  of  the  church  wide 
as  the  doors  of  the  world.  But  that  is  not  all.  It  goes  in  this  way  to 
make  void  the  commandment  of  the  Lord. 

The  Messiah  brought  this  as  a  serious  charge  against  certain  contempo- 
raries, scribes  and  pharisees,  doctors  and  public  leaders.  You,  said  he, 
make  void  the  commandments  of  God  by  your  traditions. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  347 

The  law  of  God  says  :  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother;"  but  you 
say,  "Whoever  shall  say  to  his  father  or  his  mother,  This  that  you  need 
I  call  a  gift,  and  devote  it  to  the  Lord,  and  honors  not  his  father  or  moth- 
er, he  shall  be  free."  Now,  what  is  the  difference  in  principle,  where 
parents  prevent  their  children  from  honoring  their  Heavenly  Father,  by 
taking  from  them  the  opportunity  and  the  right  of  obeying  his  precept,  "  Be 
baptized  every  one  of  you."  A  parent  can  neither  believe,  nor  repent, 
nor  be  baptized  for  his  child.  ]\or  has  he  any  authority  from  God  to 
take  away  from  his  child  the  exquisite  pleasure  of  believing,  repenting, 
and  of  being  baptized  for  himself.  Parents,  you  rob  your  children  of 
their  highest  honor — that  of  being  buried  with  their  Lord,  on  their  own 
clear  conviction,  firm  belief,  and  joyful  acquiescence. 

Neither  can  you  dedicate  your  infants  to  the  Lord  in  baptism.  Your 
notions  of  dedication  are  most  unscriptural,  if  you  think  so.  Whatever 
is  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  is  given  wholly  to  him,  to  be  exclusively  em- 
ployed in  his  service.  Samuel  was  thus  taken  to  the  sanctuary  and  left 
there.  But  that  was  a  free-will  offering.  If  you  go  for  dedication,  ac- 
cording to  law,  you  can  only  give  your  first-born  son.  The  Lord  asks 
for  neither  son  nor  daughter  besides.  Again  ;  there  is  a  special  ordinance 
for  this  purpose,  Exodus  xiii.  2 — 12  ;  Levit.  xii.  6 — 8.  Our  Lord  was 
dedicated  according  to  law  ;  for  he  was  the  first-born  son.  Now,  Jesus 
was  circumcised  the  eighth  day,  and  dedicated  on  the  fortieth,  and  was 
not  baptized  till  his  thirtieth  year. 

You  see  how  idle  it  is  to  attempt  to  blend  and  confound  these  ordinan- 
ces, when  the  great  Master  himself,  the  great  Lawgiver  of  the  universe, 
was  first  circumcised  at  eight  days  old,  dedicated  at  forty  days,  and  re- 
ceived the  baptism  of  John  at  thirty  years  :  at  the  age  of  perfect  maturity, 
he  came  forward  ;  (though  not  in  need  of  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ;)  but  it  became  him  to  honor  every  divine  institution.  Is  not  this 
the  duty  of  all  his  followers  ? 

My  friend  has  asked  me  to  show  the  passage  which  speaks  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  aposUes.  He  knows  there  is  no  account  of  it.  But  its  not 
being  recorded  is  no  evidence  that  it  did  not  take  place.  He  asks  me  to 
tell  when  each  of  the  apostles  was  baptized,  as  if  it  were  requisite  to  give 
the  time,  place,  and  circumstances.  They  were  baptized  with  John's 
baptism  ;  no  other  was  instituted  during  their  first  discipleship.  Between 
John's  baptism  and  that  ordained  by  the  Messiah  himself,  there  was,  in 
this  respect,  little  difference.  When  the  time  came  for  their  baptism,  they 
were  believing  adults,  and  were  immersed  in  the  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins.  They  made  a  public  profession  and  confession.  They  voluntarily 
came  forward  and  were  immersed. 

Christian  baptism  did  not  commence  till  at  the  Pentecost  in  Jerusalem, 
and  after  that  Paul,  like  any  other  convert,  was  immersed.  There  was 
then  no  necessity  for  proving  their  previous  baptism,  any  more  than  that 
of  John's. 

I  have  yet  time  to  state  another  objection  to  the  identity  of  the  two  in- 
stitutions. Jesus  said  to  Peter  that  he  would  build  his  church  upon  a 
certain  rock.  Now,  as  the  rock  was  then,  for  the  first  time,  displayed, 
upon  which  the  church  of  Christ  was  to  be  founded,  can  we  either  scrip- 
turally  or  rationally  conclude,  that  the  Jewish  church  had  stood  upon  that 
same  foundation  for  1500  years  ?  If  the  foundation  laid  by  Moses,  or  by 
God,  in  the  Abrahamic  family,  was  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  confession  of 
faith  in  him  as  the  Messiah  of  God   how  could  Jesus  say,  I  will  lay  a 


348  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

new  foundation  ?  or,  On  this  rock  will  I  build  ray  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it  ? — [Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 12  o'clock,  M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixth  address.] 

Mr.  President — In  my  last  address  I  offered  some  additional  argu- 
ments from  the  prophecies,  proving  the  identity  of  the  church  of  Christ 
under  the  old  and  new  dispensations.  To  these  arguments,  the  only  reply 
of  the  gentleman  is,  that  they  are  entirely  irrelevant,  that  they  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  question.  That  is,  he  would  have  you  believe,  that 
the  fact  that  certain  most  important  promises  were  made  to  the  church 
under  the  old  dispensation  and  fulfilled  under  the  new,  does  not  prove 
the  church  to  be  the  same  under  both ! — does  not  prove,  that  the  church 
lived  to  enjoy  the  fulfillment  of  the  promises  !  He  might  as  well  say,  the 
fact  that  an  infallible  promise  made  to  a  man  ten  years  since,  and  now  fulfill- 
ed to  him,  does  not  prove  that  he  is  the  same  individual ! ! !  He  will  doubt- 
less better  serve  his  cause  by  making  positive  assertions  and  attempting 
no  reply ;  for  then  those  who  may  consider  him  infallible,  will  suppose 
that  all  is  right.  This  mode  of  interpreting,  or  rather  of  slighting  proph- 
ecy, is,  I  will  not  say  "licentious,"  (for  this  is  an  offensive  word,)  but 
most  unwarranted. 

As  to  the  plurality  of  covenants  with  Abraham,  I  have  said  (and  I 
repeat  it)  that  I  care  not,  so  far  as  infant  baptism  is  concerned,  if  the  gentle- 
man could  find  half  a  dozen.  I  have  proved  every  thing  that  is  neces- 
sary to  the  defence  of  it,  viz :  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  contains 
the  great  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  through  Christ.  I  have  fully 
proved,  that  in  Genesis  xii.,  xv.,  and  xvii.  the  very  same  promises  are 
made,  repeated  and  sealed  by  circumcision ;  but  it  is  an  indisputable  fact, 
proved  by  the  apostle  Paul,  (Rom.  iv.)  that  the  great  promise  sealed  by 
circumcision,  was  of  spiritual  blessings  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
through  Christ.  This  is  the  covenant  and  this  the  promise  on  which  the 
church  was  organized. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  that  I  did  not  fully  and  correctly  read  the 
passage  in  Romans  ix.,  on  which  he  had  commented.  I  read  every  word 
of  it.  He  had  maintained,  that  inasmuch  as  the  giving  of  the  law  was 
mentioned  in  addition  to  the  covenants,  there  must  have  been  some  three 
covenants  with  Abraham.  I  replied,  that  the  promises  are  given  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  covenants  also ;  and  that  according  to  his  logic,  there  were 
covenants  without  promises  and  promises  without  a  covenant !  I  am 
apprehensive  that  he  hears  badly.  I  have  repeatedly  called  on  him  to 
produce  the  passage  of  Scripture  that  speaks  of  a  plurality  of  covenants 
with  Abraham;  but  he  has  not  done  it.  It  is  quite  unfortunate  for  him, 
that  the  inspired  writers  did  not  ascertain  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  cov- 
enants with  Abraham.  In  the  ninth  chapter  to  the  Romans  we  read  of 
covenants,  but  not  of  covenants  with  Abraham;  and  what,  I  ask,  does 
the  gentleman  expect  to  gain  by  proving  that  with  the  Jews  several  cove- 
nants were  made  I 

The  gentleman  will  have  it,  that  the  law,  mentioned  in  Galatians  iii.  19, 
was  an  addition  to  the  single  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  that  this  was 
the  inheritance  spoken  of,  which  was  by  promise.  I  ask  him,  whether 
the  land  of  Canaan  is  once  mentioned,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  chapter? 
Is  it  mentioned  in  the  connection,  or  even  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galations  ? 
There  is  not  a  word  about  Canaan  in  the  epistle  !    If  there  is,  I  have  over- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  349 

looked  it.  As  I  have  already  proved,  the  apostle's  object  in  the  connec- 
tion, and  the  prominent  design  of  the  whole  epistle,  is  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law — justification 
by  faith  in  the  great  promise  contained  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

This  is  not  all.  Let  me  turn  to  Romans,  chap,  iv.,  where  we  may  learn 
something  about  this  inheritance  ;  for  Paul,  in  this  chapter,  speaking  of  cir- 
cumcision, (11  th  to  17th  verses,)  says  : — "  And  he  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being 
uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though 
they  be  not  circumcised  ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them 
also  :  and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the  circumcision 
only :  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised.  For  the  promise  that  he  should  be 
the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  through  the  law, 
but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.  For  if  they  which  are  of  the 
law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect : 
because  the  law  worketh  wrath:  for  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no 
transgression.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  gi'ace:  to  the 
end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed :  not  to  that  only  which  is 
of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the 
father  of  us  all,  (as  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many 
nations,)"  &c. 

Here  Paul  was  quoting  from  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
proving  that  by  the  covenant  of  circumcision  Abraham  was  made  the 
father  of  many  nations — the  heir  of  the  world  in  a  spiritual  sense,  the 
father  of  all  believers. 

My  friend  asks  why  I  fly  off  to  heaven  ?  I  desire  to  fly  that  way  very 
often.  Why  was  Paul,  when  speaking  of  the  same  covenant,  disposed 
to  fly  off  in  that  direction  ?  Heb.  xi.  8,  "  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he 
was  called  to  go  out  into  a  place  which  he  should  afterwards  receive  for 
an  inheritance,  obeyed :  And  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither  he 
went.  For  he  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder 
and  maker  is  God."  13th  verse,  "These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having 
received  the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded 
of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers  and 
pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that 
they  seek  a  country."  They  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  their  way 
to  a  heavenly  city,  of  which,  in  that  covenant,  they  had  the  promise. 

As  for  his  chronological  dates,  they  affect  not  m)^  argument.  I  have 
already  proved  to  demonstration,  that  the  promises  recorded  in  Gen.  12th, 
are  precisely  the  same  which  are  in  the  17th,  ratified  and  sealed  by  cir- 
cumcision— that  the  covenant  sealed  by  circumcision  contains  the  spiritual 
promise  which  made  Abraham  the  father  of  the  church  of  God  in  all  ages. 
He  has  affirmed,  that  in  the  12th  chapter,  the  land  of  Canaan  was  not 
promised  ;  but  the  very  first  verse  is  a  refutation  of  the  assertion — "The 
Lord  said  unto  Abraham,  get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kin- 
dred, and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  shew  thee." 
Did  not  God  command  him  to  leave  his  native  country  for  the  express 
purpose  of  giving  him  the  land  to  which  he  would  direct  him  ?  And  yet 
the  gentleman  asserts,  that  in  this  covenant  there  was  no  promise  of  Ca- 
naan— that  we  find  nothing  of  the  kind,  till  Abraham  reached  that  coun- 
try! I  am  not  in  the  habit,  as  he  intimates,  of  throwing  out  arguments 
or  of  making  quotations  loosely.     I  generally  look  all  around  them,  before 

2G 


350  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

they  are  presented.  The  promises  were  first  made,  as  recorded  in  Gen. 
xii.  ;  and  from  this  period  Paul  dates  the  existence  of  the  covenant.  The 
same  promises  substantially  were  repeated  in  Gen.  xv. ;  but  no  seal  was  ap- 
pointed. They  were  again  repeated  in  the  17th,  and  sealed  by  circumcision. 

The  gentleman  makes  a  vain  effort  to  justify  himself  in  representing 
God  as  the  husband  of  Sarah !  He  has  represented  himself  as  the  hus- 
band  of  the  church;  but  never  do  the  Scriptures  speak  of  him  as  the  hus- 
band of  any  individual — never. 

He  tells  you,  that  if  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  be  true,  the 
Jewish  church  were  not  God's  people ;  for  then  they  never  could  have 
fallen  away.  I  have  had  occasion  since  the  commencement  of  this  dis- 
cussion, to  remark,  that  he  never  was  a  genuine  Presbyterian.  At  any 
rate,  he  seems  to  have  very  imperfect  acquaintance  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Presbyterian  church.  For  who  does  not  know,  that  a  church  may 
gradually  become  corrupt,  because  the  pious  die,  and  the  rising  genera- 
tion are  not  converted ;  and  yet  not  one  who  was  truly  pious,  may  fall 
away  ?  But  whether  this  doctrine  is  true  or  false,  I  will  not  now  inquire; 
because  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  under  discussion,  from  which 
I  will  not  allow  myself  to  be  diverted. 

The  gentleman  insists,  that  the  terms  of  membership  in  the  Jewish  and 
in  the  Christian  church  are  not  the  same;  and  he  tells  us,  that  Nicode- 
mus  was  a  worthy  member  of  the  former,  but  could  not  enter  the  latter, 
unless  he  were  born  again.  But  I  deny  that  Nicodemus  was  a  worthy 
member  of  the  Jewish  church.  At  the  time  of  our  Savior's  advent,  the 
church,  as  all  must  know,  had  become  extremely  corrupt,  and  was  filled 
with  unworthy  and  ungodly  members.  The  mere  fact,  that  at  such  a 
time  Nicodemus  was  a  member,  affords  no  evidence  whatever  that  he 
possessed  the  qualifications  for  membership  required  by  the  law  of  God, 
Indeed  he  was  reproved  by  the  Savior,  because,  whilst  he  was  professedly 
a  teacher  in  Israel,  he  was  ignorant  of  one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Let  him  prove  that  Nicodemus  was  a  worthy 
member ;  and  I  will  be  prepared  to  respond. 

He  challenges  me  to  show,  that  any  individual  ever  entered  the  chris- 
tian church  without  professing  faith  and  repentance.  And  I  challenge 
him  to  prove,  that  any  adult  ever  entered  the  Jewish  church,  according 
to  the  law  of  God,  without  professing  faith  in  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  a  purpose  to  obey  the  law  of  Moses.  So  I  will  put 
my  challenge  against  his ;  and  I  shall  be  prepared  to  meet  them  both, 
whenever  he  chooses  to  bring  them  forward. 

By  way  of  showing  the  corrupting  influence  of  infant  baptism  on  the 
church,  Mr.  Campbell  tells  us,  that  if  all  parents  would  have  their  chil- 
dren baptized,  the  whole  world  would  be  introduced  int5  the  church. 
True  enough ;  and  if  all  the  parents  in  this  world  were  truly  pious,  what 
a  glorious  world  this  would  be  !  I  am  prepared,  as  I  have  repeatedly 
said,  to  compare  any  Pedo-baptist  church,  that  take  the  Bible  as  their 
only  infallible  guide,  with  any  anti-Pedo-baptist  church,  and  to  prove, 
that  they  are  as  moral,  as  benevolent,  as  pious,  as  exemplary  christians,  as 
they  who  eschew  the  baptism  of  infants.  Yes — if  all  parents  were  truly 
pious,  and  would  give  their  children  to  Christ  in  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, solemnly  promising  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,  and  humbly  claiming  the  promised  blessing;  this  would  be 
a  happy  world  !  Methinks,  the  song  would  be  heard  around  the  throne 
of  God — "Alleluia;  for  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth." 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  351 

But  the  gentleman  adduces  another  sweeping  argument  against  our  doc- 
trine, viz :  that  it  makes  void  the  command  of  Christ,  that  all  shall  be 
baptized  ;  for  if  all  were  baptized  in  infancy,  he  supposes  thai  none  could 
obey  this  command.  This  argument  is  very  conclusive,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  false  ;  but  it  is  of  no  force  what- 
ever to  prove  it  false.  If  we  take  it  as  granted,  that  Christ  commanded 
only  adults  to  be  baptized ;  it  is  clear,  that  those  baptized  in  infancy  do 
not  obey  this  command.  But  if  it  be  true,  as  we  contend,  that  he  com- 
manded believers  and  their  children  to  be  baptized  ;  infant  baptism,  instead 
of  making  void  the  command,  really  obeys  it.  But  he  assumes  that  the 
doctrine  is  false;  and  then  on  that  assumption  triumphantly  proves,  that 
it  is  untrue  !  !  !  Let  him  prove,  that  our  Savior  commanded  all  to  be  bap- 
tized at  adult  age ;  and  I  will  give  up  the  question. 

Another  objection  is  presented,  viz.:  If  children  are  members  of  the 
church,  they  ought  to  enjoy  all  its  privileges,  and  of  course  to  commune 
at  the  Lord's  table.  But  are  not  our  children  citizens  of  this  common- 
wealth and  of  these  United  States,  in  such  a  sense  that  they  enjoy  the 
protection  of  the  government  and  all  the  privileges  of  which  they  are  ca- 
pable? Yet  you  will  not  allow  them  to  vote  till  they  are  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  nor  to  become  members  of  the  legislature  till  they  are  yet 
older.  Precisely  so  the  children  of  believers  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of 
the  church  to  which  they  are  by  the  law  of  God  entitled.  As  the  consti- 
tution of  our  government  determines  at  what  age  and  with  what  qualifica- 
tions our  children  shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges  belonging  to  it;  so  does 
the  law  of  Christ  determine  what  qualifications  are  necessary  for  a  wor- 
thy participation  of  the  Lord's  supper.  And  so  soon  as  our  children  have 
"  faith  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  they  are  permitted  to  commune. 

I  must  say,  I  was  not  a  little  surprised  to  hear  the  gentleman  derive  an 
argument  against  infant  baptism  from  the  baptism  of  our  Savior.  He  told 
us,  that  Christ  was  circumcised  and  dedicated  ;  but  it  was  also  necessary 
that  he  should  be  baptized.  But  did  our  Savior  receive  christian  bap- 
tism ?  Mr.  Campbell  has  himself  published  the  declaration,  that  he  did 
not.  Yet  he  argues,  that  because  the  Savior  submitted  to  a  certain  ordi- 
nance, his  disciples  must  receive  one  that  is  radically  diff*erent !  This  is 
indeed  singular  reasoning.  The  Savior  was  not  baptized  till  he  was  thir- 
ty years  of  age ;  and  if  his  example  in  this  matter  is  to  be  followed,  none 
should  be  baptized  till  they  arrive  at  the  same  age. 

I  called  on  Mr.  Campbell  to  tell  us,  where  the  apostles,  except  Paul, 
received  christian  baptism.  He  admits,  that  we  have  no  account  of  their 
baptism  ;  but  maintains,  that  the  absence  of  any  record  is  no  proof  that 
they  were  not  baptized.  But  here  is  the  difficulty:  they  could  not  possi- 
bly have  received  the  ordinance.  It  is  said,  in  so  many  words,  that  our 
Savior  did  not  baptize ;  (John  iv.  2.)  and  they  could  not  baptize  them- 
selves, unless  indeed  they  did  as  certain  immersionists  in  Rhode  Island 
Two  individuals,  it  is  said,  desiring  to  be  immersed,  and  not  being  able 
to  find  any  immersed  person  to  plunge  them,  determined  to  immerse  each 
other.  This  mode  of  doing  things  might  answer  for  them  ;  but  it  will 
not  square  with  the  word  of  God.  But  Christ  did  not  baptize  the  apos- 
tles, and  they  could  not  baptize  each  other.  By  whom,  then,  were  they 
baptized  ?  The  truth  is,  as  I  before  remarked,  they  were  in  the  church, 
and  were  never  broken  ofl'  because  of  unbelief.  They  therefore  formed 
the  connecting  link  between  the  two  dispensations  ;  proving  demonstra 
bly  that  under  both  the  church  is  the  same.     They  were  the  officers  ap- 


352  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

pointed  to  introduce  the  new  dispensation,  and  to  administer  to  converts 
the  newly  appointed  ordinance  of  baptism.  If  the  church  is  not  the  same 
under  both  dispensations,  the  apostles  were  not  at  all  in  the  christian 
church. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  says,  they  received  John's  baptism,  which  he  repre- 
sents as  differing  very  little  from  christian  baptism.  Now,  I  have  the 
Christian  Baptist,  of  which  he  was  the  editor,  which  teaches  that  there 
was  a  great  difference.  ["  Read  it,"  says  Mr.  Campbell.]  He  is  prov- 
ing, by  several  arguments,  that  John's  baptism  is  not  christian  baptism, 
as  follows : 

"  1.  'He  {John]  immersed  in  the  name,  or  by  the  authority  of  God,  and 
not  in  the  name,  or  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord.  *  *  *  *  2.  He  immers- 
ed into  no  name.  *  *  *  *  3.  But  in  the  third  place,  he  did  not  immerse 
into  the  christian  faith.  *  *  *  *  4.  In  the  fourth  place,  John's  immersion 
brought  no  man  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' " 

By  which  my  friend  understands  the  church  of  Christ.  Then  it  did 
not  bring  the  apostles  into  the  church  of  Christ!  They  did  not  receive 
christian  baptism  ;  and  John's  baptism  left  them  out.  I  desire  him  then 
to  show  how  they  got  in.     Let  me  read  further  : 

"  The  reason  is  obvious :  no  person  could  come  into  a  kingdom  which  was 
not  set  up,  &c.  The  state  in  which  John's  immersion  left  his  disciples, 
was  a  state  of  preparation  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  at  Jirst  must 
be  gradually  developed,  and  progressively  exhibited  to  the  world.  But  the 
state  in  which  christian  immersion  leaves  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven — a  state  of  righteousness,  peace,  joy,  and  possessed  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  adoption  into  the  family  of  God.  They  are  pardoned, 
justified,  glorified,  with  the  title,  rank,  and  spirit  of  sons  and  daughters  of 
the  Lord  God  Almighty.  Such  are  the  prominent  points  of  dissimilarity 
between  the  immersion  of  John  and  that  of  the  New  Institution.  Hence, 
toe  never  read  of  any  person  being  exempted  from  christian  immersion, 
because  of  his  having  been  immersed  by  John.  But,  though  all  Judea  and 
Jerusalem  turned  out  and  were  immersed  in  the  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins,  and  receiving  absolution  from  John,  yet  when  the  reign  of  heaven  was 
experienced  in  Pentecost,  of  all  the  myriads  immersed  into  .Tohn's  immer- 
sion, not  one  refused  or  was  exempted  from  christian  immersion.  We  read, 
however,  of  the  immersion  of  some  of  John's  disciples  into  Jesus  Christ, 
who  had  been  immersed.  See  Acts  xix.  I  know  to  what  tortures  the  pas- 
sage has  been  subjected  by  such  cold,  cloudy,  and  sickening  commentators 
as  John  Gill.  But  no  man  can,  with  any  regard  to  the  grammar  of 
language,  or  the  import  of  the  most  definite  words,  make  Luke  say,  that 
when  those  twelve  men  heard  Paul  declare  the  design  of  immersion,  they 
were  not  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Nothing  but  the 
bewildering  influence  of  some  phantasy,  of  some  blind  adoration,  of  some 
favorite  speculation,  could  so  far  be-cloud  any  man's  mind  as  to  make  him 
suppose  for  a  moment,  that  those  twelve  persons  were  not  immersed  into  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Luke  says  literally,  '  Hearing  this,  or  upon 
hearing  this,  they  were  immersed  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  Then 
after  they  were  immersed  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  Paul  laid  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them.  Nothing  can  more 
fully  exhibit  the  pernicious  influence  of  favorite  dogmas,  than  to  see  how 
many  of  the  Baptists  have  been  Gillized,  or  Fullerized,  into  the  notion  that 
these  twelve  men  were  not  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  when 
they  heard  Paul  expound  to  them  the  design  and  meaning  of  John's  immer- 
sion."— Christian  Baptist,  pp.  647,  648. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  for  a  man  to  be  consistent,  unless  he  hold  the 
truth.  Error  is  always  contradictory,  and,  therefore,  he  who  has  em- 
braced it,  is  almost  certain  to  cross  his  own  track.     Such  is  the  predica- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  353 

ment  of  the  gentleman  here,  as  in  many  other  parts  of  his  writings.  In 
the  Christian  Baptist  he  makes  an  essential  difference  between  John's 
baptism  and  christian  baptism ;  but  in  this  discussion  he  makes  them  al- 
most identical !  The  fact  is,  the  aposdes  never  received  chrisdan  baptism; 
and  unless  the  church  was  the  same  under  both  dispensations,  they  en- 
tered not  the  christian  church.  They  were  the  branches  of  the  olive- 
tree,  not  broken  off. 

I  must  now  advert  to  the  gentleman's  last  argument  against  the  iden- 
tity of  the  church.  It  is  founded  on  the  language  of  our  Savior  to  Peter : 
'  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church."  From  this 
language  he  argues,  that  the  Savior  had  not  yet  begun  to  build  it.  But  is 
this  the  Savior's  meaning  ?  God  said,  long  before,  by  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
"  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious 
corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation  :  he  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste," 
chap,  xxviii.  16.  Again — "All  z^e,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray;  we 
have  turned,  every  one,  to  his  own  way ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him 
the  iniquity  of  ws  all."  This  foundation  was  a  matter  of  as  much  inter- 
est to  the  Jewish  church,  as  to  the  christian  church.  The  foundation  of 
the  church  is  Christ  crucified.  On  the  foundation,  as  it  was  presented 
in  prophecy  and  in  types,  did  all  the  ancient  prophets  and  servants  of 
God  build.  It  is,  therefore,  called  "the  foundation  of  the  aposdes  and 
prophets."  The  foundation,  viz.  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  through  the 
death  of  the  Son  of  God,  had  been  laid,  and  the  building  commenced;  and 
on  this  foundation  the  Savior  declares  his  determination  to  complete  the 
building ;  and  the  head-stone  shall  be  brought  forth  with  shoutings  of 
«'  Grace,  grace  unto  it." 

This  is  the  foundation  promised  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the 
father  of  believers  ;  and  it  will  not  answer  to  have  the  father  in  one 
church,  and  his  children  in  one  of  a  radically  different  character;  or  the 
prophets  in  one,  and  the  apostles  in  another.  The  church  is  the  same. 
Into  it  I  put  the  children  of  believers,  by  positive  law  of  God.  Where,  I 
again  ask,  is  the  law  for  excluding  them  ? 

I  will  now  further  prove  the  identity  of  the  church,  by  the  olive-tree, 
to  which  I  have  repeatedly  alluded.  Eleven  of  its  branches,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  not  broken  off. — [Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21— 12^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  sixth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — My  worthy  friend  has  to  prove  a  certain  proposition: 
I  have  only  to  show  that  he  does  not  prove  it.  If  he  wishes  to  spend  his 
time  with  trifles,  he  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  do  so ;  I  have  no  right  to  com- 
plain: I  shall,  therefore,  pass  on.  He  may  think  that  I  am  anticipating 
him  ;  but  as  he  is  about  to  make  a  circumlocutory  defence  of  his  thesis, 
I  shall  glance  at  several  things  of  which  he  has  just  spoken,  and  proceed 
to  make  objections,  by  way  of  opposing  arguments. 

The  gendeman  says  he  cannot  believe  there  was  a  plurality  of  cove- 
nants with  Abraham,  unless  I  can  produce  the  very  identical  phrase, 
*'  There  were  covenants  with  Abraham."  Now,  this  is  a  new  principle 
in  criticism — a  new  law  of  interpretation.  Henceforth,  a  person  who 
affirms  any  proposition,  must  find  that  proposition  in  so  many  identical 
words,  written  in  the  book,  or  it  must  be  repudiated  as  false  doctrine. 

I  will  state  the  whole  case  to  this  audience.     Suppose  I  bring  up  three 
distinct  and  different  transactions,  concerning  different  subjects,  made  at 
23  2o2 


354  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

different  times,  each  one  ratified  in  a  differeirt  manner,  and  each  one  called 
a  covenant,  and  not  only  circumstantially,  but  formally  show,  that  each 
of  them  is  so  denominated  by  the  spirit  of  wisdom  ;  must  I  be  told  that 
all  this  must  pass  for  nothing,  unless  they  are  somewhere  called,  in  so 
many  words,  "  the  covenants  with  Mraham  ?"  AVas  there  ever  such  a 
principle  of  interpretation  heard  of?  I  have  thrice  produced  the  Bible 
words,  indicative  of  three  distinct  covenant  transactions  :  one  called  "  the 
covenant  of  circumcision;^^  one  called  "the  covenant  concerning 
Christ ;"  and  one  called  a  covenant — which  had  respect  to  the  inheritance 
alone.  And  my  friend  says,  unless  you  can  produce  a  verse  that  will 
say  just  so  much,  in  so  many  words,  it  must  all  pass  for  nothing. 

Again  ;  my  friend  says,  I  have  not  got  one  concerning  the  land  of 
Canaan — a  mere  reiteration  of  the  same  objection  :  I  must  produce  the 
very  phrase  ;  ar.d  unless  I  produce  it  by  that  name,  it  must  be  repudiated, 
though  promised  and  confirmed,  as  I  have  before  shown,  in  Genesis  xv. 
18  :  "  In  that  same  day,  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Mraham,  say- 
ing. Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land." 

Again;  I  am  asked,  how  did  this  covenant  make  Abraham  the  father 
of  many  nations  ?  Was  there  any  covenant  made  specifically  for  that 
purpose  ?  Have  I  not  shown,  that  in  the  fullness  of  time,  the  covenant 
of  circumcision,  and  that  concerning  the  inheritance,  were  engrossed  and 
given  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham  by  Isaac,  in  one  great  national  institu- 
tion at  Sinai  ?  And  have  I  not  shown,  that  the  "  covenant  concerning  the 
Messiah,"  as  developed  by  Jeremiah,  became  the  covenant  of  "  the  many 
nations,"  or  of  all  those  who  inherit  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  his  seed : 
and  is  now  called  "  the  neio"  and  "  better  covenant,"  by  Paul  to  the  He- 
brews and  the  Galatians  ?  Have  not  these  facts  already  been  matters  of  re- 
cord ?  Certainly  they  have.  I  will,  therefore,  not  spend  time  in  now  repeat- 
ing them.    If  Mr.  Rice  cannot  comprehend  this  subject,  others  can  and  will. 

The  gentleman  sometimes  makes  much  of  a  litde  matter  ;  and  again,  little 
of  a  great  matter.  His  is  the  rare  art  of  magnifying  mole-hills  into  moun- 
tains, and  of  reducing  mountains  to  mole-hills,  just  as  he  pleases.  He  also 
occasionally  assumes  an  ironical  air,  when  arguments  are  scarce  ;  and  seeks 
to  accomplish  by  a  wise  look  or  an  action,  what  he  fails  to  achieve  by  an  ar- 
gument. In  these  rare  excellencies,  he  does  not,  however,  seem  to  be 
highly  endowed,  either  by  nature  or  art.  He  would  rather  descant  upoa 
my  representing  Sarah  as  under  the  guardianship  of  a  divine  husband, 
than  supplying  us  with  proofs  of  his  proposition.  To  represent  a  state 
under  the  figure  of  a  female,  is  one  of  the  most  common,  and  the  most 
appropriate  images  in  classical  literature.  To  make  Hagar  and  Sarah 
the  symbols  of  two  states,  or  nations,  or  classes  of  people,  is  most  appo- 
site, beautiful,  and  instructive.  But  why,  says  he,  should  God  be  called 
the  husband  of  Sarah  ?  and  I  ask,  why  should  he  be  called  the  "  father 
of  the  fatherless  ?"  He  thiis  condescends  to  speak  in  harmony  with  the 
feelings  of  our  nature,  and  the  exigencies  of  our  condition. 

Nicodemus,  he  says,  was  a  very  bad  man,  and  not  fit  to  be  selected  as 
an  example.  Well,  in  so  saying,  he  admits  the  reasoning  to  be  just,  only 
demurring  at  the  case  brought  forward.  Is  it  not  strange,  that  his  believ- 
ing in  Christ,  should  have  made  him  worse  than  the  rest  of  the  Jews  !  ! 

Does  it  not  appear  surpassing  strange,  that  a  ruler  of  Israel,  who  be- 
lieved in  Jesus,  should,  on  that  account,  be  considered  worse  than  the 
great  mass  of  the  nation  !  It  is  singular  that  my  friend  can  comment  so 
phantastically  on  men  and  things !  -  Show  me,  says  he,  one  case,  of  an 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  355 

adult  getting  into  the  Jewish  church,  without  a  profession  of  faith  in 
Abraham's  God ;  and  then,  adds  he,  I  will  show  you  a  similar  case  in  the 
Christian  church.  I  accept  the  challenge  and  will  hold  him  to  his 
promise. 

Abraham  had  three  hundred  and  seventeen  warrior-men,  who  were  all 
circumcised  the  same  day  with  himself.  He  had  a  great  many  more.  All 
the  male  servants  of  his  house  were  circumcised  on  his  faith,  merely  as 
his  property.  These,  and  all  other  servants,  the  property  of  proselytes, 
were  introduced  into  the  Jewish  state — not  on  account  of  their  own  faith, 
but  of  that  of  their  masters ;  or,  from  the  principle  of  property  alone. 
For  the  law,  in  such  cases,  asked  only  for  property.  Hence  the  Jewish 
polity  threw  its  arms  around  multitudes  of  unbelieving  men. 

So  far  as  we  know,  says  my  friend,  they  had  faith.  If  so,  let  him 
prove  it.  Let  him  show  that  they  were  not  taken  in  by  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham and  as  his  property,  but  each  upon  his  own  faith.  I  hope  he  will 
redeem  his  pledge.  But  if  so,  he  has  annulled  the  law  of  circumcision. 
That  law  commanded  servants  to  be  circumcised,  not  on  the  principle  of 
faith,  but  of  property. 

The  next  item  in  my  friend's  remarks,  was  the  purity  of  the  sects — , 
Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Baptist,  and  all  other  people,  except  my 
unfortunate  brethren.  He  has  brought  us  up  as  the  beau  ideal  of  a  re- 
formed state  of  society.  I  will  not  draw  invidious  comparisons.  I  will 
give  the  Pedo-baptists  full  credit  for  all  their  virtues,  and  I  do  wish  before 
heaven  that  they  were  a  thousand  times  more  virtuous  than  they  are. 
But  are  all  the  baptized  in  infancy,  by  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Epis- 
copalians, &c.,  to  be  classed  among  the  virtuous  and  pious?  No:  the 
one  half,  probably,  of  all  the  persons  thus  made  members  of  the  church, 
in  infancy,  are  now  amongst  the  sceptics,  infidels,  or  worldlings  of  the 
present  day.  Were  you  to  explore  drinking-houses,  gambling-houses, 
theatres,  and  other  vicious  haunts  of  dissipation,  profligacy  and  crime, 
you  would  find  them  filled  with  hundreds  and  thousands  of  these  bap- 
tized members  of  the  Presbyterian,  Episcopalian,  Congregational,  and 
Methodist  churches.  Among  these  vast  multitudes,  how  many  are  there 
who  do  not  even  believe  in  the  truths  of  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  nor 
in  that  Lord  to  whom  they  have  been  so  solemnly  dedicated  in  infancy. 
Not  half,  I  say,  not  one  half — I  might  say  not  one  third — that  have  been 
sprinkled,  ever  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table.  I  should  be  glad  to  be  in- 
formed that  even  one  half  had  become  bona  fide  communicants,  or  moral 
members  of  their  own  churches  in  which  they  were  baptized. 

My  friend  says,  that  my  argument  about  making  void  the  command- 
ments of  God,  does  not  apply  to  this  case.  If  he  produces  a  command 
to  baptize  infants,  then,  and  only  then,  Avill  it  be  inapplicable.  Let  him 
produce  such  a  command,  and  I  will  withdraw  it.  Till  he  does  so,  I 
cannot.  Without  such  a  precept,  in  view  of  the  subject,  there  is  no 
proof  that  can  authorize  such  a  thing  to  be  done.  But  we  have  a  com- 
mand to  baptize  him  that  belie veth  :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  baptize 
tliem  that  are  taught."  Here  is  a  command  to  baptize  believing  prose- 
lytes. Let  him  show  a  command  to  baptize  infants  and  speechless  babes. 
Let  him  produce  only  one  precept  for  it,  or  one  example  of  its  having 
been  practiced  by  the  apostles. 

With  regard  to  all  this  matter,  which  he  has  read  from  the  Christian 
Baptist,  I  have  only  to  say,  I  stand  up  to  every  word  of  it — to  the  very 
letter.     I  am  glad  to  hear  so  much  of  it  read  with  approbation,  on  the 


356  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

present  occasion.  But  what,  as  respects  this  question,  does  it  amount  to? 
Who  says  that  John's  baptism  is  identical  with  christian  baptism  ?  Who 
teaches  so  ?  They  are,  indeed,  much  more  nearly  identical  than  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  religions.  They  are,  however,  precisely  identical 
in  two  or  three  grand  points.  First — the  action  in  both  is  immersion  in 
water.  Second — the  subject  of  both  is  a.  professed  believer  and  reform- 
er. Third — in  the  intention  of  the  subject — his  reformation  of  life,  his 
subordination  to  law — in  all  these  they  are  similar,  nay,  identical.  There 
are  some  points,  however,  in  which  they  are  not  identical.  John's  bap- 
tism was  not  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit.  This  revelation  was  not  yet  given ;  nor  were  the  facts  believed 
in  both  cases  the  same.  The  Messiah  and  his  kingdom  were  coming  in 
the  tirst.     They  have  come  in  the  second. 

My  friend  asks  me  who  baptized  those  in  the  previous,  the  intercalary 
dispensation?  Who  baptized  John?  who  baptized  the  first  Baptist? 
Should  I  not  b«  able  to  show  who  baptized  these,  what  then  ?  What 
will  the  gentleman  infer  from  our  ignorance  in  this  case  ?  Are  we  to 
infer  that  they  never  were  baptized  ?  AVhat  does  that  prove  or  disprove  ? 
No  person  who,  in  any  age,  sets  up  an  institution,  was  himself  a  subject 
of  it.  An  executor  was  to  be  appointed.  When  a  person  is  appointed 
by  God  to  set  up  an  institution,  he  is  not  himself  to  be  regarded  as  a  sub- 
ject of  that  institution.  In  the  style  of  Mr.  B.,  we  might  ask  who  con- 
secrated Moses  ?  who  put  the  mitre  upon  the  head  of  Aaron  ?  who  poured 
the  consecrating  oil  upon  his  head  ?  who  anointed  Melchisedek  ?  What 
a  sage  question  !  Who  married  Adam  ?  The  gentleman  will  find  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  his  difficulties  in  these  cases. 

Who  baptized  John  ?  God  bade  him  baptize.  My  friend  asks,  was 
he  in  the  christian  church  ?  No  :  because  there  was  no  christian  church 
at  that  time.  The  Messiah  was  not  yet  slain — the  comer-stone  was  not 
yet  laid.  Meantime,  I  ask,  what  was  John  to  do  ?  what  was  Jesus  to 
do  ?  what  were  the  holy  twelve  to  do  ?  They  were  to  prepare  a  people 
for  the  new  institution  ;  some  stones  must  be  quarried  out ;  some  materials 
for  the  building  must  be  gathered.  The  proper  time  and  place  for  erect- 
ing the  building  was  ordained  by  God  himself.  The  twelve  were  bap- 
tized by  John :  they  were  amongst  those  prepared  for  the  Messiah's 
kingdom.  Some  one  must  commence  the  institution — there  must  be 
some  one  to  commence  christian  baptism ;  that  could  not  be  done  till 
Jesus  had  died,  was  buried,  and  rose  again :  because  christians  are  said  to 
be  baptized  into  his  death,  they  are  said  to  be  buried  with  him,  and  to 
rise  with  him.  This  could  not  be  the  case  till  Jesus  di6?d,  was  buried, 
and  rose  again.  Christian  baptism  could  not  be  anticipated.  Its  facts 
must  first  transpire. 

They  began  to  immerse  into  Christ  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Those 
prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  commissioned  by  the  Messiah, 
had  the  same  authority  to  administer  baptism,  that  John  the  Baptist  had; 
the  same  divine  warrant  from  the  Great  King.  Read  the  commission — 
will  not  that  suffice  ? 

The  gentleman,  in  vain,  remonstrates  against  my  objection  to  his  the- 
ory, drawn  from  Christ's  laying  the  corner-stone,  the  glorious  corner- 
stone of  the  new  building,  promised  through  the  evangelical  Isaiah. 
Does  he  argue  that  this  promise  has  been  fulfilled,  and  the  corner-stone 
laid  ?  Did  Isaiah  write  history  rather  than  prophecy  ?  Is  intention  and 
execution  identical  ?     According  to  him,  many  things  in  prophecy,  be- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  357 

cause  spoken  of  in  the  past  tense,  have  transph-ed.  I  will  make  his  own 
grammar,  and  logic,  and  rhetoric  reverberate  upon  himself  in  a  much 
more  fundamental  matter.  His  theory  would  prove  that  the  Messiah  was 
slain  before  he  was  born.  Most  preposterous,  indeed,  though  it  appear, 
it  is  nevertheless  true,  on  the  principle  of  escape,  that  my  friend  em- 
ploys. Does  not  Isaiah  say,  "  He  was  oppressed,  and  he  was  afflicted, 
yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth  ?  He  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter ; 
and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  openeth  he  not  his  mouth." 
Is  that  not  in  the  past  tense  ?  and  does  that  prove  that  Messiah  was  slain 
seven  hundred  years  before  he  was  born  ?  "  He  was  taken  from  prison 
and  from  judgment.  He  was  cut  oft':  He  has  made  his  soul  an  offer- 
ing for  sin,"  &;c.  What,  then,  is  the  use  of  quoting  phrases  of  this 
sort,  to  prove  that  the  foundation  of  the  church  was  laid  by  Moses  ? 
They  have  been  used,  it  appears,  to  give  strong  interest  to  the  prophetic 
themes — to  make  things  pass  before  us  in  bold  relief — to  stand  out  upon 
the  canvass  in  that  vivid  form  which  will  most  powerfully  impress  us. 
That  the  corner-stone  of  Christ's  church  was  not  laid  before  he  rose  from 
the  dead,  is  as  evident  as  any  other  fact  in  the  Bible. 

I  have  now  glanced  at  every  thing  that  I  have  noted  in  my  friend's 
last  address  ;  the  remainder  of  my  time  I  will  employ  in  prosecution  of 
the  subject  upon  which  I  was  descanting  when  I  sat  down.  The  mate- 
rials for  the  new  building  were  being  got  out  of  the  quarry,  by  all  the 
workmen  in  the  field ;  vast  multitudes  were  being  baptized  by  John, 
and  by  other  Baptists  with  him.  Not  a  single  Jew  was  excepted  fwnt 
his  baptism,  because  of  his  circumcision.  Why  should  not  the  cir- 
cumcised Jew  be  excepted,  if  circumcision  and  baptism  be  identical. 
Most  evident,  then,  it  is,  that  neither  circumcision  nor  the  Jewish  church 
was  at  all  in  the  way  of  John's  baptism. 

Do  not  all  agree  that  the  very  best  of  the  remnant  of  the  twelve  tribes, 
were  the  people  prepared  for  the  Lord  I  Tliese  were  the  elect  of  the 
Jewish  state.  Yet  even  these  persons,  notwithstanding  their  Jewish 
church  membership,  were  constrained  to  be  baptized  by  John.  Is  it  not, 
then,  strong  evidence,  that  John's  I)aptism  was  entirely  independent  of 
circumcision  ?  that  they  are  not  identical  in  any  sense  of  the  word  what- 
ever? But  I  must  ask  a  still  more  confounding  question:  By  whom 
were  the  first  three  thousand  baptized,  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  ? 
They  were  circumcised  per  sons .  Every  single  man  of  them  had  been 
circumcised !  They  were  all  Jews  !  not  a  gentile  was  converted  that 
day.  Now  these  three  thousand  Jews,  first  immersed  in  the  name  of  the 
Divinity,  were  immediately  added  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples 
in  Jerusalem.  These  were  the  nucleus  of  the  new  institution — the  mo- 
ther church.  They  entered  by  believing,  repenting,  and  being  baptized  : 
therefore  their  circumcision  did  not  stand  in  the  way.  It  was  void,  as 
respects  Christianity.  The  new  church  began  entirely  upon  new  prin- 
ciples. This  significant  and  momentous  fact,  alone,  will  render  forever 
abortive  all  the  policy,  wisdom,  learning,  and  eloquence  of  Pedo-baptists 
to  establish  identity. 

I  have  seldom  been  more  startled  than  when  the  gentleman,  in  his 
opening  speech,  observed,  that  "  no  command  was  ever  given  to  the 
aposdes  to  organize  a  new  church."  In  the  boldest  flights  of  imagina- 
tion which  have  been  called  forth  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  I  have 
never  yet  seen  or  heard  any  declaration  more  glaringly  baseless  and  start- 
ling than  this  one.     I  know,  indeed,  it  has  been  asked — where  is  the 


358  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

command  given  to  Moses  to  organize  the  Jewish  church  ?  and,  perhaps, 
with  more  philosophy  !  But,  fellow-citizens,  is  it  true  that  Jesus,  being 
about  to  leave  this  world ;  about  to  establish  and  ordain  a  new  bond  of 
union — a  new  society ;  having  chosen  men,  and  brought  them  into  his 
own  school;  teaching  them  for  three  years,  and  explaining  to  them  in 
parable  after  parable ;  saying,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  this — like 
that — and  teaching  them  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  forty  days 
after  he  rose  from  the  dead ;  and  yet  had  no  intention  at  all  of  giving 
to  them  authority  to  organize  his  church!!  It  is  a  most  singular  and  haz- 
ardous position,  on  which  Mr.  Rice  places  his  defence  of  infant  baptism. 
A  position  superlatively  hazardous  indeed.  A  scheme  which  involves  in 
it  much  contradiction  of  plain  common  sense,  and  of  the  most  plain  and 
interesting  portions  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Go  and  convert  the  world. 
What  means  these  words  ?  Instruct,  baptize,  and  teach  them  my  laws 
and  ordinances.  Did  he  not  give  them  a  kingdom  to  manage  ?  Did  he  not 
make  them  his  ministers,  ambassadors,  plenipotentiaries,  and  say  to  them, 
"As  my  father  sent  me,  so  send  I  you?"  Did  he  not  place  them  on  thrones 
of  government,  and  make  them  ministers  of  the  new  covenant?  Shall  we 
hear  Paul:  "As  a  wise  master-builder,  I  have  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
church  in  Corinth.  Let  every  man  take  heed  how  he  builds  upon  it." 
The  apostles  were  commissioned  to  build  a  new  church ;  and  as  you  see 
at  once,  they  rejected  the  Jews  by  thousands.  They  would  not  receive 
a  single  man  upon  Jewish  pretensions.  "  Do  not  think  to  say  in  your 
hearts  that  you  have  Abraham  to  your  father :  you  must  bring  forth  fruits 
of  your  own,  worthy  of  repentance."  This  was  as  much  the  doctrine  of 
the  apostles  as  of  John. 

It  is  as  clear  as  the  sun,  that  in  the  commencement,  the  first  members 
of  the  christian  church  were  all  Jews,  and  that  their  former  rights  availed 
them  nothing  at  all. 

The  history  of  the  first  fifteen  years  of  Christianity  is  a  perfect  and 
complete  refutation  of  the  whole  Pedo-baptist  assumptions.  The  word  of 
the  Lord  was  proclaimed,  and  myriads  of  Jews  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized. The  Samaritans — mongrel  Jews,  who  had  all  been  circumcised — 
also  received  the  word  of  the  Lord.  Many  of  them  believed,  repented, 
and  were  baptized.  The  Samaritans  were  received  into  the  new  king- 
dom just  as  others.  Their  Mount  Gerizim  availed  them  no  more  than 
the  temple  worship  of  the  Jews.  The  new  kingdom  was  thrown  open 
to  all  men.     The  Jew  and  the  Samaritan  met  in  it. 

After  six  or  seven  years  of  laborious  preaching ;  setting  the  church  in 
order ;  giving  laws  and  ordinances  ;  God  says,  1  will  make  of  Jews,  Sa- 
maritans and  pagans  a  new  institution.  Go  to  the  gentiles,  Peter.  He 
went,  and  preached  the  same  gospel  successfully  to  the  gentiles,  preached 
to  them  the  same  faith,  repentance  and  baptism.  Peter  had  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Jesus  gave  them  to  him  in  the  singular  number. 
I  took  this  ground  at  the  beginning  of  this  controversy.  I  now  find  it  is 
occupied  by  some  of  the  greatest  ecclesiastic  dignitaries.  Archbishop 
Whateley  has  recently  come  out,  affirming  every  principle  assumed  in 
the  Christian  Baptist  upon  the  organization  of  the  church,  as  I  shall  shov7 
in  its  proper  place.  Those  principles,  which  have  been  so  often  repudi- 
ated on  this  continent  during  the  last  few  years,  have  become  the  very 
ground  now  assumed  by  archbishop  Whateley.  We  are  now  standing  in 
much  higher  association  and  communion  in  the  old  and  new  world,  m 
Europe  and  in  America,  than  when  these  views  were  first  promulged„. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  359 

While  on  this  subject,  and  althouirh  my  friend  has  been,  on  several 
occasions,  inclined  to  insinuate  a  want  of  soundness  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  tlie  great  Author  of  our  religion ;  if  put  to  the  proof  of  it, — 
I  say  it  solemnly  and  dispassionately, — that  if  I  am  any  judge  of  what 
Presbyterianism  is,  or  what  are  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  so-called  evan- 
gelical professors  of  this  country,  I  am  decidedly  more  evangelical  than 
the  Presbyterians  of  Kentucky,  not  only  on  this  point,  but  on  every  sin- 
gle point  connected  with  it,  in  the  whole  remedial  system.  I  say  it  now, 
that  I  am  willing  to  bring  up  the  old  Scotch  church,  and  the  evangelical 
Independents,  and  their  symbols ;  and  if  I  am  not,  in  every  point  of  evan- 
gelical religion,  more  orthodox  than  they  are,  I  am  ignorant  of  the  invo- 
lutions and  evolutions  of  the  church  in  this  community  for  the  last  thirty 
years. 

I  stand,  then,  on  high  and  elevated  ground.  I  am  sustained  in  affirm- 
ing, that  the  christian  church  is  a  new  organization,  of  a  more  spiritual, 
celestial  and  divine  character,  originated  by  the  Messiah  in  person,  and 
committed  to  his  apostles,  to  be  by  them  developed  and  established  in  the 
world. 

I  had  gone  down  to  the  house  of  Cornelius.  I  will  return  to  it.  When 
they  heard  and  believed  the  same  gospel,  what  was  the  door  of  faith  and 
communion  opened  for  them?  I  call  it  the  door  of  faith;  and  find  my- 
self in  excellent  company.  I  have  high  and  venerable  authority  for  so 
denominating  it.  The  proper  door  into  the  society  of  the  saints,  for  two 
thousand  j-ears,  was  faith.  It  was  constituted,  in  all  ages,  the  redeeming 
principle ;  without  it,  it  was  always  impossible  to  please  God.  It  is, 
however,  but  a  door  of  access  to  God ;  and  when  by  it  brought  near  to 
him,  it  prompts  to  all  conformity  to  his  will,  and  qualifies  for  cordial,  un- 
reserved and  universal  obedience. — \_Thne  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  seventh  address.] 

Mr.  President — ^1  was  particularly  pleased  with  the  last  remarks  of 
the  gentleman ;  because  they  disprove  a  considerable  part  of  what  he  has 
written  concerning  his  reformation !  Faith  he  now  makes  the  door  into 
the  church;  and  if  this  be  true,  every  believer  is,  of  course,  in  the  church. 
Yet  the  doctrine  for  which  he  has  long  contended  is — that  persons  are  not 
in  the  church,  nor  even  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
till  they  are  immersed.  If  he  will  prove,  that  faith  alone  ever  constituted 
an  individual  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of  God ;  I  will  admit,  that 
infants  are  excluded  from  it !  The  gentleman  is  running  a  tilt  agoinst 
his  own  doctrine. 

He  complains,  because  I  call  on  him  for  the  passage  of  Scripture  that 
speaks  of  a  plurality  of  covenants  v/ith  Abraham.  1  thought  it  was  the 
glory  of  his  reformation,  that  it  demands  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord"  for 
€very  thing  in  faith  and  practice.  No  one  has  more  magnified  the  evils 
brought  on  the  church  by  the  inferences  of  men,  than  he.  Certainly, 
then,  he  ought  not  to  complain,  when  I  call  on  him  to  act  on  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  his  reformation,  and  prove  by  a  "  thus  saith  the 
Lord,"  the  truth  of  his  assertion,  that  God  made  with  Abraham  three  cov- 
enants. I  do  not  demand  of  him  any  particular  words,  but  a  passage 
which  by  fair  construction  will  sustain  his  assertion.  The  difficulty  in 
which  he  has  involved  himself,  is  this  :  the  inspired  writers,  whenever 
they  speak  of  the  promises  of  God  to  Abraham,  use  the  word  covenani 


360  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

in  the  singular  number.  They  never  speak,  as  does  Mr.  Campbell,  of 
covenants  (in  the  plural)  with  Abraham.  And  when  they  write  covenant, 
no  man  has  the  right  to  add  an  s  to  the  word. 

But  he  tells  us,  there  were  three  transactions,  and  of  course  three  cov- 
enants ;  yet  before  he  proceeded  far,  he  had  "  engrossed''^  them  and  made 
only  two  !  Then  why  not  go  a  little  further,  and  engross  them  in  one  ? 
If  by  this  process  (which  I  think  is  original)  he  can  so  engross  three  cov- 
enants as  to  reduce  them  to  two ;  by  a  little  more  engrossing  he  might 
reduce  the  two  to  one  ;  and  then  he  would  be  precisely  with  the  Bible. 

The  law  at  Sinai,  I  have  said,  was  only  a  temporary  addition  to  the 
Abrahamic  covenant.  Mr.  C.  contends,  that  it  was  an  addition  to  the 
single  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  Yet  it  is  a  fact,  that  Canaan  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  whole  epistle  in  which  the  law  is  spoken  of  as  an  addi- 
tion. The  apostle  is  proving  by  the  great  promise  in  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant, the  doctrine  of  justification  and  salvation  by  faith.  By  such  per- 
versions of  the  Bible  as  that  which  introduces  Canaan  where  it  is  not 
mentioned,  I  can  prove  any  position,  however  absurd. 

The  passage  from  Isaiah's  prophecy,  quoted  by  Paul  in  Galatians  iv. 
•was  applied  by  Mr.  C.  to  Sarah ;  though  evidently  it  was  an  address  to 
the  church.  If  he  chooses  to  call  the  church  Sarah,  I  shall  not  object! 
I  have  said,  that  God  is  represented  as  the  husband  of  the  church,  but  not 
of  any  individual.  In  a  certain  sense,  it  may  be  allowable  to  call  him  the 
widow's  husband,  as  he  is  the  Father  of  the  fatherless ;  though  the  Scrip- 
tures, I  believe,  do  not  use  such  language. 

The  gentleman  will  have  Nicodemus  a  worthy  member  of  the  Jewish 
church ;  and  he  asks,  how  did  his  being  a  believer  in  Christ  make  him 
worse  than  others  ?  He  believed  that  Christ  was  a  teacher  come  from 
God;  but  his  faith  seems  to  have  extended  no  further.  Did  he  acknowl- 
edge him  as  the  Son  of  God — the  Savior  of  the  world  ?  He  did  not.  He 
acknowledged  him  as  a  teacher  come  from  God ;  but  he  was  wholly  igno- 
rant of  one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  religion,  which  is  clearly 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New — the  doctrine  of  the 
new  birth.  The  Savior,  therefore,  reproved  him  for  his  ignorance — "  Art 
thou  a  master  [teacher]  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  things  ?"  John 
iii.  10.  Nicodemus  was  not  a  true  believer,  nor  a  worthy  member  of  the 
Jewish  church. 

I  challenge  the  gentleman  to  prove,  that  an  adult  ever  entered  the  Jew- 
ish church  according  to  the  law  of  God,  without  professing  faith  in  the 
God  of  Abraham.  He  gives  as  an  instance  the  servants  of  Abraham,  who 
were  circumcised.  But  were  they  unbelievers  ?  Can  he  prove,  that 
they  were  ?  We  have  no  particular  account  concerning  any  of  them  but 
one ;  and  he  was  an  eminently  pious  man.  It  was  he  who  was  sent  to 
obtain  a  wife  for  Isaac.  The  gentleman  calls  on  me  to  prove,  that  they 
were  believers.  This  is  truly  a  singular  mode  of  reasoning.  He  asserts, 
that  the  Jewish  church  is  not  the  same  as  the  Christian,  because  unbe- 
lieving adults  were  admitted  to  be  members  of  it.  I  call  upon  him  to 
prove  this  fact;  and  he  brings  forward  the  servants  of  Abraham.  I  ask 
him,  does  he  know,  that  they  were  unbelievers?  He  must  admit,  that  he 
does  not.  Then  what  is  his  argument  worth  ?  The  strong  probability, 
aside  from  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  nature  and  design  of  circumcision, 
is — that  they  were  professed  believers.  It  is,  at  least,  not  likely  that 
Abraham  had  in  his  family  men  who  did  not  acknowledge  the  true  God; 
nor  is  it  probable,  that  any  part  of  them,  seeing  him  erect  an  altar  and 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  361 

worship  God  wherever  he  journeyed,  and  knowing  of  the  frequent  reve- 
lations made  to  him,  would  persist  in  refusing  to  acknowledge  his  God. 
If,  however,  Mr.  C.  will  produce  evidence,  that  any  one  of  them  was  not 
a  believer,  I  will  give  up  the  point. 

But  it  is  enough  for  me,  that  Paul  the  apostle  says,  circumcision  pro- 
fited those  to  whom  it  was  administered,  only  when  they  kept  the  law; 
that  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly,  neither  is  that  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh.  For  if  circumcision  had  been,  as  Mr.  C. 
contends,  a  mere  national  mark,  he  would  have  been  a  Jew  who  was  one 
outwardly,  and  circumcision  would  have  been  only  that  which  was  out- 
ward in  the  flesh.  Bui  according  to  Paul,  circumcision,  like  baptism, 
was  worthless  without  the  religion  of  the  heart.  The  gentleman  is  only 
plunging  deeper  into  the  mire,  whenever  he  touches  this  subject. 

He  magnifies  the  numbers  of  those  baptized  in  infancy,  who  become 
gamblers,  drunkards,  and  the  like ;  and  he  asks,  have  07ie  half  of  them 
become  members  of  the  church  ?  I  cannot,  of  course,  give  the  precise 
proportion  who  become  truly  pious ;  but  I  rejoice  to  say,  from  observa- 
tion and  from  information  gathered  from  other  sources,  the  large  majority 
of  those  whose  parents  consecrate  them  to  God,  and  who  regard  faithfully 
their  promise  to  train  them  up  for  God,  do  give  cheering  evidence  of  con- 
version. Often  have  I,  and  others  older  in  the  ministry,  remarked,  that  in 
many  of  the  most  interesting  and  powerful  revivals,  there  are  not  a  great 
many  baptisms  to  be  administered.  Of  those  who  enjoy  the  blessing,  the 
large  majority  are  very  frequently  the  children  of  the  church,  who  turn 
from  their  evil  ways,  and  say  to  their  rejoicing  parents,  as  Ruth  to  Nao- 
mi, "  thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  God  my  God."  Many,  it 
is  true,  through  the  unfaithfulness  of  parents,  and  from  other  causes,  re- 
main in  impenitency,  and  some  even  become  drunkards.  But  how  many, 
I  ask,  of  those  immersed  at  adult  age,  (to  say  nothing  of  their  children,) 
do  apostatize,  and  become  drunkards  or  gamblers  ?  Multitudes  of  the 
members  of  the  gentleman's  own  church  have  apostatized ;  insomuch  that 
one  of  his  brother  ministers — not  an  enemy — wrote  to  him,  stating,  that 
he  knew  a  number  of  churches  which,  a  few  years  since,  were  large  and 
flourishing,  but  are  now  almost  dead.  [Mr.  Campbell.  "  Read  the  pas- 
sage."] The  gentleman  desires  me  to  read  the  passage.  I  have  it  not 
here  at  present ;  but  it  shall  be  forthcoming  on  to-morrow.  The  state- 
ment is  contained  in  a  letter  written  by  a  Mr.  Gates  to  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  published  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  with  remarks  by  himself. 
When  I  state  facts,  I  will  prove  them. 

He  calls  on  me  to  produce  the  command  to  baptize  infants.  The  com- 
mission, he  says,  requires  the  baptism  of  disciples.  I  deny  that  it  re- 
quires any  such  thing.  The  command  is,  "  Go,  make  disciples  of  all 
nations."  How  ?  By  baptizing  and  teaching.  The  gentleman  himself 
gives  the  passage  this  construction ;  and  yet,  in  palpable  inconsistency, 
he  insists  on  first  making  disciples,  and  then  baptizing  them  ?  I  choose 
to  go  by  the  Bible;  and  it  does  not  say,  that  in  all  cases  teaching  must 
precede  baptism.  As  to  the  order  of  the  words,  if  it  were  of  any  impor- 
tance, baptizing  comes  before  teaching.  The  commission,  as  I  have  re- 
peatedly stated,  requires  all  to  be  baptized  who  have  a  right  to  member- 
ship in  the  church. 

John's  baptism,  the  gentleman  admits,  was  not  christian  baptism ;  and 
he  is  obliged  to  admit,  that  the  apostles  were  not  introduced  into  the 
church  by  christian  baptism.     But  he  seems  now  disposed  to  maintain, 

3H 


362  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

that  they  might  be  introduced  loithout  baptism;  and  he  asks,  who  bap- 
tized John?  I  answer,  John  was  not  setting  up  a  new  church,  as  Mr. 
Campbell  says  the  apostles  were.  He  was  a  priest ;  and  in  that  office 
he  had  the  right  to  administer  any  of  the  "  divers  washings"  of  the  Jew- 
ish law,  or  any  other  that  God  might  appoint  for  the  benefit  of  his  church, 
John  neither  entered,  nor  introduced  others  into,  a  new  church.  The 
gentleman  has  asserted,  that  none  were  permitted  to  pass  from  the  Jew- 
ish into  the  christian  church  without  receiving  christian  baptism  ;  but 
here  is  a  stubborn  fact  in  the  face  of  his  assertion.  The  apostles  were 
the  branches  of  the  olive-tree,  never  broken  off,  and  therefore  not  graffed 
in  again  by  baptism.      The  church  under  both  dispensations  is  the  same. 

If  I  should  attempt  much  system  in  my  argument,  1  should  not  be  able 
to  follow  my  friend  in  his  wanderings ;  and  I  wish  fairly  to  meet  and 
answer  all  his  arguments  against  the  baptism  of  infants. 

He  states,  as  an  important  fact,  that  the  best  of  the  Jews  became  chris- 
tians and  were  baptized.  Three  thousand,  he  tells  us,  were  imm,ersed 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  I  have  no  doubt  they  were  baptized  ;  but  that 
they  were  immersed  I  do  not  believe.  But  if  they  were  in  the  church 
already  by  circumcision,  why,  he  asks,  were  they  baptized  ?  The  an- 
swer to  this  inquiry  is  found  in  Rom.  xi.  20 :  "  Because  of  unbelief 
they  were  broken  off."  Our  Savior  "came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  re- 
ceived him  not."  The  great  majority  of  the  Jews  were  unbelievers,  and 
were  therefore  broken  off — excommunicated.  If  a  limb  has  been  broken 
from  a  tree,  and  you  wish  to  restore  it  to  its  place,  do  you  not  graff  it  in? 
The  great  body  of  the  Jews  were  broken  off — solemnly  excommunicated, 
when  our  Savior,  standing  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  exclaimed  weeping: 
"  O  Jerusalem  !  Jerusalem !  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest 
them  that  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  chil- 
dren together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and 
ye  would  not.  Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate."  But  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  three  thousand  of  them  returned,  and  professed  faith 
in  Christ.  Christian  baptism  had  now  been  appointed  as  the  initiatory 
rite — the  door  into  the  church ;  and  they  entered  by  the  existing  door. 
No  government  employs  two  seals  at  the  same  time.  To  avoid  confu- 
sion, as  well  as  to  distinguish  believing  Jews  from  those  who  were  apos- 
tate, all  who  returned  to  their  forsaken  Redeemer  were  received  by  the 
newly  appointed  ordinance.  But  the  apostles,  having  never  been  broken 
off  because  of  unbelief,  were  not  introduced  by  baptism. 

The  gentleman,  I  perceive,  has  a  great  facility  of  becoming  astonished. 
He  is  quite  astonished,  that  I  should  venture  upon  the  bold  and  reckless 
assertion,  that  the  apostles  were  not  commissioned  to  organize  a  church. 
And  yet  he  knows,  if  he  is  at  all  acquainted  with  the  controversy,  that  in 
making  this  bold  assertion,  I  am  saying  only  what  all  Pedo-baptists  say ! 
Do  they  not  all  maintain  the  identity  of  the  church  under  the  old  and 
new  dispensations  ?  Have  they  not  so  believed  for  near  two  thousand 
years  ?  Yet,  whilst  he  professes  to  be  very  familiar  with  the  principles 
of  Presbyterianism,  he  is  expressing  great  surprise  that  I  should  assume 
positions  which  Presbyterians  have  ever  maintained  ! 

As  for  his  pretensions  to  be  nearer  the  old  Scotch  Presbyterians,  than 
the  Presbyterians  of  this  country,  it  may  pass  for  a  jest;  but  if  he  means 
that  we  shall  consider  him  serious  in  the  remark,  it  is  a  wide  mistake,  a 
total  mistake.  I  profess  to  have  some  little  acquaintance  with  Scotch 
Presbyterianism. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  333 

Whether  his  principles  are  like  to  prevail,  as  he  imagines,  admits  of 
serious  doubt.  It  may  be  well  for  him,  however,  to  be  sanguine,  even 
when  his  cause  is  sinking.  Not  having  seen  bishop  Whateley's  work,  I 
can  say  nothing  concerning  it ;  nor  is  it  necessary  that  I  should,  so  far  as 
this  argument  is  concerned. 

But  when  and  where  was  the  christian  church  organized  ?  The  gen- 
tleman has  attempted  to  prove,  that  it  was  set  up  at  the  commencement 
of  the  new  dispensation,  from  the  language  of  our  Savior  to  Peter : 
"  Thou  art  Peter  ;  and  on  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church."  But  the 
Savior  did  not  say,  he  would  lay  the  foundation  of  his  church  at  that 
time.  Peter  had  boldly  acknowledged  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ;  and 
he  replied,  "Thou  art  Peter;  (perhaps  indicating  by  his  name  his  firm- 
ness of  purpose,)  and  on  this  rock  (viz :  the  truth  Peter  had  acknow- 
ledged) will  I  build  my  church."  But  was  it  a  new  doctrine,  that  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Savior  of  men?  Had  it  not  long  been  proclaimed 
in  prophecy,  and  in  types  and  sacrifices  ?  Did  dot  Abraham  look  forward 
to  his  advent,  and  rejoice?  And  did  he  not  ascend  to  heaven  through 
faith  in  this  glorious  foundation?  The  foundation  was  laid  in  the  first 
promise  to  Adam ;  and,  therefore,  Christ  is  represented  as  "  the  Lamb, 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  The  blessed  effects  of  his 
death  extended  back  to  the  first  believer ;  and,  from  the  beginning,  the 
church  was  built  on  this  foundation. 

Peter  laid  the  foundation,  in  one  sense,  when  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
he  preached  salvation  through  Christ  crucified ;  but  years  afterwards, 
Paul,  writing  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  could  say,  "  I,  as  a  wise  master- 
builder,  have  laid  the  foundation ;"  1  Cor  iii.  So  now,  when  a  minister 
of  Christ  proclaims  his  gospel  to  those  who  have  not  heard  it,  he  lays 
the  foundation.  But  all  this  does  not  prove,  that  it  has  never  been  laid 
before.  Paul  laid  the  foundation  at  Corinth ;  but  the  prophets  had  laid 
the  same  foundation  long  before  he  lived ;  and,  centuries  before,  the 
building  had  been  going  up. 

Mr.  Campbell  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  christian  church  is  not  identi- 
cal with  the  church  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  the  expression  in  Eph.  ii.  15, 
"For  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one  new  man;''''  that  is,  as  he  vmder- 
stands  it,  one  new  church.  I  will  read  several  verses  in  connection  with 
this  passage.  Eph.  ii.  13  :  "  But  now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  some- 
time were  far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is 
our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  between  us ;  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity, 
even  the  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances ;  for  to  make 
in  himself  of  twain  one  new  man,  (my  friend  read  it  body,)  so  mak- 
ing peace ;  and  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one  body 
by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby ;  and  came  and  preached 
peace  to  them  that  were  afar  off,  and  to  them  that  were  nigh.  For 
through  him  we  both  have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father.  Now 
therefore  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens 
with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God ;  and  are  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone ;  in  whom  all  the  building,  fitly  framed  together,  grow- 
eth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord :  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  to- 
gether for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit." 

On  this  portion  of  Scripture  I  will  make  a  few  remarks.  1.  The 
middle  wall  of  partion  between  Jews  and  gentiles  was  broken  down. 


364  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  apostle  does  not  say,  the  building  was  destroyed,  nor  that  a  new 
building  was  erected  ;  but  the  middle  wall,  the  ceremonial  law  which  with 
its  burdensome  rites  made  it  impossible  for  the  gentiles  to  enter  the  church, 
was  taken  away,  that  both  Jews  and  gentiles  might  dwell  together  in  the 
same  building.  But  Mr.  Campbell  will  have  the  building  destroyed,  and 
an  entirely  new  one  erected  !  2.  This  building,  which  is  represented  as 
a  temple,  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets.  They 
both  laid  the  same  foundation,  and,  of  course,  contributed  to  build  the 
same  temple — the  same  church.  It  is  new  only  in  its  ordinances  and 
forms  of  worship.  So  the  gentleman  has  helped  me  to  another  argu- 
ment to  prove  the  identity  of  the  church,  as  he  had  previously  turned  my 
attention  to  the  4th  chapter  of  Galatians.  I  am  likely  to  become  quite 
his  debtor. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  church,  afford- 
ed by  Rom.  xi.  16.  The  apostle,  speaking  of  the  rejection  of  the  great 
body  of  the  Jews,  says: — "  For  if  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also 
holy;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches.  And  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  oif,  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive-tree,  wert  graffed  in 
among  them,  and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive- 
tree  ;  boast  not  against  the  branches  ;  but  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not 
the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  then.  The  branches  were 
broken  off  that  I  might  be  graffed  in.  Well,  because  of  unbelief  they  were 
broken  off;  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear. 
For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare 
not  thee.  And  they  also,  if  they  bide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  graffed 
in ;  for  God  is  also  able  to  graff  them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut 
out  of  the  olive-tree,  which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary 
to  nature  into  a  good  olive-tree ;  how  much  more  shall  these,  which  be 
the  natural  branches,  be  graffed  into  their  own  olive-tree  ?  " 

The  first  question  that^arises  in  view  of  this  passage  is — what  are  we 
to  understand  by  the  olive-tree  ?  Dr.  Gill,  the  learned  Baptist  commen- 
tator, who  never  for  a  moment  forgot  to  oppose  Pedo-baptism,  says,  that 
the  olive-tree  is  the  gospel  church-state.  Now,  observe,  the  Jews  who 
were  rejected,  are  here  twice  denominated  the  natural  branches  of  this 
tree  ;  and  it  is  called  their  own  olive-tree.  But  how  could  the  Jews  be 
the  natural  branches  of  this  tree,  the  members  of  the  gospel  church  ?  And 
how  could  it  be  their  own  olive-tree — their  own  church  ?  The  only  pos- 
sible answer,  as  I  think,  is — that  the  christian  church  is  the  same  which 
existed  before  the  new  dispensation,  and  of  which  the  Jews  were 
members. 

Again.  The  Jews  are  represented  as  having  been  broken  off  from  the 
good  olive-tree — excommunicated  from  the  church  because  of  unbelief. 
But  how  could  they  have  been  broken  off,  or  excommunicated  from  the 
gospel  church,  unless  they  had  been  in  it  1  And  how  could  they  have 
been  in  it,  unless  it  is  the  same  ecclesiastical  body  which  previously 
existed  ? 

Again ;  the  gentiles  were  graffed  into  the  same  tree  from  which  the 
Jews  were  broken  off.  But  it  is  certain  that  gentiles  were  introduced 
into  the  christian  church.  It  is,  therefore,  the  same  church  which  before 
existed,  to  which  the  Jews  belonged. 

Observe  again  ;  the  Jews,  when  converted  to  Christianity,  are  to  be 
again  graffed  into  their  own  olive-tree  ;  they  are  to  be  received  into  the 
same  church  from  which  they  were  exchided.     But  into  what  church  are 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  365 

converted  Jews  received  ?  Into  the  gospel  church.  Then  it  is  the  same 
from  which  they  were  excluded.  If  the  identity  of  the  church  under 
both  dispensations  is  not  here  taught,  I  cannot  conceive  of  any  language 
in  which  it  could  be  expressed.  What  possible  exposition  can  be  given 
of  this  interesting  chapter,  to  make  it  consistent  with  Mr.  Campbell's 
doctrine  ? 

He  would  fain  induce  the  audience  to  believe  that  I  offer  no  argument 
in  support  of  infant  baptism.  Let  us,  however,  look  at  the  position  of 
the  argument,  and  judge  whether  it  has  any  force.  In  regard  to  the  com- 
mission given  to  the  aposUes,  several  important  facts  have  been  estab- 
lished : — 1.  That  it  is  not  a  commission  to  organize  a  new  church,  but  to 
extend  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  an  existing  church.  2.  That  it 
does  not  specify  adults  or  infants  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  3.  That 
it  requires  disciples  to  be  made  by  baptizing  and  teaching.  4.  That  it 
does  not  say  that  in  all  cases  teaching  must  precede  baptizing.  5.  That 
tlie  commission  requires  all  to  be  baptized  who  are  entiUed  to  a  standing 
in  the  church. 

6.  To  determine  who  are  to  be  members  of  the  church,  I  went  to  its 
organization,  and  proved  that,  by  positive  law  of  God,  believers  and  their 
children  were  constituted  members.  7.  I  stated,  and  it  is  not  denied, 
that  they  occupied  their  place  in  the  church  unmolested,  till  the  moment 
■when  the  commission  was  given.  8.  I  proved  that  the  commission  does 
not  exclude  them,  and  that  the  Savior  gave  not  the  slightest  intimation  of 
a  purpose  to  make  a  change  in  the  law  of  membership,  but  used  such 
language  as  was  calculated  to  make  the  impression  that  no  change  was 
contemplated.  9.  I  have  proved,  by  facts  and  principles  incontrovertible, 
the  identity  of  the  church.  I  have  put  children  into  the  church  by  posi- 
tive law  ;  and  the  gendeman  cannot  infer  them  out.  I  have  called  for  the 
law  that  excludes  them.  He  has  not  produced  it,  and  he  cannot.  Then 
believing  parents  and  their  children  must  still  remain  in  the  visible 
church  ;  and  still,  till  time  shall  end,  they  shall  rejoice  to  acknowledge 
the  faithfulness  and  the  mercy  of  the  covenant-keeping  God. — [Time 
expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  21—11  o'clock,  P.M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  seventh  reply,] 

Mr.  President — Before  adverting  to  the  last  point,  I  must  recapitu- 
late the  last  speech.  The  genUeman  said,  on  rising,  that  he  was  glad 
that  I  had  conceded,  at  last,  that  faith  was  the  door  into  the  christian 
church.  Did  I  say  so  ?  I  did  not  say  that  faith  was  the  door  of  ad- 
mission into  the  christian  church.  The  question  was  about  the  Patriarchal 
church  from  Adam  to  Moses — from  the  foundation  of  the  world  till  the 
calling  of  Abraham.  He  says  there  was  a  church  during  that  period.  I 
have  conceded  that  there  was  some  religious  society,  and  the  whole  chris- 
tian world  admits  that  there  was  a  church  state  of  some  sort,  during  that 
period,  though  no  public  worshiping  assemblies.  As  to  religions,  the 
world  may  be  divided  into  three  great  periods  :  the  patriarchal,  continuing 
about  two  thousand  years ;  the  .Jewish,  from  Abraham,  about  two  thou- 
sand ;  and  the  christian,  almost  two  thousand. 

With  regard  to  the  first,  the  door  by  whicli  men  were  admitted  into  its 
enjoyments,  was  faith,  without  which  it  was  always  impossible  to  please 
God.  When  Paul  brings  up  the  mighty  host  of  illustrious  heroes,  witnesses 
of  the  power  and  piety  of  this  principle,  Abel  stands  the  first  on  that  re- 
nowned list  of  worthies,  who  shone  with  such  transcendent  splendor  dur- 

2h2 


366  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

ing  the  antediluvian  age.  Still,  it  was  a  very  diiferent  thing  from  Christi- 
anity. It  was  a  state  in  which  men  enjoyed  communion  with  God  by 
faith,  prayer,  and  sacrifice,  in  social  acts  of  religious  worship.  Let  him 
now  show  how  their  infants  got  into  that  "  church  state  !"  I  presume  he 
will  never  satisfy  you  or  himself  on  that  subject ;  he  will  not  be  able  to 
give  any  information.  He  is  contending  that  there  was  a  church,  and  that 
infants  were  always  members  of  it,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  His 
mode  of  development  and  proof  is  rather  singular  and  phantastic.  With 
Abraham,  he  commences  his  infant  membership  by  natural  birth.  Before 
Abraham,  it  was  faith,  after  h'lm,  Jlesh,  that  opened  the  door.  It  behooves 
him  to  show  why  he  begins  then  and  there.  Is  it  not  because  he  first 
meets  circumcision  there  ?  And  yet,  when  pressed,  there  is  no  church 
door  in  it ! 

The  gentleman  could  not  be  serious,  when  he  said  that  we  began  with 
a  "  T/ms  saith  the  Lord.''''  And  now  he  has  called  upon  me  for  a  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.  I  do,  indeed,  teach  that  we  ought  to  have  a  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,"  for  what  we  believe  and  teach  in  his  name  ;  but  I  do  not  teach 
that  I  must  have  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord  for  the  caricature  that  Mr.  Rice 
has  exhibited.  He  drew  the  picture,  and  I  am  not  obliged  to  produce  any 
proof  of  it.  If  any  nian  asks  me  for  the  christian  covenant,  I  show  it  to 
him;  and  I  show  it  sealed  and  ratified  by  various  institutions.  And  if  it 
cannot  be  made  plain  and  evident,  I  know  not  what  matter  of  fact  can  be 
established  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction. 

He  wishes  me  to  engross  the  covenants  into  one.  I  said  they  were 
engrossed  into  two  covenants,  and  still  there  are  two  in  the  Bible  unno- 
ticed and  unexplained  by  him  ;  and  I  am  sorry  to  see  that  he  still  passes 
them  without  argument  or  inquiry.  They  are  engrossed  by  Paul  into 
two  grand  institutions,  represented  by  two  women.  I  have  also  produced 
the  positive  precept  for  casting  out  part  of  Abraham's  family  ;  but  the 
gentleman  seems  not  to  hear  it.  It  stands,  like  the  mountains,  unmoved 
and  immovable.  He  has  never  attempted  so  much  as  to  explain  away  the  pre- 
cept, though  it  is  now  full  two  hours  since  I  offered  it.  With  regard  to  these 
believing  adults,  he  must  have  forgotten  the  principle  which  we  recognize. 
We  say,  inasmuch  as  the  law  made  it  obligatory  upon  every  mastet,  to 
have  every  one  of  his  servants,  if  he  had  thousands  of  them,  circumcis^ed 
on  the  day  and  at  the  hour  in  which  he  professed  to  obey  the  law  himself, 
their  faith  could  have  nothing  to  do  with  his  obedience.  It  behooves  every 
soul  to  have  the  males  of  his  household  circumcised,  nolens  volens,  on 
that  day.  It  is  impossible  to  make  adult  circumcision,  on  the  part  of 
masters,  a  duty,  and  then  place  it  on  the  faith  of  servants.  Faith,  indeed, 
was  never  a  condition  of  circumcision,  in  master  or  servant,  since  the 
ivorld  began.  We  have  the  law  and  the  testimony.  Here  they  are. 
Let  the  gentleman  give  an  example.  If  the  ordinance  does  not  require  faith 
in  the  infant,  why  demand  faith  in  the  adult?  When  there  was  no  moral 
qualification  required  in  the  million,  why  ask  it  in  the  hundred  ?  Why 
raise  objections  of  this  sort  ?  What  the  law  never  asked  for,  it  is  not  our 
duty  to  require. 

If  the  law  of  Christ  had  commanded  a  master  in  this  commonwealth  to 
baptize  his  whole  stock  of  servants,  I  question  if  one  in  ten  good  Presbyte- 
rians, if  depending  upon  Mr.  Rice  for  development,  would  observe  it;  and 
if  they  did,  there  would  certainly  be  a  great  number  of  unbelievers  in  their 
church.  There  are  a  thousand  difficulties  in  his  way,  which  neither  Mr. 
Rice  nor  any  other  man  can  dispose  of.     The  case  is  so  plain,  I  am  sur- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  367 

prised  that  he  should  not  respect  his  own  intellect  more  than  to  put  me 
to  the  necessity  of  reiterating  it. 

Had  I  never  read  Dr.  Wall,  on  Baptism,  I  would  have  supposed  Mr. 
Rice  was  one  of  the  greatest  lovers  of  paradoxes  I  had  met  with.  But  in 
this  instance,  as  in  most  others,  he  is  rather  led  than  leads.  Still  I  had 
hoped,  that  in  this  age  of  improvement  and  advancement  on  the  past,  no 
one  could  be  found  so  servilely  in  love  with  the  past,  as  to  make  the  com- 
mission read — "Go,  convert  the  nations,  by  first  enrolling  them  as  scholars, 
then  baptize  them,  and  finally  teach  them  the  christian  religion."  Now, 
preposterous  though  it  be,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that  Dr.  Wall,  and  after 
him,  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  will  have  niatheteuo  to  mean,  in  this  place, 
"  make  disciples  simply  by  the  act  of  baptizing  them,  without  any  pre- 
vious teaching;"  and  then  commence  some  few  years  afterwards  to  teach 
tliem  !  It  is  no  exaggeration,  sir — no  hyperbole.     It  is  the  simple  truth  ! 

The  argument,  illustration,  and  proof  is  here.  A  school-master  makes 
up  his  school,  by  simply  getting  scholars  enrolled  ;  and  when  his  school 
is  made  up,  he  goes  to  teaching  them.  But  there,  indeed,  is  still  one 
difference  existing  in  favor  of  the  schoolmaster.  He  commences  teaching 
when  he  gets  the  school  made  up ;  but  our  preacher,  after  he  makes  up  a 
school  of  baptized  infants,  has  to  wait  some  ten  years  before  he  gives 
tliem  the  first  lessons.  St.  Xavier  done  better  with  the  Indians,  for  he 
taught  some  of  them  to  repeat  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  to  say  "Hail  Vir- 
gin Mary  !" 

I  will  count  out  this  family  of  words — I  mean  this  matheteuo,  a  family 
amounting  in  the  New  Testament  to  272  individual  occurrences  ;  and  if 
any  one,  of  any  learning,  can  show  that  in  any  one  instance  it  means 
such  a  scholar,  or  such  a  discipline,  I  will,  at  once,  give  up  the  matter. 
In  three  other  cases  only,  it  is  found  in  somewhat  a  similar  predicament 
as  in  the  passage  in  the  commission,  but  in  these  no  one  would  presume 
to  contend  that  it  means  enrollment.  The  great  Grotius,  in  his  simpli- 
city, distinguished  matheteuo,  the  first  word  in  the  commission,  as  dis- 
tinguished {rom  didas CO  ihe  last;  both  translated /cacA  in  this  common 
version,  thus:  Matheteuo,  says  he,  "means  to  communicate  the  first,  or 
elementary  principles ;  then  after  baptizing  those  who  receive  these  rudi- 
mental  views,  teach  or  introduce  them  as  persons  initiated  into  the  higher 
branches  of  christian  doctrine."  This  is  my  view  of  the  passage  ;  and,  cer- 
tainly, it  is  the  etymological  and  well  received  meaning  of  the  word,  all  the 
world  over;  excepting  a  few  Pedo-baptists,  partizans  in  the  superlative  de- 
gree. But,  methinks,  even  amongst  intelligent  and  sober-minded  Pedo- 
baptists,  this  licence  of  fixing  upon  a  word,  a  meaning  nowhere  else  found, 
in  all  sacred,  and,  I  might  say  also,  in  classic  use — a  meaning  got  up  just 
for  the  emergency,  can  never  find  any,  certainly  not  much  favor.  In  an 
essay  on  baptizing,  then,  as  the  consummating  act  of  discipline,  I  have 
argued,  and  still  argue,  that  it  indicates  the  concluding  act  of  the  process; 
that  is,  we  make  disciples  in  the  sense  of  the  commission,  by  first  teach- 
ing them  the  rudimental  principles,  and,  on  their  receiving  these,  we  then 
baptize  them,  and  the  process  of  bringing  them  into  the  school  of  Christ 
is  completed.  They  are  afterwards  to  be  taught  the  whole  way  of  tlie 
Lord  more  perfecdy. 

I  am  glad  that  Ave  have  at  last  got  upon  the  commission  again.  From 
it,  indeed,  Mr.  R.  ought  never  to  have  gone  till  it  had  been  fully  discussed. 
I  have  been  always  willing  to  stand  upon  the  commission  alone.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  a  clear,  intelligible,  as  it  most  certainly  is  a  superlatively  au- 


368  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

thoritalive  document.  It  comes  from  the  King  of  kings.  Now  I  will 
stake  the  whole  cause  for  which  now  I  plead,  upon  a  fair  grammatical  and 
logical  construction  of  this  single  document.  There  are  three  things  to 
be  done.  The  nations  are  to  be  taught  what  to  believe ;  they  are,  when 
taught  what  to  believe,  of  course,  believers;  and  to  be  baptized — and 
then  they  are  to  be  taught  ivhat  to  do.  Not  merely  the  grammatical 
arrangement  of  the  words,  but  the  nature  of  the  case  itself  implies  this 
order.  Faith  is  necessarily  first  in  order ;  consequently,  the  principles  or 
facts  to  be  believed  must  first  be  propounded.  Then  obedience,  or  the 
precepts  to  be  obeyed,  follow  most  naturally.  The  order  then  is — the 
nations  are  to  be  taught  the  facts,  then  baptized,  then  inducted  into  the 
■whole  practice  of  the  christian  religion. 

On  these  plain,  grammatical  and  logical  principles,  I  therefore  take  this 
ground ;  that  all  laws  and  commissions  are  not  only  inclusive  of  all  the 
persons  and  things  specified  in  them,  but  exclusive  of  all  other  persons 
and  things  not  therein  mentioned.  For  example : — Suppose  that  a  law 
is  passed  in  this  commonwealth,  requiring  all  male  persons,  from  sixteen 
to  forty-five,  of  sound  and  perfect  bodies,  to  muster  three  days  each  year. 
Follows  it  not,  as  evidently,  by  the  universal  construction  of  all  mankind, 
that  no  other  persons  but  males  within  those  ages,  and  of  such  qualifica- 
tions, are  required  to  attend,  as  that  the  person  so  described  shall  perform 
the  (services  so  enacted  ?  Or  take  another  example  : — Suppose  a  law  regu- 
lating the  right  of  suffrage,  should  say  that  all  free-holders,  house-hold- 
ers, and  heads  of  families  citizens  of  the  state,  from  twenty-one  years  old 
and  upwards,  shall  have  the  right  of  suffrage ;  does  not  this  arrangement 
exclude  from  the  polls  all  persons  not  possessed  of  those  qualifications? 
Are  they  not  positively  and  by  law  excluded  ? 

When,  then,  the  commission  says — Preach  the  gospel  to  the  nations ; 
baptize  them  that  believe,  and  teach  them  to  obey  my  precepts — does  it  not 
exclude  from  baptism  those  that  are  not  first  taught  the  gospel,  as  well  as 
exclude  from  the  ordinances  designed  for  the  faithful,  those  who  have  not 
been  baptized  ? 

When,  according  to  Mark,  Jesus  says,  "  Go  you  into  all  the  world, 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature:  he  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved ;"  follows  it  not  that  the  gospel  is  to  be  first  preached  to 
every  creature,  and  also  to  be  believed  before  any  one  ought  to  be  baf)- 
tized?  I  see  Mr.  Rice  is  taking  down  a  note  just  at  this  point.  He  need 
not  write  that  I  exclude  all  from  salvation  who  do  not  hear,  believe,  and 
are  baptized.  That  is  no*  the  reading,  the  fair  grammatical  reading,  of 
the  commission.  It  read^  thus,  when  the  proper  ellipsis  is  supplied : — 
"Preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  hears  the  gospel,  be- 
lieves the  gospel,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  hears  the 
gospel  and  disbelieves  the  gospel,  and  is  not  consequently  baptized,  shall 
be  condemned."  That  is  the  true  reading ;  therefore,  the  gospel  threat- 
ens damnation,  in  the  commission,  to  those  only  who  hear  the  gospel, 
disbelieve,  and  reject  it.  Such  is  its  true  exegetical  exposition.  Accord- 
ing to  the  commission,  no  one  can  be  damned  who  does  not  hear,  in  his 
own  language,  in  intelligible  words,  the  gospel,  or  so  have  it  within  his 
reach,  tliat  the  not  hearing  of  it  shall  be  voluntary.  I  am  now  willing 
even  to  appeal  to  my  opponent  whether  such  is  not  the  fair  grammatical 
and  exegetical  exposition  of  the  words  of  the  commission.  If,  in  the 
Celtic  language,  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  Chinese,  they  not  under- 
standing a  word  of  it,  could  they  be  justified  in  believing,  or  condemned 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  359 

for  not  believing  and  obeying  it,  by  either  God  or  man  ?  And  simply, 
because  their  not  hearing  it  in  intelligible  words,  was  not  hearing  it  at  alL 
Like  Saint  Anthony,  we  might  just  as  well  preach  to  the  fish,  as  to  any 
community,  unless  we  speak  to  it  in  their  own  language,  and  in  terms  which 
they  can  understand.  For  this  reason,  God  bestowed  tongues  upon  the 
first  promulgers  of  it,  that  they  miglit  speak  it  intelligibly,  and  that  those 
who  hear  it,  believe  it,  and  are  baptized,  might  be  saved. 

Touching  infants,  their  case  comes  not  into  the  commission.  The 
Lamb  of  God,  who  took  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  has  rendered  it  pos- 
sible and  consistent  with  our  heavenly  Father,  to  extend  to  those,  dying 
without  actual  transgression,  salvation — without  faith,  without  repent- 
ance, and  without  baptism.  I  state  this  opinion  to  save  time,  (unless  Mr. 
R.  desires  more  time  than  to-morrow,)  as  1  perceive  a  disposition  on  his 
part  to  debate  any  thing  but  the  question  before  us. 

The  commission  is  a  vital  matter.  All  depends  upon  it.  It  is  most 
unprecedented  and  inexplicable,  upon  any  other  principle  than  a  con- 
sciousness of  its  affording  no  help  to  his  views,  that  for  two  days  we  have 
heard  so  little  about  it  from  Mr.  Rice.  You  would  think  the  Abrahamic 
covenants  had  imposed  baptism  on  Christ's  commission  in  every  word  of 
them,  were  we  to  judge  of  their  importance  by  the  attention  paid  to 
them  by  Mr.  Rice.  Can  he  not  give  one  instance  of  infant  sprinkling  in 
the  whole  Bible?  or  can  he  show  no  word  of  the  Lord,  apostle,  or 
prophet  commanding  it,  or  alluding  to  it !  As  he  makes  sprinkling  a 
means  of  sanctification,  and  regards  the  affusion  of  water  as  the  most 
scriptural  method,  can  he  not,  in  all  the  thousands  of  additions  to  the 
church,  and  in  all  the  conversions  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  af- 
ford one  solitary  instance  of  infant  sprinkling  ?  Stranger  still  that  the 
Father  of  Mercies  should  make  the  sprinkling  of  water  a  means  of  sanc- 
tification to  infants — as  baptism,  in  all  cases,  is,  (according  to  his  theory 
of  sanctification,)  and  make  no  provision  by  hint  of  any  sort,  precept,  or 
promise,  that  it  should  be  so  done.  If  I  thought  that  the  affusion  of  wa- 
ter on  the  face  of  a  babe,  was  the  means  of  its  sanctification  from  the 
pollution  of  sin,  I  would  stand  in  the  high-ways,  and  public  places,  and 
publish  it  to  all  parents  and  persons  whatsoever;  and  yet  the  Lord,  who 
is  incomparably  more  humane  and  merciful  than  any  of  us,  has  not  com- 
manded it  to  be  promulged  by  any  apostle  or  prophet.  He  has  left  the 
splendid  affair  at  hap-hazard  ;  and  should  the  parent  be  a  Quaker,  a 
non-professor,  or  a  sceptic,  his  whole  offspring  are  debarred  from  the  gos- 
pel means  of  sanctification  !  It  is  all,  it  seems,  left  to  a  mere  contingen- 
cy. But  kind  parents  regret  not  this  seeming  neglect  on  the  part  of  the 
Messiah.  He  blessed  babes — and  'said,  "  of  such  was  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;"  and  yet  he  never  once  sprinkled,  nor  commanded  to  have 
water  sprinkled  upon  them.  From  all  which  we  may  infer,  there  is  no 
necessity  for  it.  You  see  no  difference  between  the  babes  sprinkled 
and  unsprinkled.  We  Baptists  generally  have  as  many  children  raised  to 
manhood,  as  beautiful,  as  healthful,  as  happy — and  as  many  of  them  at 
the  Lord's  table,  (especially  when  we  do  our  duty,)  as  have  any  branch 
of  those  communities  that  believe,  or  practice  sprinkling  for  sanc- 
tification. If,  indeed,  the  virtue  of  one  drop  of  this  water  of  sancti- 
fication, can,  after  so  many  years  sinning,  make  the  adult  son  of  a  Pedo- 
baptist  holy — if  its  virtues  are  so  potent  and  enduring,  it  were  well  to 
have  it.  But  as,  from  the  testimony  of  our  senses,  we  see  no  difi'erence 
in  their  faces,  or  in  their  characters — no  difference  in  their  health, 
24 


370  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

growth,  or  vigor — as  it  leaves  no  mark,  physical,  intellectual,  or  moral,  in 
their  history,  with  regard  to  this  life,  we  shall  presume  it  is  equally  im- 
potent beyond  the  grave ;  and  I  will  reserve  the  further  notice  of  this 
point  for  a  speech  by  itself. 

I  believe  I  have  answered  all  the  gentleman  has  said  for  two  days ;  and 
you  will  find  on  the  docket  a  number  of  important  matters,  to  which  he 
has  not  answered.  But  it  is  for  himself  and  not  for  me,  to  point  out  the 
course  which  he  ought  to  pursue.  If  the  infants  of  professing  parents  are 
to  be  baptized,  the  proof  lies  upon  him,  and  he  ought  to  show  it.  Of 
course  he  has  taken  what  he  considers  the  best  ground.  He  has  repudi- 
ated the  ground  usually  before  taken.  He  does  not  value  at  the  price  of  a 
single  straw,  the  law  of  circumcision,  formerly  relied  on;  which,  after  all, 
is  still  the  base  of  the  whole  matter.  He  does  not,  seemingly,  use  this 
argument  in  support  of  his  cause.  Well,  now,  I  know  that  he  must  advo- 
cate the  identity  of  the  two  churches,  and  that,  too,  for  the  sake  of  circum- 
cision. For  this  reason,  I  go  on  to  show  that  the  principle  is  not  recog- 
nized in  all  the  New  Testament. 

I  had  pursued  the  history  of  baptism  down  to  Cornelius.  After  he  and 
his  friends  were  converted  by  hearing  Peter  preach  the  gospel,  as  soon  as 
they  gave  intimation  of  their  conviction,  Peter  said,  "  Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  seeing  they  have  received  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  we  ?"  Certain  christian  Jews,  standing  by  his 
side,  who  had  never  yet  seen  such  a  thing  before,  as  a  proof  that  there 
was  no  proselyte  baptism  in  their  heads,  looking  around  at  these  gentiles 
who  had  just  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  said,  Can  any  one  of  you  for- 
bid water  that  these  persons  should  be  baptized  as  well  as  we  ?  They 
were  all  silent.  He  therefore  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Lord.  Making  their  qualification  a  reason  for  their  bap 
tism,  he  asked.  Can  any  one  forbid  water  that  these  persons  who  have 
received  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  have  thus  been  qualified,  should  not  be 
baptized  as  well  as  we  ? 

In  the  very  commencement,  then,  of  the  gospel  ministry,  you  will  per- 
ceive, that  the  apostles  required  a  moral  qualification, — a  belief  in  one 
Lord,  one  gospel,  one  baptism;  as  in  one  case,  so  in  all  cases.  Hence, 
whatever  was  necessary  to  constitute  a  qualification  in  one  man,  is  neces- 
sary in  every  other  man.  Can  any  one  give  one  reason,  why  there 
should  be  a  moral  qualification  in  one  case  and  not  in  another? 

I  have  now  showed,  that  in  Judea,  Samaria,  and  every  place  baptism 
was  practiced,  and  tliat  without  any  regard  to  circumcision  more  than  to 
uncircumcision.  Personal  qualifications  were  always,  and  in  all  cases, 
required. 

Take  another  instance  from  Ethiopia — an  individual  case,  marked,  in- 
deed, by  prominent  incidents.  An  Ethiopian  officer,  under  queen  Can- 
dace,  had  been  to  Jerusalem  to  worship,  was  very  much  interested  in 
what  he  read,  and  in  returning  home  to  his  own  country,  carried  with 
him  a  copy  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  As  he  read,  the  Spirit  of  God 
suggested  to  Philip  that  he  should  go  and  join  himself  to  the  chariot.  He 
did  so.  Presenting  himself  to  the  officer,  he  invited  him  into  the  car- 
riage ;  and  Philip  addressing  him,  said,  Understandest  thou  what  thou 
readest?  How  could  I,  he  replied,  unless  some  one  should  guide  me? 
He  read  on,  and  Philip  interpreted.  Beginning  at  the  same  passage,  he 
preached  unto  him  the  Lord  Jesus.  The  eunuch  heard  him  with  great 
attention ;  and  as  soon  as  they  came  to  a  proper  close,  they  happened  to 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  371 

come  to  a  certain  water.  How  much,  or  how  large,  or  of  what  kind, — 
whether  a  pond,  a  lake,  or  stream,  is  not  material;  but  they  came  to  a 
certain  water.  Immediately  the  officer  said.  What  does  hinder  me  from 
being  baptized  ?  That  was  the  time  to  declare  the  law,  the  whole  law, 
and  nothing  but  the  law.  Eunuch  was  going  into  a  new  part  of  the 
world.  Ethiopia  was  stretching  out  her  hands  to  God.  It  was  very  im- 
portant that  he  should  have  a  clear  version  of  the  whole  matter,  and  un- 
derstand all  about  it,  as  it  respects  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  ques- 
tion was  asked,  formally,  (I  suppose,)  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thy 
heart,  thou  mayest."  I  admit  that  this  is  a  Hide  involved  in  the  various 
Greek  texts  and  translations.  Still  the  connection  shows  that  it  was  vir- 
tually implied  in  asking  the  question.  It  shows  that  he  must  have  faith, 
and  that  it  was  necessary  to  receive  him  upon  a  confession  of  it;  or  as  it 
reads — "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart,  tliou  mayest.  I  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  This  is  the  faith 
which  Peter  confessed  to  Jesus,  and  of  which  he  said,  the  foundation  of 
the  church  shall  rest  upon  this  faith. 

When  they  had  closed  their  reading,  they  went  down  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  officer  ;  and  when  they  went  down  into  the  water,  he 
baptized  him.  You  all  know  what  that  word  means  by  this  time.  They 
went  down  into  the  water  before  he  began  to  perform  the  ceremony,  and 
when  they  had  descended  into  the  water,  he  baptized  him. —  i_Tirne 
expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — 10  o^clock,  S.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  eighth  address.] 

Mr.  President — It  will  be  remembered  by  those  who  heard  the  dis- 
cussion yesterday,  that  in  reply  to  Mr.  Campbell's  remarks  on  the  ten- 
dency of  infant  baptism  to  corrupt  the  church,  I  stated  that  many  of  the 
members  of  his  own  church  had  also  apostatized  ;  and  therefore  his  ar- 
gument proved  as  much  against  adult  baptism,  as  against  the  baptism  of 
infants.  In  confirmation  of  the  statement  I  referred  to  a  letter  written  by 
a  Mr.  Gates,  one  of  his  own  ministers,  and  published  in  the  Millenial 
Harbinger.  The  reading  of  the  letter  was  called  for  by  the  gentleman. 
I  will  now,  according  to  promise,  read  an  extract  from  it.  After  some 
preliminary  remarks,  Mr.  Gale  says: 

"  I  could  instance  churches,  within  a  few  years,  which  have  had  scores 
of  converts  added  to  them  that  are  now  scarcely  alive,  that  have  very  few 
active  members,  other  than  those  who  were  such,  previous  to  excitements, 
which  resulted  in  such  large  accessions  to  their  numbers." — Mill.  liar.  vol. 
vi.  no.  viii.  p.  325. 

This  letter  is  published  with  some  remarks  by  my  friend.  He  does 
not  call  in  question  the  statements  it  contains,  but  says  : 

"  I  have  neither  time  nor  space  at  present  for  much  comment  on  the 
above  ;  /  am  aware  Ihal  there  is  much  ground  Jor  complaint  on  account  of  the 
errors  alluded  to  by  brother  Gates.  He  is  not  the  only  complainant  on 
such  accounts.  Thousands  affirm  the  conviction  that  the  making  of  disciples 
is  a  work  of  far  inferior  importance  to  that  of  saving  those  that  are  made. 
And  certain  it  is,  that  the  teaching  and  discipline  of  all  the  disciples  is  in 
all  the  apostolic  writings  the  great  object.  Without  bishops  and  well 
accomplished  teachers,  there  is  little  or  no  importance  to  be  attached  to 
the  work  of  baptizing.  JVb/  a  tithe  of  the  baptized  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven." — Ibid.  p.  327. 

If,  then,  the  children  of  believers  sometimes  go  astray,  great  numbers 
of  the  gentleman's  immersed  believers  do  no  better. 


372  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

He  informed  you,  on  yesterday,  that  I  had  not  attempted  to  find  in  the 
New  Testament  a  precept  for  baptizing  infants ;  but  every  attentive  hear- 
er must  know,  that  such  is  not  the  fact.  From  the  commencement  of 
my  argument,  I  have  maintained  that  the  commission  given  the  apostles, 
properly  understood,  requires  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  believers. 
Our  Savior  did  not  say,  go  and  baptize  adults,  nor  go  and  baptize  infants ; 
but,  go  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations.  How  were  they  to  make 
disciples?  By  baptizing  and  teaching.  He  did  not  say,  teach  first,  and 
then  baptize.  I  said,  (and  the  gendeman  has  not  ventured  to  controvert 
the  position,)  that  the  commission  requires  the  baptism  of  all  who  are  en- 
titled to  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ.  If,  then,  I  prove  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  entided  to  a  place  in  the  church,  the  school  of 
Christ,  I  prove,  conclusively,  that  the  commission  requires  the  initiatory 
rite,  baptism,  to  be  administered  to  them. 

And  although  the  gentleman  has  labored  to  make  the  impression,  that 
I  abandoned  the  commission  with  scarcely  a  passing  notice,  and  have 
been  wandering  in  all  directions  ;  the  truth  is,  my  whole  argument  has 
been  directed  to  a  single  point,  viz.  to  prove  that  the  children  of  believers 
are  entitled  to  inembership  in  the  church,  and  that,  therefore,  the  com- 
mission is,  itself,  a  command  to  baptize  them!  But  he  has  evidendy  re- 
sorted to  an  artifice  often  practiced  by  adroit  lawyers,  when  pleading  a 
bad  cause.  If  they  can  succeed  in  convincing  the  court  and  the  jury, 
that  all  the  evidence  adduced  by  their  opponents,  is  illegal  or  irrelevant, 
their  point  is  gained.  His  efforts,  however,  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
audience  from  the  point  in  debate,  will  not  succeed;  for  every  intelligent 
hearer  can  see  the  immediate  bearing  of  all  the  arguments  I  have  adduced. 
The  scattering  has  all   been  on  the  side  of  my  opponent. 

In  another  respect,  also,  he  exhibits  something  of  the  tact  of  an  artful 
lawyer.  When  arguments  are  urged,  to  which  he  cannot  reply,  he  be- 
comes suddenly  astonished — amazed,  that  any  one  should  venture  on 
positions  so  rash,  so  reckless  !  For  example,  when  I  stated  the  simple  and 
obvious  fact,  that  the  commission  given  the  apostles  did  not  direct  them 
to  organize  a  new  church,  he  was  quite  astounded ;  and  yet,  I  presume, 
he  is  perfecdy  aware,  that  all  Pedo-baptists  take  this  ground.  Again, 
when  he  supposed  that  I  expounded  the  commission  as  Dr.  Wall  and 
many  oUiers  did,  he  was  amazed,  that  I  should  agree  with  many  of  the 
ablest  critics!  Well,  there  is  policy  in  all  this.  He  may  induce  some, 
who  allow  him  to  think  for  them,  to  believe,  that  it  is  just  as  he  says,  and 
to  be  astonished  because  he  seems  to  be  astonished  ! 

But  let  us  look  a  litde  more  particularly  at  the  commission.  Instead 
of  taking  Dr.  AVall's  view  of  it,  I  agreed  with  Mr.  Campbell,  and,  it 
seems,  have  driven  him  from  the  views  for  which  he  has  heretofore  con- 
tended. What  says  the  commission?  "Go,  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions !"  The  gendeman  agrees,  that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  language. 
But  how  are  they  to  be  made  ?  By  baptizing  and  teaching.  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  construction  for  which  he  has  contended.  In  the  Christian 
Baptist,  (p.  630)  he  writes  to  one  of  his  correspondents  as  follows  : 

"Have  you,  my  dear  brother,  ever  adverted  to  the  import  of  the  parti- 
ciple in  the  commission.  Matth.  xxviii.  '  Disciple  or  convert  the  nations, 
immersing  them  J'  I  need  not  tell  you  that  this  is  the  exact  translation. 
Let  me  ask  you,  then,  does  not  the  active  participle  always,  when  connect- 
ed with  the  imperative  mood,  express  the  manner  in  which  the  thing  com- 
manded is  to  be  j)erformed^  Cleanse  the  room,  washing  it ;  clean  the  floor, 
sweeping  it ;  cultivate  the  field,  ploughing  it ;  sustain  the  hungry,  feeding 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  373 

them ;  furnish  the  soldiers,  arming  them  ;  convert  the  nations,  baptizing 
them,  are  exactly  the  same  forms  of  speech.  No  person,  I  presume,  will 
controvert  this.  If  so,  then  no  man  could  be  called  a  disciple  or  a  convert; 
no  man  could  be  said  to  he  discipled,  or  converted,  until  he  was  immersed." 

Here  he  maintains  that  the  meaning  of  the  commission  is — Go,  make 
disciples  by  baptizing-  and  teaching  tliem  ;  but  now  he  abandons  this  con- 
struction, and  agrees  with  Grolius,  who  says,  that  matheteuo  (make  dis- 
ciples) means  to  teach  them  the  Jirst  principles  of  Christianity,  then 
baptize  them,  and  afterward  go  on  instructing.  But  how  does  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  commission  agree  with  what  I  have  just  read  from  the 
Christian  Baptist  ?  He  now  says,  the  phrase,  make  disciples,  baptizing 
them  and  teaching  them,  means,  teach  them  in  part,  then  baptize  and  con- 
tinue to  teach.  Now  look  at  his  own  illustration  in  the  passage  just 
quoted  from  his  writings  :  "  Cleanse  the  room,  washing  it,"  that  is,  get 
it  pardy  clean,  and  then  wash  it !  "  Clean  the  floor,  sweeping  it."  that 
is,  get  it  partly  clean,  and  then  sweep  !  "  Sustain  the  hungry,  feeding 
them,"  that  is,  sustain  them  in  part,  and  then  feed  tliem !  "  Furnish  the 
soldiers,  arming  them,"  that  is,  partly  furnish  them,  and  then  arm  them  ! 
"  Cultivate  the  field,  ploughing  it,"  that  is,  cultivate  it  in  part,  and  then 
plough  it !  Evidently  the  construction  he  now  attempts  to  put  on  the 
commission,  is  in  flat  contradiction  of  that  he  has  heretofore  defended. 
The  Savior  comrtianded  the  apostles  to  make  disciples  by  baptizing  and 
teaching ;  but  did  he  say  they  must,  in  all  cases,  first  be  taught  the  rudiments 
of  Christianity,  then  baptized,  and  afterwards  taught  other  parts  of  divine 
truth  ?  He  did  not ;  and  no  man  has  authority  to  say  so.  In  the  case 
of  adults,  teaching  must  necessarily  both  precede  and  follow  baptism  ; 
but  when  infants  are  first  baptized  and  then  taught,  they  are  made  disci- 
ples just  as  our  Savior  directed — by  baptizing  and  teaching. 

But  the  genUeman  insists  that  the  word  matheteuo,  which  is  employed 
by  Christ,  (in  the  common  version  translated  teach)  means  to  teach  the 
Jirst  principles  of  Christianity.  Can  he  find  one  instance  in  the  Bible 
in  which  it  is  used  in  this  sense  ?  I  venture  to  say  he  cannot.  By 
what  authority,  then,  does  he  confine  its  meaning  io  first  principles.  A 
disciple,  in  the  scriptural  sense,  is  a  true  follower  of  Christ,  whether  in- 
structed only  in  first  principles,  or  in  all  the  principles  of  Christianity  ; 
and  such  disciples  are  made,  so  far  as  human  instrumentality  is  concern- 
ed, by  baptizing  and  teaching.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  fall  out 
with  me  for  agreeing  witli  him,  and  that  he  will  not  attempt  to  escape 
from  a  difficulty  by  retreating  from  his  own  principles  of  interpretation, 
as,  on  yesterday,  he  did  in  regard  to  John's  baptism. 

But  he  told  us,  the  other  day,  that  u-ise  men  sometimes  change,  but 
fools  never.  If,  then,  changes  of  opinion  are  evidences  of  wisdom,  it 
may  be  supposed  that  the  more  rapid  the  changes,  the  greater  the  mani- 
festation of  wisdom  !  It  has,  indeed,  been  said,  to  the  praise  of  one  of 
the  most  eminent  politicians  and  statesmen  now  living,  that  in  the  course 
of  a  long  life  he  has  scarcely  ever  been  known  to  change  his  views  of 
any  great  political  principle.  But  this,  according  to  the  logic  of  my 
friend,  would  only  prove  his  weakness  and  his  folly  ! 

Infants,  says  he,  cannot  be  made  disciples.  But  I  will  prove  to  you 
that  they  can  do  things  quite  as  difficult.  In  the  book  of  Numbers,  xxiii. 
28,  we  read  as  follows:  "  In  the  number  of  all  the  males,  from  a  month 
old  and  upward,  were  eight  thousand  and  six  hundred,  keeping  the  charge 
of  the  sanctuary."     If  children  of  a  month  old  could  keep  the  charge 

21 


374  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  the  sanctuary,  I  should  think  they  might  be  disciples.  You  see  here 
how  inspired  writers  were  accustomed  to  speak  concerning  children.  The 
gentleman  seems  to  imagine  that  the  commission  requires  disciples  to  be 
made  as  in  tiie  twinkling  of  an  eye  I  True,  infants  of  a  month  old  could 
not  be  taught ;  but  thej-  might  be  disciples  as  early  as  those  of  whom  I 
have  just  read,  could  keep  charge  of  the  sanctuary.  And  as  the  latter 
were  enrolled,  as  those  who  were  to  keep  the  sanctuary  afterwards,  so 
may  children  be  in  the  school  of  Christ,  Again — Deut.  xxix.  10; 
"Ye,"  says  Moses,  "stand  this  day,  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your 
God ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes  ;  your  elders,  and  your  officers,  with 
all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones,  your  wives,  and  the  stranger 
that  is  in  thy  camp,  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy 
water,  that  thou  shouldest  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  into  his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day." 
If  their  little  ones  could  enter  into  covenant,  they  might  also  be  disciples. 
Again;  when,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  question  was  agitated 
whether  the  gentile  christians  should  be  required  to  keep  the  law  of  Mo- 
ses, whether  they  must  be  circumcised;  Peter  said:  "Now,  therefore, 
why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which 
neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear?"  Acts  xv.  Now  suppose 
the  decision  had  been  that  circumcision  should  be  observed  in  the  chris- 
tian church,  does  not  every  body  know  that  it  must  have  been  adminis- 
tered to  the  children  of  believers,  on  the  eighth  day  ?  Yet  Peter  speaks 
of  it  as  a  yoke  put  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples.  If  it  was  proper 
for  the  inspired  writers  to  speak  of  children  as  keeping  charge  of  the 
sanctuary,  because  they  were  to  do  it  as  soon  as  capable ;  as  entering  into 
covenant,  when  their  parents  only  did  so;  and  if  circumcision  was  spoken 
of  as  connected  with  disciples  ;  why  may  not  the  children  of  christians, 
and  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  be  spoken  of  in  the  same  way?  Certainly, 
such  is  the  manner  in  which  the  inspired  writers  constantly  spoke  and 
wrote. 

I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Campbell  one  important  question :  T'V]t,en  did 
God  ever  enter  into  covenant  ivith  jyarents  ivithovt  including  their 
children?     Is  there  a  solitary  example  of  the  kind  in  the  Bible? 

He  has  commented  at  length  on  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip, 
and  of  Cornelius,  and  others ;  and  he  has  certainly  proved  conclusively, 
that,  in  the  case  of  adults,  faith  was  required  in  order  to  baptism;  but  I 
am  not  aware,  that  this  is  denied  by  any  one !  When,  however,  he  infers 
from  this  fact  that  infants  must  be  excluded  from  baptism,  because  they 
cannot  believe  ;  there  is  certainly  no  connection  between  his  premises  and 
his  conclusion.  By  precisely  the  same  kind  of  reasoning,  I  can  prove 
that  infants  cannot  go  to  heaven.  For  I  can  easily  prove,  that  faith  is 
positively  required  of  adults  as  ^a  condition  of  salvation :  and  from  this 
fact,  the  inference  that  infants  cannot  go  to  heaven,  because  incapable  of 
believing,  will  follow  quite  as  legitimately  as  that  which  deprives  them 
of  baptism. 

But  he  thought  he  had  guarded  against  this  difficulty,  when  he  ob- 
served me  noting  his  remarks,  by  expounding  the  commission  thus : — 
"  He  that  heareth,  and  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  But 
this  construction  docs  not  help  him ;  for  then  the  other  clause  of  the  pas- 
sage must  read,  "  He  that  heareth  not,  and  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned ;"  and  it  is  certain  that  infants  cannot  hear  understandingly,  nor 
believe      If,  therefore,  the  gentleman  can  infer  them  out  of  the  churchy 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  375 

because  they  cannot  believe ;  I  can  quite  as  logically  infer  them  out  of 
heaven  for  the  very  same  reason  !  He  cannot  make  the  commission  ex- 
clude them  i'rom  the  church,  without  at  the  same  time  keeping  them  out 
of  heaven.  By  the  way,  he  seems  quite  dissatisfied  with  his  argument 
on  the  mode  of  baptism.  Hence  he  could  not  let  the  opportunity  pass  to 
give  us  something  about  going  down  into  the  water  ! 

I  was  a  little  surprised  to  hear  him  assert,  that  if  infant  baptism  is  so 
important,  it  ought  not  to  be  left  to  parents  to  have  it  administered.  Is 
not  their  religious  instruction  of  great  moment  ?  and  is  it  not  left  to  the 
parents  ?  May  they  not  greatly  neglect  it,  and  thus  seriously  injure  their 
children  in  time  and  in  eternity  ? 

But,  as  a  sweeping  argument  against  the  doctrine,  he  says,  the  children 
that  are  baptized  in  infancy  are  no  better  than  others.  I  wish  to  inquire 
of  the  gentleman,  whether  he  has  not  published  it  in  the  Millenial  Har- 
binger as  his  decided  opinion,  that  there  is  a  greater  probability  of  sal- 
vation to  the  children  of  Presbyterians,  than  to  those  of  the  Baptists  ? 
I  am  prepared  to  prove  that  he  has  !  Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
he  attaches  very  great  importance  to  immersion ;  that  he  considers  it 
necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  yet  he  has  said,  that  it  is  more 
likely  that  the  children  of  Presbyterians,  who  practice  sprinkling,  will 
be  pious,  and  will  be  saved,  tiian  that  the  same  will  be  true  of  the  child- 
ren of  Baptists  who  practice  immersion  ! ! !  And  yet  he  tells  us,  that  the 
children  that  are  baptized  by  pious  parents  are  no  better  than  others  ! 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  good  that  must  result  from  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism.  We  do  not,  indeed,  believe  that  an  infant  dying  would 
be  lost  because  it  had  not  received  baptism.  We  do,  however,  know 
perfectly  well  how  prone  parents  are  to  neglect  these  solemn  and  mo- 
mentous duties  to  their  children.  Now  if  you  see  a  friend  of  yours  neg- 
lecting some  important  duty,  do  you  not  feel  that  you  have  done  him 
great  service  when  you  have  induced  him  solemnly  to  promise  that  he 
will  neglect  it  no  longer?  Has  not  the  temperance  reformation  proceeded 
and  spread  its  blessings  over  the  land  on  this  very  principle  ?  And  shall 
we  be  told  that  no  good  will  result  from  the  most  solemn  promise  of  par- 
ents to  God,  that  they  will  train  up  their  children  for  his  service  ?  And 
will  not  the  effect  be  still  greater,  if,  in  addition  to  their  promise,  they  are 
also  encouraged  to  perform  their  duties  by  a  promise  from  God  of  special 
blessing  upon  their  efforts  ? 

The  gendeman  has  repeatedly  charged  me  with  making  bold  and  reck- 
less assertions.  I  must  now  present  a  brief  catalogue  of  his  unproved 
and  unscriptural  assertions.  They  may  serve  to  show  into  what  difficul- 
ties he  is  still  thrown,  though  so  long  accustomed  to  discuss  the  subject 
before  us. 

First.  He  says  adults  entered  the  visible  church,  before  Abraham's 
time,  by  faith.  He  professes  to  go  by  the  Book.  I  have  called  for  the 
passage  which  so  teaches,  and  it  is  not  to  be  found.  The  Bible  mentions 
neither  a  visible  church  nor  the  mode  of  getting  into  it. 

Secondly.  He  asserted  that  there  were  three  distinct  covenants  with 
Abraliam ;  but  the  sa7ne promises  are  embraced  in  each  of  them,  and  the 
inspired  writers  always  put  the  word  covenant  in  tiie  singular — never 
spediing  of  more  than  one  with  Abraham. 

Third.  He  said,  these  covenants  were  afterwards  engrossed  in  two; 
but  the  Bible  says  nothing  about  engrossing. 

Fourth.  He  asserted  that  the  Jewish  church  was  organized  at  Sinai ; 


376  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM, 

and  the  law  of  Moses  was  the  constitution  ;  but  Paul  says,  the  law  was 
a  temporary  addition  to  a  previously  existing  covenant. 

Fifth.  He  asserted  that  the  law  was  added  to  the  promiseof  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan ;  though  Canaan  is  not  mentioned  in  that  connection,  nor  in  the  epistle. 

Sixth.  He  told  you  that  circumcision  did  not  require  piety ;  yet  Paul 
says  it  was  of  no  avail  widiout  piety ;  "  Circumcision  verily  profiteth  if 
thou  keep  the  law  ;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision 
is  made  uncircumcision."  Yes,  he  says,  circumcision  required  no  piety; 
yet  Paul  says,  it  required  that  a  man  should  keep  the  whole  laiv  of  God. 
Then  the  whole  law  of  God  can  be  kept  without  piety ! 

Seventh.  The  aposUes,  he  at  first  maintained,  did  receive  christian  bap- 
tism, though  we  have  no  record  of  the  fact ;  or,  at  least,  they  received 
John's  baptism,  which,  he  said,  differed  but  litde  from  it.  But  it  was 
proved,  that  they  could  not  have  received  christian  baptism,  and  that  the 
gendeman  himself  had  maintained,  that  John's  baptism  was  radically/ 
different;  leaving  its  subjects  out  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ!  Then  he 
was  inclined  to  assert,  that  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  that  they  should 
have  received  christian  baptism ;  that  no  one  appointed  to  introduce  an 
ordinance,  had  been  required  to  submit  to  it.  Yet  Abraham,  though  ap- 
pointed to  introduce  circumcision,  was  circumcised !  Thus  he  ticrned 
and  twisted  to  escape  insuperable  difficulties. 

Eiglith.  I  called  on  him  to  produce  a  law  for  excluding  children  of  be- 
lievers from  the  church.  He  promised  to  do  it ;  and,  behold,  he  tri- 
umphantly adduced  a  law  for  excluding  apostates  !  He  pointed  us  to  the 
fourth  chapter  to  the  Galatians  :  "  Cast  out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son.'* 
But  who  are  the  bond-woman  and  her  son  ?  The  aposUe  himself  an- 
swers the  question:  "Jerusalem  which  now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with 
her  children  " — the  Jewish  people  who  have  rejected  the  promised  seed, 
and  clung  to  the  covenantor  law  of  Sinai.  I  called  for  a  law  for  excluding 
the  children  of  believers  ;  and  he  boastfully  produces  a  law  for  excluding 
adult  apostates  and  their  children  IJ  And  this  is  the  only  law  he  can  find 
to  sustain  him  !  He  cannot  produce  a  law  for  excluding  children,  which 
does  not  also  exclude  their  parents.  Alas  !  for  the  cause  that  cannot  be 
sustained  by  any  thing  better  than  this. 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  argument  founded  on  household  or 
family  baptisms.  I  will  examine  only  one  case  ;  and  the  remarks  I  shall 
make  with  regard  to  it,  may  apply  to  the  other  family  baptisms  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament.  I  cite  the  case  of  Lydia  and  her  family,  Acts 
xvi.  14,  15  :  "  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of 
the  city  of  Thyalira,  which  worshiped  God,  heard  us;  whose  heart  the 
Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of 
Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought  us, 
saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my 
house,  and  abide  there."  Lydia,  it  is  distincdy  said,  became  a  believer  ; 
her  heart  was  opened  by  the  Lord,  so  that  she  received  the  preached  word  j 
and  she  was  baptized.  But  the  account  does  not  stop  here.  Her  house- 
hold, also,  were  baptized.  Now,  observe  ihe  peculiarity  of  this  history. 
The  inspired  writer  is  particular  in  stating  that  Lydia  believed,  and  that 
she  and  iier  family  were  baptized,  but  not  an  intimation  is  given  that  her 
family  believed.  Precisely  so  Pedo-baptists  are  accustomed  to  write  in 
giving  accounts  of  accessions  to  their  churches  :  -but  anti-Pedo-baptists  da 
not  so  write.  Some  years  ago,  whilst  I  was  editor  of  a  religtous  paper,, 
having  some  discussion  on  this  subject  with  two  editors  of  prominent 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  377 

Baptist  papers,  I  called  on  them  to  find  one  example  in  which  Baptists, 
in  giving  a  history  of  additions  to  their  churches,  had  written  as  Luke 
did  in  this  instance.  They  found  some  accounts  oi'  the  baptism  of  whole 
families  ;  but  in  every  case,  the  writer  had  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  say, 
that  all  of  them  were  believers.  They  were  not  able  to  produce  one  exam- 
ple in  which  Baptists  had  written  as  Luke  wrote — had  mentioned  the  con- 
version of  the  heads  of  the  family  and  the  baptism  of  all  the  family,  without 
intimating  that  all  believed  !  One  thing  is  certain  :  we  write  as  Luke  wrote, 
and  our  anti-Pedo-baptist  friends  do  not.  They  neither  talk  nor  write  as  he 
did.  Would  it  not  be  truly  wonderful,  should  it  turn  out  to  be  true,  that 
those  who  ivrite  like  Luke,  do  not  act  like  him  ;  whilst  those  who  do  not 
write  like  him,  are  the  very  persons  who  act  like  him  ? 

There  is  a  passage  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  which  has  been  almost  universally 
understood  to  authorize  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  believers :  "  For 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but 
now  are  they  holy."  The  words  holy  and  clean  have  in  the  Bible  two 
prominent  meanings.  L  They  are  used  in  the  sense  of  consecration. 
Thus  the  temple  and  all  its  vessels  were  holy  or  clean  ;  and  the  priests 
were  holy,  in  the  same  sense.  2.  They  signify  moral  purity.  Now 
what  does  Paul  mean  by  saying,  that  when  one  of  the  parents  is  a  be- 
liever, the  children  are  holy  ;  and  when  both  are  unbelievers,  they  are 
unclean  ?  He  cannot  mean,  that  they  possess  moral  purity,  more  than 
others.  The  obvious  meaning,  then,  seems  to  be,  that  they  are  holy  in 
such  sense,  that  they  are  proper  subjects  to  be  set  apart  by  baptism,  and 
trained  up  for  the  service  of  God.  Dr.  Gill,  the  Baptist  commentator,  un- 
derstands the  words  holy  and  unclean  in  the  sense  oi  legitimacy .'  This, 
however,  only  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  give  the  passage  even  a  plausi- 
ble interpretation  which  will  not  involve  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism ; 
for  every  careful  reader  of  the  Bible  knows,  that  these  words  have  no 
such  meaning  in  the  Scriptures.  Besides,  it  is  not  true,  that  when  both 
parents  are  unbelievers,  their  children  are  illegitimate. 

A  strong  and  unanswerable  argument  for  the  identity  of  the  church, 
and,  consequently,  for  the  membership  of  children,  is  derived  from  such 
parables,  as  we  find  in  Matthew  viii.  11,  l2.  When  a  certain  centurion 
had  manifested  remarkable  faith,  the  Savior  said — "And  I  say  unto  you, 
that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  the  chil- 
dren of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out,"  &c.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  in 
the  parables  of  our  Savior,  is  admitted  to  mean  the  church  under  the  new 
dispensation.  The  covenant-breaking  Jews,  who,  clinging  to  the  shad- 
ows of  Sinai,  had  rejected  the  Savior  promised  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, were  now  to  be  cast  out  of  the  church — deprived  of  its  privileges ; 
and  the  gentiles,  from  east,  west,  north  and  south,  were  to  come  and  set 
down  in  the  same  church  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 

We  have  now  seen,  that  by  positive  law  the  children  of  believers  were 
put  into  the  church,  that  there  is  no  law  for  excluding  them,  and  that  the 
apostles  were  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  whole  families,  of  vvhicii  only  the 
heads  are  mentioned  as  believers.  But  it  is  asked,  why  was  infant  bap- 
tism never  particularly  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament?  I  will  answer 
the  gentleman  in  his  own  way.  When  I  asked  how  it  happened,  if  im- 
mersion was  practiced  by  the  apostles,  that  there  is  no  intimation  of  their 
ever  having  gone  after  water;  he  replied,  it  was  so  well  understood,  that 

2i2 


378  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

it  was  not  necessary  to  mention  it.  He  must,  then,  admit  the  pertinency 
ol  my  reply,  when  I  say,  it  was  so  universally  understood,  that  children 
were  to  be  received  with  their  parents,  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  men- 
tion it.  There  is,  indeed,  far  more  propriety  and  pertinency  in  my  reply, 
than  in  his  ;  for  we  know,  that  the  strong  prejudices  of  the  Jewish  chris- 
tians were  in  favor  of  infant-membership.  We  know,  too,  that  there  was 
much  controversy  as  to  whether  circumcision,  which  was  to  be  administer- 
ed to  children,  should  be  retained  in  the  church.  Is  it  not,  then,  passing 
strange,  that  the  Jewish  christians,  while  so  much  inclined  to  circumci- 
sion,  should  yet  submit  without  a  solitary  word  of  complaint,  to  have  their 
children  excluded  from  privileges  they  had  ever  enjoyed?  If  infants  had 
been  excluded  from  the  christian  church ;  is  there  not  the  strongest  reason 
to  believe,  that  there  would  have  been  some  controversy  on  the  subject — 
at  least  some  call  for  an  explanation  of  the  matter  ? — \_Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — lOj  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  kighth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — Were  you,  sir,  to  judge  of  the  progress  and  success 
of  Mr.  Rice  by  the  number  of  topics  introduced  and  disposed  of  in  a  sin- 
gle speech,  you  would  doubtless  conclude  that  the  volume  that  reports 
this  discussion  will  not  only  contain  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  but  also 
an  immense  fund  of  knowledge  upon  them.  Unfortunately,  however, 
there  is  more  of  reiteration  and  repetition  than  of  novelty  in  most  of  the 
speeches  you  have  heard  from  him,  on  this  question  as  well  as  on  the 
former.  How  little  variation  in  the  speech  now  uttered  from  the  details 
of  yesterday  ! 

Were  I  to  respond  to  all  these  same  matters  as  often  as  he  repeats 
them,  then,  indeed,  not  only  would  you  be  fatigued  in  listening  to  them, 
but  you  could  not  possibly  acquire  a  comprehensive  view  of  our  respect- 
ive premises  nor  of  the  real  issue.  Still  1  must,  to  a  certain  extent,  fol- 
low the  course  which  he  prescribes,  inasmuch  as  the  burden  of  proof  lies 
upon  him ;  consequently,  he  has  a  right  to  choose  his  own  arguments. 
If,  then,  he  thus  occupy  his  time  with  the  approbation  of  his  denomina- 
tion, I  cannot  object  to  it ;  but  I  must  remind  my  audience  that  the  main 
question  of  discussion  has  not  been  contemplated  in  what  we  have  heard, 
except  in  his  effort  to  sustain  himself  on  the  commission. 

For  the  last  two  days  the  gentleman  has,  at  intervals,  been  proving  the 
identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches;  yet  who  has  seen  or  figlt 
any  evidence  of  identity  ?  We  have  seen  some  points  of  similarity. 
But  who  does  not  perceive  that  my  friend  is  all  the  time  confounding 
similarity  with  identity? 

Have  I  not  shown,  that  in  every  single  specification  the  proof  comes 
not  up  to  the  proposition?  But  suppose  it  did:  so  far  as  he  has  shown, 
there  are  yet  so  many  points  remaining  as  to  nullify  his  argument.  To 
dispose,  then,  of  the  argument  at  once,  and  to  make  way  for  something 
better,  if  he  have  it ;  for  neither  in  truth  nor  in  logic,  does  it  affect  the 
real  issue — admit  that  he  has  proved  the  commonwealth  and  the  church 
to  be  identical  in  every  point  he  claims,  nothing  would  be  gained  on  his 
own  showing.  He  admits  that  the  state  of  Kentucky,  or  any  other  state, 
may  frequently  change  important  parts  of  the  fundamental  law  or  consti- 
tution, as  frequently  happens,  and  yet  the  state  remain  legally,  and,  in  the 
common  sense  of  the  community,  one  and  the  same  identical  state,  com- 
munity, or  body  politic.     But  suppose  Kentucky,  Virginia,  or  any  other 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  379 

state,  should  undertake  to  revise  its  constitution  and  change  some  part  of 
its  fundamental  law — the  right  of  suffrage,  for  example.  Does  it  follow 
that  the  community  is  changed,  or  that  its  identity  is  lost?  In  Kentucky 
and  some  other  states,  the  right  of  suffrage  is  almost  universal,  so  that 
every  young  man,  as  soon  as  he  arrives  at  the  age  of  twenty-one,  is,  on  the 
single  and  simple  virtue  of  nativity,  invested  with  that  most  responsible 
political  right.  Suppose,  however,  as  it  not  unfrequently  happens,  in  the 
actual  details  of  human  experience,  that  the  usage  is  not  so  commendable 
as  the  theory ;  that  it  does  not  work  quite  so  well  as  was  expected,  and 
that  the  law  ought  to  be  either  repealed  or  new  modified  !  A  convention 
ia  called,  the  constitution  is  revised,  and  a  new  provision  introduced ;  thence- 
forth adding  to  nativity  a  property  or  freehold  qualification.  It  then  be- 
comes the  law  of  the  land.  Has  the  state  of  Kentucky  lost  its  identity  ? 
If  it  has  not,  neither  would  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  nor  the  church  of 
Christ  lose  its  identity,  by  changing  the  right  to  any  ordinance  from  sim- 
ple natural  birth  to  faith,  or  any  other  qualification.  So,  then,  the  gen- 
tleman's argument  on  identity,  in  the  comparisons  and  illustrations  given 
by  himself,  even  was  it  all  made  out,  is  of  no  value  or  applicability  what- 
ever in  the  case.  But  he  never  can  establish  identity  between  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel  and  the  christian  church:  although  Stephen  called 
the  congregation  in  the  wilderness,  once  the  assembly,  or  the  church,  or 
the  congregation,  just  as  we  please  to  render  the  word.  Call  it,  however, 
a  church,  if  any  one  pleases,  and  call  circumcision  the  sign  and  seal  of 
membership.  Then,  as  in  the  illustration  taken  from  the  right  of  suffrage 
in  Kentucky,  has  the  right  of  membership  been  changed  ;  and  yet  the  church 
is  identical.  A  new  qualification  has  been  enacted — "  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest.''^  The  commission  given  to  the  apostles 
(not  to  enlarge  the  Jewish  church,  as  my  friend  most  imaginatively  asserts,) 
but  to  organize  Christ's  church,  has  actually  required  both  faitli  and  bap- 
tism before  admission.  The  church,  however,  is  still  identical,  according 
to  the  logic  of  Mr.  Rice,  and  therefore  his  argument  for  identity  is  most  sin- 
gularly illogical  and  inconclusive.  The  church  may  be  the  same,  and  yet 
the  constitution  so  modified,  as  he  himself  has  repeatedly  shown — if  not  in 
his  arguments,  in  his  illustrations — as  to  change  one  of  the  most  important 
usages.  Let  me  again  say,  it  is  all  labor  in  vain  to  prove  identity.  It  re- 
quires hundreds  of  items  to  make  out  identity,  and  were  it  proved  in  the 
gross  and  wholesale  way  which  he  attempts,  it  amounts  to  nothing.  No  one 
can  deny  that  faith  has  been  required  in  order  to  baptism,  and  what  is  es- 
sential in  one  case  to  any  ordinance  of  God,  is  essential  in  all  cases. 
The  commission  itself,  as  we  have  shown,  enjoins  three  things  to  be 
done,  not  two.  I  shall,  therefore,  for  the  present,  leave  it  with  the  good 
sense  and  candor  of  the  audience  to  decide  how  far  we  have  succeeded 
on  this  point,  and  proceed  to  notice  some  other  points  introduced  this 
morning. 

With  regard  to  this  letter  of  Mr.  Gates,  it  is  a  very  small  matter  indeed  ; 
and  I  should  not  have  called  for  the  reading  of  it  at  all,  only  that  the  gen- 
tleman used  such  ambiguous,  ominous,  and  tremendous  words,  indicative 
of  the  apostasy  of  vast  multitudes.  And  now,  what  does  the  whole  affair 
amount  to?  The  fact  is,  that  a  certain  disaffected  brother,  wrote  such  a 
letter  as  you  have  now  heard.  You  have  also  heard  the  length  and  breadth 
of  my  admission.  And  have  I  not  admitted,  as  I  always  feel  bound  to 
admit,  that  mistakes,  and  errors,  and  faults  do  exist  amongst  some  of  our 
brethren   as  well  as  in  some  other  communities.     And  do  I  not  attempt  to 


380  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

reform  them  in  our  own  community  as  I  do,  nay,  more  than  I  do,  those 
of  other  communities  ?  I  would  reprove  my  brethren  even  more  severe- 
ly than  other  professors  ;  and  do  I  not  stand  in  the  best  company  in  the 
world  in  so  doing  ?  Many,  said  Paul,  "  walk  disorderly,  of  whom  I  have 
told  you  before,  and  now  tell  you  weeping,  that  they  are  the  enemies  of 
the  cross,  making  their  appetites  their  god,  and  minding  earthly  things," 
«fec.  But  was  that  a  proof  that  Christianity  was  of  human  device  ?  Be- 
cause he  published  that  some  individuals  had  deserted  his  people,  or  dis- 
honored their  profession,  can  any  one  say,  that  such  an  occurrence  dishon- 
ors or  discredits  the  whole  profession  ! !  Yet  such  is  the  offset,  and  the 
only  offset  which  the  gentleman  has  been  able  to  present  against  the  fact 
that  I  stated  in  the  beginning — the  fact  that,  bringing  the  whole  world 
into  the  church  had  corrupted  Christianity.  I  care  not  for  a  thousand  off- 
sets and  arguments  of  this  sort.  It  is  a  self-evident  proposition.  If  the 
whole  world  were  in  the  church,  there  would  be  no  world  out  of  it.  It 
would  be  all  church,  bearing  upon  its  head  all  the  faults,  imperfections, 
and  vices  of  sinful  and  degenerate  men. 

As  to  the  quotation  from  the  Christian  Baptist,  I  am  glad  my  friend 
read  it ;  and  in  relation  to  the  whole  subject  and  his  remarks  upon  it,  I 
have  nothing  to  take  back.  I  wish  he  had  read  the  whole  essay.  I  was 
speaking  of  universal  usage.  The  argument  is  this  :  I  said  that  there  are 
certain  acts  in  all  processes,  which  are  called  consummating  acts — the 
last  act ;  and  to  this  act  all  men  occasionally  give  the  name  of  the  whole 
process.  I  have  heard  farmers  frequently  say,  when  a  good  shower 
would  come  just  at  a  proper  crisis,  that  shower  has  7nade  the  corn.  No 
one,  however,  understands  them  to  intimate  that  nothing  before  had  been 
done  favorable  to  such  a  result.  The  same  style  obtains  in  most  of  the 
mechanical  processes.  We  say  of  leather,  it  is  tanned,  when  the  last  act 
of  the  process  is  completed  ;  and  of  cloth,  that  it  is  fulled — not  when  the 
coloring  matter  is  put  upon  it,  but  when  it  is  perfectly  dressed.  So  a 
person  is  proselyted,  converted,  discipled  when  the  last  act  is  completed, 
and  not  till  then. 

It  is  well  that  we  have  different  versions  of  the  commission.  They 
explain  each  other.  According  to  Matthew,  they  were  to  "  disciple  all 
nations."  According  to  Mark,  they  were  to  "  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature."  According  to  Luke,  "  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  "  were 
to  be  preached  to  all  nations.  These  were  to  be  first  performed.  Hence 
Luke  says,  that  "  daily  in  the  temple,  and  from  house  to  house,  they 
ceased  not  to  preach  and  to  teach  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  the  uniform 
order.  He  did  not  command  them  to  baptize  first,  awA  preach  afterwards, 
nor  to  baptize  first  and  teach  afterwards.  They  all  explain  each  other 
without  any  contrariety.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  book  that  at  all 
intimates  that  any  one  ever  was  discipled  without  being  first  taught;  and 
no  one  was  considered  discipled  until  baptized. 

As  to  the  import  of  the  word,  if  it  were  worthy  of  a  critical  analysis, 
or  if,  with  any  kind  of  propriety,  it  could  be  debated,  I  could  give  doc- 
tors by  the  scores.  Indeed,  Gale  has  done  it ;  showing  that  both  disci- 
pulus  in  Latin,  and  matheteuo  in  Greek,  and  the  verbs  and  families  to 
which  they  severally  belong,  never  mean  to  write  down  one's  name  and 
enroll  himself,  or  any  other  person,  as  a  scholar  or  a  learner.  We  would 
smile  at  the  simplicity  of  the  teacher  who  would  say  he  had  made  twenty 
scholars,  when  he  had  got  their  parents  to  write  down  their  names.  To 
what  most  singular  and  phantastic  extremes  are  Pedo-baptists  driven,  te 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  381 

get  rid  of  such  plain  and  positive  injunctions,  as  those  uttered  by  the 
great  teacher  and  his  apostles.  It  requires  an  immense  labor  and  waste 
©f  ingenuity  and  learning,  to  make  the  New  Testament  an  obscure  and 
unintelligible  book.  I  have  no  language  adequate  to  express  my  astonish- 
ment, that  now,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  any  christiau  minister  would 
take  the  ground,  to  carry  any  point  whatever,  that  our  Lord  gave  instruc- 
tions to  his  apostles,  to  baptize  the  world — all  nations — every  creature — 
first,  and  then  teach  or  instruct  them  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  seek 
to  convert  them  to  his  religion. 

I  might  have  brought  a  great  variety  of  authority  to  show  it.  I  hap- 
pen, however,  to  have  one  before  me,  which  I  will  read — the  distin- 
guished Pedo-baptist,  Mr.  Baxter.  Recollect,  this  is  not  the  Baptist 
Gale,  or  Fuller,  this  is  Mr.  Baxter. 

"  Matheteuo  means  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations,  and  to  engage  them 
to  believe  it,  in  order  to  their  profession  of  that  faith  by  baptism.  I  desire 
any  one  to  tell  me,  how  the  apostles  could  make  a  disciple  of  an  heathen  or 
an  unbelieving  Jew,  without  becoming  teachers  of  them,  whether  they 
were  men  sent  to  preach  to  those  who  could  hear,  and  to  teach  them  to 
whom  they  preached,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  only  to  baptize  them 
when  they  did  believe  this"?  This  is  so  absolutely  necessary  in  the  nature 
of  the  thing,  till  a  christian  church  among  the  heathens  or  the  Jews  was 
founded — and  so  expressly  said  by  Justin  Martyr,  to  have  been  the  practice 
of  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  that  to  deny  what  is  confirmed  by  such 
evidence  of  reason  and  church  history,  would  be  to  prejudice  a  cause,  which 
in  my  poor  judgment,  needs  not  this  interpretation  of  the  word  matheteuo', 
nor  needs  it  be  asserted  that  infants  are  made  disciples,  any  more  than  they 
are  made  believers,  by  baptism  !  ! 

Again,  by  the  first  teaching,  or  making  disciples,  that  must  go  before 
baptism  is  to  be  meant,  the  convincing  of  the  world  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  true  Messiah,  anointed  of  God  with  fullness  of  grace,  and  of  the 
Spirit  without  measure,  and  sent  to  be  the  Savior  and  Redeemer  of  the 
world;  and  when  any  were  brought  to  acknowledge  this,  then  they  were  to 
baptize  them,  to  initiate  them  to  this  religion,"  &c. — pp.  91,  92. 

The  gentleman  presumes  that  he  has  found  an  exception  to  matheteuo 
as  always  indicating  one  that  is  actually  taught,  or  a  learner.  I  have 
said  there  is  no  instance  of  its  having  been  applied  to  a  babe.  He  says 
it  is  so  used,  Acts  xv.,  "  Why  tempt  you  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon 
the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to 
bear."  That  yoke  he  supposes  to  be  circumcision ;  and,  as  children 
were  circumcised,  he  infers  that  an  infant  of  eight  days  old  was  called  a 
disciple  !  Profound  logic !  But  unfortunately  circumcision  was  not  the 
yoke,  but  the  keeping  of  the  law,  which  was  to  be  connected  with  it. 
For  the  Judaizers  said  that  it  was  necessary  that  the  gentiles  be  circum- 
cised and  keep  the  law,  in  order  to  salvation  ;  consequently,  as  infants 
eight  days  old  could  not  keep  the  law,  they  had  no  yoke  to  bear,  and 
were  not  amongst  the  number  of  disciples. 

I  have  expressed  my  astonishment  once  and  again,  that  the  gentleman 
should  say  that  Jesus  Christ  commissioned  twelve  men  to  disciple  the  na- 
tions, and  still  gave  them  no  authority  to  organize  a  church.  McCalla 
in  debate — though  he  did  not,  in  the  same  bold  and  unqualified  terms, 
insist  that  the  apostles  had  not  the  power  .to  organize  a  church — said 
there  was  no  organization  necessary ;  if  so,  the  Lord  would  have  given 
distinct  authority  to  organize  a  church.  With  regard  to  this  question  of 
identity,  the  best  argument  I  have  heard,  was  that  made  by  Mr.  McCalla. 
It  has  been  introduced  by  Mr.  Rice,  but  it  has  not  been  carried  out  with 


382  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  same  order  and  efficiency.  1  will  give  a  specimen  of  Mr.  McCalla's 
scheme  of  argument. 

"  In  proving  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  I  will  observe  the  following 
method.     I  will  prove,     First.  That  they  had  the  same  religion. 

Second.  That  they  had  the  same  inspired  names. 

Third.  That  they  had  the  same  covenant. 

These,  we  conceive,  to  be  the  grand  essential  properties  which  consti- 
tute religious  societies,  one  and  the  same  in  all  primary  points.  Any  two 
religious  societies,  that  possess  the  same  theology  and  morality,  that  are 
called  by  all  the  same  names  and  appellations,  and  that  exist  under  the 
same  grand  constitution  or  covenant,  form  but  one  and  the  same  social 
compact,  and  are  called,  in  the  legitimate  and  proper  use  of  the  word,  one 
and  the  same  church.'''' — McCalla  Debate,  p.  129. 

"  Thus  we  have  seen  that  the  Jewish  society  before  Christ,  and  the 
christian  society  after  Christ,  have  had  the  same  religion  in  profession,  in 
ordinances,  in  forms  of  worship,  in  requirements,  in  doctrine,  in  promises, 
in  discipline,  in  government,  and  in  members. 

I  now  proceed  to  shew,  in  the  second  place,  that  they  had  the  same 
inspired  names." — Ibid.  p.  141. 

To  which  arguments  I  then  responded  : 

"  To  affirm  that  the  Jewish  and  christian  religions  are  one  and  the  same 
religion,  is  not  only  a  logical  error,  for  no  two  things  are  one  and  the  same^ 
but  it  is  a  theological  error,  that  shocks  all  common  sense.  To  say  that 
the  Jewish  circumcision,  altars,  priests,  sacrifices,  oblations,  tabernacles, 
festivals,  holidays,  new-moons,  tithes,  lents,  temples,  timbrels,  harps,  cor- 
nets, vestments,  views,  feelings,  prayers,  praises,  &c.  &c.  constitute  one  and 
the  same  religion  with  christian  faith,  hope,  charity,  baptism,  and  the  sup^ 
per,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  that  the  human  body  and  the  soul  are  one  and  the 
same  thing.  To  say  this,  because  they  were  types  of  the  christian  reli- 
gion, therefore  they  are  one  and  the  same,  is  similar  to  saying,  that  because 
Canaan  was  a  type  of  heaven,  and  Jerusalem  a  type  of  the  heavenly  city, 
therefore  Canaan  and  heaven  are  one  and  the  same  place,  and  the  Jerusa- 
lem in  Canaan  and  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  are  one  and  the  same  city. 

And  to  affirm,  as  Mr.  McCalla  does,  that  they  were  different  in  some 
respects,  destroys  his  whole  argument:  for  if  different  in  some  respects,  we 
then  say  they  were  different  in  this:  that  baptism  and  circumcision  were 
different  in  their  nature,  manner  of  operation,  subjects  and  design;  and  so  at 
last,  the  whole  argument  is  lost,  and  comes  down  to  a  controversy  on  this 
one  point :  for  if  I  should  admit  they  were  similar  in  all  other  respects,  but 
different  in  this,  then  he  has  lost  all  his  pains,  and  is  obliged  to  dispute  this 
one  point.  So  that  his  plan  is  as  injudicious  as  his  arguments  are  inconclu- 
sive."— Ibid.  pp.  1.54,  155. 

With  regard  to  the  remarks  made  of  those  children,  of  a  month  old, 
having  charge  of  the  sanctuary  :  a  certain  tribe  of  the  twelve  tribes  Avas 
set  apart  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary ;  all  the  males  of  that  tribe 
were  set  apart  to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.  They  were  some 
twenty-two  thousand ;  every  child  was  counted  belonging  to  the  class  from 
a  month  old  and  upward.  That  these  children  were  to  perform  any  of 
the  services  of  the  temple,  no  one  here  can  believe.  These  are  profound- 
ly learned  arguments. 

I  believe  that  I  have  now  touched  upon  all  the  minor  matters  in  the 
last  speech,  and  shall  proceed  to  some  greater  points  not  yet  disposed  of. 
As  this  is  the  last  day  set  apart  for  this  branch  of  the  discussion,  or  upon 
this  proposition,  we  must  redeem  the  time.  I  have  asked  Mr.  Rice  whether 
he  will  require  any  more  time  than  to-day.  He  responded  in  the  negative. 

He  has,  then,  but  three  speeches  more  to  make,  and  1  have  but  three 
replies. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  383 

The  gentleman  has  waived  all  the  main  points ;  and  I  presume  it  ie  a 
good  omen.  He  says  he  does  not  care  a  straw  about  the  argument 
founded  upon  baptism  in  the  place  of  circumcision ;  he  does  not  care  a 
straw  about  Jewish  proselyte  baptism :  and  now,  for  the  first  time,  he 
has  faintly  glanced  at  household  baptism.  He  also  mentions  some  por- 
tions of  New  Testament  scripture — one  is,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
This  is  always  quoted  in  all  books  upon  this  subject.  "  Suffer  little 
chiklren  to  come  unto  me," — why  were  they  brought  to  Jesus  Christ? 
was  it  for  the  purpose  of  being  baptized  ?  No  one  pretends  to  think  so : 
they  were  brought  to  him  to  be  blessed.  There  are  some  who  argue 
that  these  little  children  were  believers.  John  speaks  of  some  little  chil- 
dren as  believers.  The  Savior  also  says,  "  Unless  you  humble  your- 
selves and  become  as  little  children,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  whosoever  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones  that  believe 
on  me."  These  little  cliildren,  many  think,  may  have  been  of  that  very 
class.  He,  however,  says,  "  Let  them  come  unto  me."  Whatever  the 
character  of  these  little  children  may  have  been,  they  came  to  him,  or 
were  brought,  to  obtain  a  blessing,  not  baptism.  He  was  always  willing 
to  bless  all  that  came  to  him,  old  or  young,  babes  and  their  sires. 

But,  does  he  say,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  composed  of  babes  and 
little  children  ?  No  :  but  of  those  that  are  like  them  ;  "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  It  is  not  composed  of  children,  but  of  those  who 
are  like  them  in  docility,  humility  and  meekness.  Besides,  at  this  time 
christian  baptism  was  not  instituted.  This  passage,  then,  cannot  possibly 
allude  to  baptism  ;  and  certainly  that  cause  must  be  extremely  destitute 
of  scriptural  proof,  that  seizes  passages  of  Scripture,  spoken  on  other 
subjects,  even  before  the  commission  prescribing  baptism  was  uttered  or 
written.  Yet,  indeed,  I  presume  tliis  is  one  of  the  best  proofs  that  can 
be  found,  merely  because  the  word  children  is  in  it — a  most  convincing 
proof  of  christian  infant  affusion. 

But  next  comes  a  few  words  from  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  1  Epis., 
7th  chapter,  14lh  verse — "  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the' 
wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 

Mr.  Barnes,  a  distinguished  Presbyterian  in  Philadelphia,  and  a  prolific 
writer  in  that  church,  whose  works  are  popular,  and  whose  commentary 
now  lies  before  me,  says — that  the  passage  can  possibly  have  no  allu- 
sion to  baptism  whatever.  Yet  from  the  days  of  Peter  Edwards  till  now, 
it  has  been  allowed  to  be  a  strong  proof  of  Pedo-baptism.  I  find,  how- 
ever, that  as  Biblical  and  true  philology  and  general  criticism  are  culti- 
vated, the  strongholds  of  infant  membership  are  being  surrendered  one  by 
one  into  our  hands.  Mr.  Rice  very  modestly  alludes  "  to  household 
baptism."  Mr.  Taylor,  some  twenty  years  ago,  made  it  an  overwhelm- 
ing proof.  Mr.  Barnes  gave  up  1  Cor.  vii.  Mr.  Rice  does  not  care  a 
straw  for  circumcision,  nor  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  ;  and,  I  think,  before 
long,  will  care  as  little  about  "  identity.''''  I  have  seen  a  great  change 
within  thirty  years  on  this  subject. 

But,  in  the  mean  time,  I  intend  to  show  tliat  1  Corinthians  vii.  14, 
is  also  decidedly  against  infant  baptism.  I  think  it  may  be  made  evident 
to  all  intelligent  and  candid  persons,  from  this  passage,  that  infant  mem- 
bership was  never  thought  of  during  the  apostolic  ago.  I  only  wonder 
why  Baptists  have  not  generally  made  more  use  of  it  in  all  the  discussions 


384  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  this  question.  Most  commentators  and  learned  men,  among  whom  are 
Dr.  Gale,  Dr.  McKnight,  and  many  Baptists  and  Pedo-baptists,  have,  in 
their  dissertations  on  this  passage,  wholly  mistaken  the  most  prominent 
point  in  it,  which  would  have  decided  the  whole  matter:  even  Barnes  him- 
self has  mistaken  its  meaning.  They  have  supposed  that  Paul  here,  to 
illustrate  his  meaning  of  the  words  holy  and  clean,  and  their  contraries, 
unsanctijied  and  unclean,  referred  to  the  children  of  persons  inter- 
married with  unbelievers,  and  not  to  the  children  of  the  whole  church. 
In  one  word,  they  make  Paul  say,  "  else  were  their  children  unclean," 
instead  of  "  else  were  your  children  unclean,"  but  now  are  they  holy. 
This  mistake  most  evidently  led  them  astray. 

The  case  is  this — a  question  arose,  in  Corinth,  whether  persons  inter- 
married, one  party  a  christian,  the  other  a  pagan,  ought  to  continue  as 
husband  and  wife,  and  still  live  together.  It  was  referred  to  Paul.  He 
takes  up  the  matter,  and  using  the  words  clean,  sanctified,  and  unclean, 
in  the  current  ecclesiastic  and  Jewish  sense,  affirms  that  "  The  unbeliev- 
ing wife  is  sanctified  to  the  believing  husband,  and  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band to  the  believing  wife  ;  otherwise  your  children  were  unclean,  but 
now  are  they  holy."  As  our  food  is  said,  by  Paul,  to  be  "  sanctified  by 
the  word  of  God  and  prayer,"  so  he  uses  the  word  here,  not  to  denote 
real  holiness,  but  that  kind  of  lawfulness  or  holiness  in  the  use  of  per- 
sons and  things,  authorizing  such  use  of  them,  and  an  intimate  civil  con- 
nection with  them.  It  is  not,  then,  legitimacy  of  wives,  husbands,  and 
/Aeir  children ;  but  whether  believing  and  unbelieving  parties  might,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Christ,  continue  together.  Paul's  response  is  briefly 
this :  They  may  live  together — they  are  sanctified  or  clean  persons,  as  to 
one  another,  in  this  relation.  If  you  may  not  do  so,  you  must  put  away 
your  children  also — for  all  your  children  stand  to  you  as  do  those  unbe- 
lieving, unholy  persons.  If  you  must  reject  your  unchristian,  unprofess- 
ing  husbands  and  wives,  you  must,  for  the  same  reason,  reject  all  your 
unprofessing,  unbelieving  children.  Does  not  this  passage,  then,  conclu- 
sively prove  that  infant  membership  and  infant  baptism  had  never  occurred 
to  any  one  in  Corinth  ?  for  in  that  case  Paul's  proof  would  have  been 
taken  from  him  by  one  remark,  such  as — No,  Paul,  we  may  retain  our 
children,  for  they  have  been  baptized,  and  are  not  at  all  like  our  unbap- 
tized  and  unsanctified  wives  and  husbands.  I  do,  sir,  then  contend  that 
in  1  Cor.  vii.  and  14th  verse,  we  have,  at  length,  found  a  clear  and  in- 
vincible evidence  that  infant  sanctification,  or  dedication,  or  afl'usion,  or 
immersion,  or  baptism,  had  never  entered  the  mind  of  Jew  or  gentile, 
that  all  the  children  of  the  members  of  the  church  in  Corinth,  stood  in 
the  same  ecclesiastic  relation  to  the  church  as  did  their  unbelieving, 
unsanctified,  unbaptized  fathers  and  mothers.  Paul  does,  most  indispu- 
tably, place  all  the  infant  children  of  the  church  in  a  state  of  such  clean- 
ness as  unbelieving  parents  occupy  towards  believers.  This  passage,  I 
have  no  doubt,  in  the  great  fact  involved  in  it,  will  go  farther  than  a  thou- 
sand lectures  to  displace  this  superstitious  usage  from  the  church. 

The  usual  argument  from  this  passage  is,  indeed,  a  very  good  one: 
That  if  the  relative  holiness  of  the  child  gives  it  a  right  to  baptism,  then 
the  relative  holiness  of  the  unbelieving  father  or  mother  would  also  give 
them  a  right  to  this  ordinance.  But  that  is  an  argument  not  ad  rem,  but 
ad  hominem.  It  is  an  argument  designed  not  for  the  question,  but  for 
the  party. 

To  recapitulate  this  argument,  let  it  be  observed  that  the  main  question 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  335 

turns  upon  your  children,  and  their,  the  parties'  children.  That  the  chil- 
dren of  all  the  members  of  the  church  in  Corinth,  stood  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  church  as  did  their  unbelieving  parents — and  that  if  it  would  be  law- 
ful to  baptize  the  children  upon  the  faith  of  one  of  the  parents,  because 
of  being  sanctified  to  their  parents  ;  then  it  would  be  equally  right  to  bap- 
tize the  unbelieving  party  on  the  faith  of  the  other,  or  because  sanctified 
in,  to,  or  by  the  other. 

I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  slur  this  matter  over,  as  too  often  he 
does  such  palpable  points.  I  say  to  him  that  I  lay  much  stress  upon  it, 
and  that  I  regard  it  as  amounting  to  a  demonstration,  that  infant  member- 
ship was  unheard  of  in  the  apostolic  age,  because  unknown  to  Paul,  and 
unthought  of  at  Corinth  in  the  year  sixty-four. — [Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — 11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  uice's  ninth  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  gentleman  has  utterly  failed  to  answer  the  ar- 
guments and  facts  by  which  I  have  proved  the  identity  of  the  church  un- 
der the  Jewish  and  christian  dispensations.  But  he  says,  that  admitting 
the  church  to  be  the  same,  it  does  not  follow  that  children  are  entitled  to 
membership  in  it ;  that  a  state,  for  example,  may  so  change  its  constitu- 
tion, as  to  take  the  right  of  suffrage  from  persons  who  have  previously 
enjoyed  it.  This  is  all  true ;  and  now  all  that  I  ask,  or  have  asked  of 
him,  is  to  prove,  that  the  law  of  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ  has 
been  so  changed,  as  to  deprive  the  children  of  believers  of  privileges  they 
had  previously  enjoyed.  Where  is  the  evidence  that  our  Savior  made 
any  such  alteration?  Suppose  the  state  of  Kentucky  should  call  a  conven- 
tion, and  in  several  particulars  change  the  constitution.  The  year  follow- 
ing, you  come  forward  to  vote  as  formerly;  but  an  individual  objects  to 
your  exercising  this  right,  and  informs  you  that  the  constitution  has  been 
altered.  Would  you  not  ask  him,  in  what  respect  has  it  been  altered? 
and  would  you  not  demand  of  him  to  prove,  that  the  alterations  were  such 
as  deprived  you  of  rights  hitherto  enjoyed  ?  All  that  I  ask  of  the  gentle- 
tleman  is,  to  show  the  clause  of  the  law  of  Christ,  the  Head  of  the 
church,  which  says,  that  whereas  the  children  of  believers  have  hitherto 
enjoyed  the  rights  of  membership  in  the  church,  it  is  now  determined 
that  they  shall  henceforth  be  excluded.  So  soon  as  he  shall  produce  the 
law,  I  will  agree  to  abandon  the  baptism  of  infants ;  but  so  long  as  he 
cannot  do  it,  his  own  illustration  affords  a  conclusive  argument  against 
him. 

In  reply  to  what  I  read  from  Mr.  Gates,  the  gentleman  says,  he  was  a 
disaffected  brother.  I  presume  he  was  disaffected  by  the  disorders,  the 
confusion,  and  the  apostasies  he  witnessed  in  this  pure  church  of  the  19th 
century  ;  for  he  has  found  his  way  back  to  the  old  Baptists.  He  would 
have  you  believe,  that  I  exaggerated  the  number  of  apostasies  from  his 
church ;  but  if  one  minister  knew  of  a  number  of  churches  that  had,  in  a 
short  time,  almost  ceased  to  exist;  what  numbers  there  must  be,  in  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  who  have  returned  to  the  world  ! 

But  if  Mr.  Gates  was  a  "  disaffected  brother,"  Mr.  Campbell  did  not 
intimate  that  he  had  slandered  the  church.  On  the  contrary,  he  confirmed 
and  strengthened  his  testimony.  He  says :  "  I  have  neither  time  nor 
space,  at  present,  for  much  comment  on  the  above.  I  am  aware  that 
there  is  much  ground  for  complaint,  on  account  of  the  errors  alluded  to 
by  brother  Gates.  He  is  not  the  only  complainant  on  such  accounts. 
25  2K 


386  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Thousands  affirm  the  conviction,  that  the  making  of  disciples  is  a  work 
of  far  inferior  importance  to  that  of  saving  those  that  are  made.  *  *  *  * 
Without  bishops  and  well-accomphshed  teachers,  there  is  little  or  no  im- 
portance to  be  attached  to  the  vv^ork  of  baptizing:  7iot  a  tithe  of  the  bap- 
tized can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven .'" 

I  should  not  have  introduced  these  unpleasant  facts,  but  to  meet  the 
gentleman's  oft-repeated  argument  derived  from  the  fact,  that  all  baptized 
children  do  not  evince  piety.  It  is  intended  to  be  argumentmn  ad  hom- 
inem.  What  Paul  said  about  the  disorders  in  his  day,  will  not  help  Mr. 
C.'s  argument  against  baptizing  infants.  The  argument  proves  as  much 
against  the  baptism  of  adults,  as  of  infants. 

I  will  make  one  or  two  remarks  further,  concerning  the  commission. 
I  am  sorry  that  my  friend  will  not  allow  me  to  agree  with  him.  I  proved 
to  you,  that,  to  escape  a  difficulty,  he  had  abandoned  his  own  construc- 
tion of  the  commission.  But  he  tells  us,  that  matheteuo  means  to  teach 
first  principles,  and  baptizing  is  the  concluding  act :  as,  for  example, 
farmers  say,  a  shower  is  the  snaking  of  a  crop.  I  am  not  aw^are  that 
human  instrumentality,  in  making  a  crop,  can  be  thus  illustrated.  When 
you  command  your  servant  to  cultivate  the  ground,  ploughing  it ;  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Campbell's  own  construction,  he  is  not  first  to  cultivate  it 
in  part,  and  then  plough  it;  but  he  is  to  cultivate  it  by  ploughing.  So 
disciples  are  to  be  made  by  baptizing  and  teaching,  not  first  made  in  ail 
cases,  and  then  baptized  and  taught. 

The  words  matheteuo  and  7nathetes,  the  former  of  which  is  employed 
in  the  commission,  occur,  I  think  he  said,  two  hundred  times,  or  more, 
in  the  New  Testament.  I  have  called  upon  him  to  point  out  one  instance 
in  which  it  signifies  teaching  simply  the  first  principles  of  Christianity— 
the  meaning  he  insists  on  giving  it.  He  cannot  show  even  one.  On  the 
contrary,  christians  are  called  disciples,  [mathetai)  as  long  as  they  live. 

The  gentleman  says,  it  is  preposterous  to  talk  of  making  disciples,  by 
throwing  water  in  their  faces.  He  certainly  knows,  that  such  language 
is  offensive.  I  could  speak  quite  as  contemptuously  of  making  disciples 
by  dipping  or  plunging  them,  as  he  can  of  sprinkling;  but  my  cause 
does  not  require  me  to  attempt  to  wound  the  feelings  of  those  from  whom 
I  may  differ.  I  think  he  must  see  the  impropriety  of  using  such  expres- 
sions. 

We  do  not  contend,  that  disciples  are  made  simply  by  baptism  ;  al- 
though so  far  as  the  force  of  the  word  matheteuo  is  concerned,  I  might 
say,  that  all  are  disciples  who  have  been  introduced  into  the  school  of 
Christ,  for  the  purpose  of  being  taught.  If  you  enter  a  school-room  on 
the  first  morning  of  the  session,  before  any  instruction  has  been  given, 
and  ask  the  teacher  how  many  scholars  or  disciples  he  has  ;  he  will  an- 
swer, by  giving  you  the  entire  number  of  those  who  are  engaged  as  pu- 
pils ;  and  he  will  speak  correctly.  We  do  not,  however,  contend  for  this 
view  of  the  subject.  A  disciple,  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  is  a 
true  convert — a  follower  of  Christ,  made,  so  far  as  human  instrumentality 
is  concerned,  by  baptizing  and  teaching.  Baptizing  alone  does  not  make 
a  disciple ;  but  it  is  one  of  the  things  to  be  done  in  making  disciples. 
Many  have  been  baptized  and  taught,  and  sUU  were  not  true  disciples, 
because  they  were  not  truly  converted.  The  commission  does  not  re- 
quire teaching,  in  all  cases,  to  precede  baptizing ;  and,  therefore,  it  does 
not,  and  cannot,  exclude  the  children  of  believers. 

The  gentleman  has  brought  against  me  Mr.  Baxter's  exposition  of  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  387 

commission.  But  suppose  I  should,  on  this  point,  differ  from  Mr.  Bax- 
ter, and  agree  with  Mr.  Campbell.  He  ought  not  to  fall  out  with  me  for 
it.  Baxter  seems  to  have  considered  the  language  of  the  commission  as 
having  direct  reference  to  those  who  were  capable  of  hearing  the  gospel ; 
but  still  he  deemed  it  proper  tc  baptize  the  children  of  believers  under 
that  commission,  and,  therefore,  did  not  understand  it  as  excluding  them. 

I  have  invited  the  gentleman  to  show  us  when  and  where  the  christian 
church  was  organized.  If  the  previously  existing  church  had  ceased  to 
exist,  and  a  new  one  was  organized  ;  it  was  a  most  important  event. 
Surely  we  should  expect  to  find  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  or  somewhere 
in  the  New  Testament,  an  account  of  it.  He  has  not  found  the  chapter ; 
but  he  expresses  great  astonishment,  that  any  one  could  imagine,  that  the 
Savior  sent  his  apostles  to  establish  a  new  religion,  and  yet  gave  them  no 
authority  to  organize  a  church.  I  deny,  that  he  sent  them  to  teach  a  reli- 
gion that,  in  any  proper  sense,  can  be  called  new.  God  has  never  taught 
on  earth  more  than  one  religion.  Enoch  walked  with  God  by  faith. 
Abraham  was  justified  by  faith.  True  religion  has  always  consisted  in 
holiness  of  heart  and  of  life  ;  of  repentance,  faith  and  obedience. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  is  astonished,  that  it  should  be  doubted  whether  the 
Savior  authorized  his  apostles  to  organize  a  new  church.  He  had  long 
had  a  church  on  earth  ;  and  it  was  yet  living.  Why,  then,  organize  an- 
other? James,'  the  inspired  apostle,  has  told  us  what  they  were  author- 
ized to  do.  Acts  XV.  13 — 17,  "And  after  they  had  held  their  peace, 
James  answered,  saying.  Men  and  brethren,  hearken  unto  me.  Simeon 
hath  declared  how  God  at  the  first  did  visit  the  gentiles,  to  take  out  of 
them  a  people  for  his  name.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  proph- 
ets ;  as  it  is  written.  After  this  I  will  return,  and  will  build  again  the  tab- 
ernacle of  David,  which  is  fallen  down ;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins 
thereof;  and  I  will  set  it  up :  that  the  residue  of  men  might  seek  after  the 
Lord,  and  all  the  gentiles  upon  whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord, 
who  doeth  all  these  things."  James  here  quotes  from  the  prophecy  of 
Amos  a  prediction  concerning  the  christian  church.  What  was  to  be 
done  ?  Was  a  new  church  to  be  organized?  No  ;  but  the  tabernacle  of 
David,  which  had  fallen  down,  was  again  to  be  set  up.  The  church, 
overrun  with  corruption  and  overwhelmed  by  calamity,  was  like  a  taber- 
nacle that  had  fallen  into  ruins.  The  Lord  sends  his  servants  to  raise  it 
up  and  repair  it,  and  to  call  the  gentiles  to  come  and  worship  in  it.  This 
passage  affords  another  unanswerable  argument  to  prove,  that  the  church 
under  the  new  dispensation  is  the  same  which  existed  under  the  old ;  and 
that  the  apostles  did  not  organize  a  new  church. 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  that  Mr.  McCalla,  in  the  debate  some  twenty 
years  since,  presented  more  points  of  argument,  than  I  have.  Yet  he 
complained  of  me,  at  first,  for  making  too  many.  He  was  anxious  to 
have  me  confine  myself  to  a  iew.  I  cannot  now  engage  in  a  defence  of 
brother  McCalla.  I  presume,  he  does  not  stand  in  need  of  a  defence  from 
me.  It  is,  however,  often  easier  to  answer  the  arguments  of  an  absent 
man,  than  of  one  who  is  present.  Some  years  since,  the  Roman  clergy 
of  Bardstown  made  such  attacks  upon  Protestantism,  that  I  considered 
it  my  duty  to  reply.  One  of  their  champions,  getting  weary  of  the  war, 
averred  that  he  was  not  in  controversy  with  me,  but  rather  with  Calvin 
and  Beza!  I  replied,  that  he  doubtless  found  it  easier  to  war  with  dead 
men,  than  with  the  living.  So  my  friend  succeeds  better  in  answering  aa 
absent  opponent ! 


388  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

I  have  not  abandoned  the  doctrine,  that  baptism  came  in  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. I  have  showed,  that  it  answers  the  same  purposes  to  the 
church  under  the  new  dispensation,  that  circumcision  answered  under  the 
old.  But  I  have  attached  no  considerable  importance  to  it ;  because  I  have 
arguments  enough  without  it.  I  do  not  need  more.  The  gentleman  has 
told  us  truly,  that  one  good  argument  is  enough  to  prove  any  point.  I 
have  given  him  a  number  of  them.  Certainly,  then,  he  has  no  occasion 
to  complain. 

I  have  said,  that  our  Savior  more  than  intimated  to  his  disciples  that  the 
children  of  believers  were  to  remain  in  his  church ;  when  he  said,  "  Suf- 
fer little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me ;  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  gentleman  thinks  they  were,  at  least,  old 
enough  to  walk.  But  Mark,  speaking  of  the  same  event,  says,  "  They 
brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he  should  touch  them.  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,"  chapter  x.  13,  16.  I  presume  they  were  infants; 
at  any  rate  they  were  not  old  enough  to  be  believers.  Mr.  C.  thinks,  the 
expression  "  of  such,''''  means  persons  in  some  respects  resembling  little 
children.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  unauthorized  by  the  common 
usage  of  the  language,  but  it  makes  our  Savior  employ  most  singular 
reasoning.  Litde  children  are  brought  to  him  that  he  may  bless  them ; 
that  he  may  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  pray.  The,  disciples  forbid 
them ;  and  the  Savior,  according  to  this  exposition,  is  made  to  say.  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  to  me,  that  I  may  lay  my  hands  on  them  and 
pray  ;  because  the  church  is  composed  of  persoyis  in  some  respects  re- 
sembling them!  I  cannot  believe,  that  he  ever  reasoned  in  this  way. 
The  interpretation  we  adopt,  makes  his  reasoning  clear  and  forcible — 
Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  that  I  may  bless  them ;  because  to 
such  belong  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  my  church.  It  is  true,  as 
Mr.  C.  says,  they  were  not  baptized ;  for  christian  baptism  was  not  yet 
instituted.  But  certainly  the  language  of  the  Savior  implied,  that  they 
were  still  to  enjoy  the  privilege  of  a  place  in  his  school,  of  membership  in 
his  church. 

Mr.  Campbell's  exposition  of  I  Corinthians  vii.  14,  is,  I  think,  so  novel, 
that  it  behooves  him  to  adduce  some  little  proof  that  it  is  correct,  before  he 
can  expect  the  public  to  receive  it.  It  is  scarcely  credible,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  this  passage  has  been  so  long  concealed  from  the  christian  world. 

He  quotes  Barnes  as  admitting  that  it  does  not  teach  infant  baptism, 
yet  he  himself  pronounces  Barnes'  explanation  of  it  incorrect.  Does  he, 
then,  expect  us  to  receive  it  ?  But  I  will  bring  against  Mr.  Barnes  such 
men  as  Scott,  Doddridge,  Whitby,  and  others,  who,  after  thorough  inves- 
tigation, were  convinced  that  the  words  imclean  and  holy  are  employed 
in  relation  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  I  will  meet  authority  with  authority 

Having  now  answered  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman,  I  will  proceea 
with  the  argument.  I  do  not  ask  any  more  than  the  stipulated  time  for 
the  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism.  I  think  I  shall  succeed  in 
making  it  clear  to  the  unprejudiced,  before  the  three  days  expire. 

I  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  audience  to  the  evidence  furnished  by 
history ;  which,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  conclusive.  I  expect  to  prove 
the  fact,  that  at  the  earliest  period  of  the  christian  era,  to  which  history 
can  take  us  back,  infant  baptism  was  universally  practiced,  and  was  be- 
lieved to  be  of  Divine  authority.  My  first  witness  shall  be  Ireneus,  who 
wrote  about  eighty  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  He  wrote  as  follows : 
(I  read  from  Wall's  Hist-  of  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  p.  73.) 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  399 

"  Therefore,  aa  he  was  a  Master,  he  had  also  the  age  of  a  Master.  Not 
disdaining  nor  going  in  a  way  above  human  nature,  nor  breaking  in  his 
own  person,  the  law  which  he  had  set  for  mankind :  but  sanctifying  every 
several  age  by  the  likeness  that  it  has  to  him.  For  he  came  to  save  all 
persons  by  himself:  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  regenerated  [or  baptized] 
unto  God,  infants  and  little  ones,  and  children  and  youths,  and  elder  persons. 
Therefore,  he  went  through  the  several  ages  ;  for  infants  being  made  an 
infant,  sanctifying  infants:  to  little  ones,  he  was  made  a  little  one,  sanc- 
tifying those  of  that  age:  and  also  giving  them  an  example  of  godliness, 
justice,  and  dutifulness:  to  youths  he  was  a  youth,"  &c. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  of  Irene  as  depends  upon  a  single  expres- 
sion, viz  :  regenerated  unto  God.  If,  as  Dr.  Wall  asserts,  he  used  this 
expression  to  signify  baptism,  his  testimony  is  clear  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism :  for  Christ,  he  says,  came  to  save  all  "  who  by  him  are  regener- 
ated into  God,  [or  baptized,]  infants  and  little  ones,''''  &.c.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell admits,  that  by  this  expression  Ireneus  meant  baptism.  In  his  de- 
bate with  McCalla  he  disputed  this ;  but  he  tells  us  he  has  since  gained 
more  light  on  the  subject,  and  has  ascertained  that  he  did  use  the  expres- 
sion to  mean  baptism.  He  must,  therefore,  admit  the  full  weight  of  the 
testimony  of  Ireneus  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

The  testimony  of  this  writer  is  extremely  important,  for  he  wrote  the 
work  from  which  this  quotation  is  made,  only  about  eighty  years  after 
the  apostolic  age  ;  and  he  was  then  a  very  old  man.  He  was  a  disciple 
o-f  Polyearp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  the  apostle  John ;  so  that  there  was 
but  a  single  individual  between  Ireneus  and  John.  Ii'eneus  says,  he  often, 
heard  Polyearp  relate  how  he  sat  under  the  ministry  of  John,  and  many 
interesting  circumstances  which  then  occurred. 

This  venerable  writer,  it  is  important  to  remark,  speaks  not  of  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  as  a  novelty,  as  a  practice  recently  introduced,  but  as  a 
thing  universally  understood  and  admitted.  His  manner  of  introduc- 
ing it,  shows  that  he  considered  it  as  much  a  known  and  admitted  truth, 
as  adult  baptism. 

Now  the  question  is — -had  Ireneus  the  opportunity  to  know  the  fact 
concerning  which  he  testifies  ?  For,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  I 
appeal  to  the  early  christian  fathers,  not  for  their  opinions,  but  I  call 
them  up  AS  witnesses  to  a  matter  of  fact,  viz :  that  in  their  day, 
and,  so  far  as  they  knew,  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  baptism  of 
infants  was  universally  practiced.  The  indirect,  yet  clear  testimony  of 
Ireneus,  so  near  to  the  apostle  John,  goes  very  far  indeed  to  prove,  not 
only  that  it  was  generally  practiced,  but  that  it  was  of  divine  authority. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  lived  about  ninety  years  after  the 
apostles,  also  testifies  of  its  prevalence  in  his  day.  But  as  I  can  read 
only  a  part  of  the  testimony  on  this  subject,  I  will  pass  to  that  of  Ter- 
TTJLLiAN,  who  flourished  about  two  hundred  years  after  the  apostles. 
He  says  : 

"  Bat  they,  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  baptism,  are  to  know  that  it 
is  not  to  be  given  rashly.  Give  to  every  one  that  askcth  thee,  has  its  proper 
subject,  and  relates  to  alms-giving :  but  that  command  rather  is  here  to  be 
considered,  Give  7wt  tliat  which  is  holy  to  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls  before 
swine:  and  that,  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  be  partakers  of 
o</ier  men's  faults,  *  *  *  Therefore,  according  to  every  one's  condition  and 
disposition,  and  also  their  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable, 
especially  in  the  case  of  little  children.  For  what  need  is  there  that  the 
godfathers  should  be  brought  into  danger]  because  they  may  either  fail  of 
their  promises  by  death,  or  they  may  be  mistaken  by  a  child's  proving  of  a 

2k2 


390  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

wicked  disposition.  Our  Lord  says,  indeed,  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to 
me.  Therefore,  let  them  come  when  they  are  grown  up  ;  let  them  come  when 
they  understand  ;  when  they  are  instructed  whither  it  is  they  come  ;  let 
them  be  made  christians  when  they  know  Christ.  What  need  their  guilt- 
less age  make  such  haste  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  1  Men  will  proceed 
more  warily  in  wordly  things  ;  and  he  that  should  not  have  earthly  goods 
committed  to  him,  yet  shall  he  have  heavenly!  Let  them  know  how  to 
desire  this  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  have  given  to  one  that  asketh. 

For  no  less  reason,  unmarried  persons  ought  to  be  kept  off,  who  are 
likely  to  come  into  temptation,  as  well  as  those  that  were  never  married^ 
upon  the  account  of  their  coming  to  ripeness,  as  those  in  widowhood,  for 
the  miss  of  their  partner :  until  they  either  marry  or  be  confirmed  in  conti- 
nence. They  that  understand  the  weight  of  baptism,  will  rather  dread  the 
receiving  it,  than  the  delaying  of  it.  An  entire  faith  is  secure  of  salva- 
tion."—?Fa«,  vol.  i.  pp.  93,  94. 

On  this  testimony  I  wish  to  make  two  or  three  remarks:  L  Tertullian, 
you  perceive,  expresses  himself  as  averse  to  infant  baptism  ;  but  his  very 
opposition  to  it,  proves  that  it  was  practiced  at  that  time.  2.  He  does  not 
oppose  it  as  unscriptural,  or  as  an  innovation.  He,  however,  gives  his 
opinion  that  it  is  better  to  delay  the  baptism  of  little  children.  But, 
since  he  was  opposed  to  it,  he  was  certainly  inclined  to  ofter  against  it 
the  strongest  arguments  he  could  command.  If  he  eould  have  said,  that 
it  was  unscriptural;  and  if  he  could  have  pronounced  it  an  innovation, 
contrary  to  the  faith  and  tlie  practice  of  the  church  ;  these  would  have 
been  the  most  effective  arguments  against  it.  The  very  fact,  therefore, 
that,  whilst  he  opposed  the  practice,  he  did  not  venture  to  pronounce  it 
either  unscriptural  or  an  innovation,  affords  evidence  conclusive,  that, 
generally,  so  far  as  he  knew,  the  church  had  been  accustomed  to  baptize 
infants,  and  regarded  the  doctrine  as  scriptural.  3.  He  opposed  not  only 
the  baptism  of  infants,  but  of  young  and  unmarried  persons.  "  For  no 
less  reason,"  he  says,  they  should  delay  receiving  iDaptism.  If,  there- 
fore, his  testimony  proves,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  not  universal- 
ly practiced  in  his  day,  it  proves  equally,  that  young  and  unmarried 
persons  were  not  generally  baptized ;  which  will  not  be  pretended. 
The  truth  is — Tertullian  advised  the  delay  of  baptism,  because  of  a  su- 
perstitious belief,  that  sins,  committed  af\er  baptism,  were  pecidiarly, 
dangerous.  I  consider  him  one  of  the  very  best  witnesses  for  the  apos- 
tolic doctrine  of  infant  baptism ;  because,  although  he  was  opposed  to  it, 
and  was,  of  course,  inclined  to  produce  the  strongest  arguments  against 
it,  he  did  not  venture  to  condemn  it  either  as  unscriptural,  or  as  contrary 
to  the  faith  and  the  practice  of  the  church. 

Robinson,  a  learned  anti-Pedo-baptist  writer,  attempted  to  evade  the 
force  of  this  testimony,  by  asserting,  that  Tertullian  spoke  not  of  infants, 
but  of  children  capable  of  asking  baptism.  To  make  out  this  position, 
he  gave  a  gross  mis-translation  of  the  language  of  that  author.  Few 
anti-Pedo-baptists,  however,  I  believe,  have  been  disposed  to  adopt  his 
notion. 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Origen,  one  of  the 
most  learned  of  the  early  christian  fathers.  In  his  Homily  on  Leviticus, 
he  says : 

"  Hear  David  speaking.  I  was,  says  he,  conceived  in  iniquity,  and  in  sia 
did  my  mother  bring  me  forth  :  shewing  that  every  soul  that  is  born  in  the 
flesh,  is  polluted  with  the  filth  of  sin  and  iniquity  ;  and,  that  therefore, 
that  was  said,  which  we  mentioned  before,  that  none  is  clear  from  pollution^ 
though  his  Ife  be  but  the  length  of  one  day.     Besides  all  this,  let  it  be  coa- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  391 

sidered,  what  is  the  reason  that,  whereas,  the  baptism  of  the  church  is  given 
for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  infants  also,  are,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  bap- 
tized;  when,  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  that  wanted  forgiveness  and 
raercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them." 

Aufain,  in  his  Homily  on  Luke  : 

"  Having  occasion  given  in  tliis  place,  I  will  mention  a  thing  that 
causes  frequent  inquiries  among  the  brethren.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  Of  what  sins'!  or  when  have  they  sinned!  or  how 
can  any  reason  of  the  law  in  their  case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that 
sense  we  mentioned  even  now,  none  are  free  from  pollution,  though  his  life 
be  but  of  the  length  of  one  day  upon  the  earth!  And  it  is  for  that  reason, 
because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  pollution  of  our  birth  is  taken 
away,  that  infants  are  baptized." 

Again,  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans: 

"  For  this  also  it  was,  that  the  church  had  from  the  apostles,  a  tradition 
[or  order]  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants.  For  they  to  whom  the  divine 
mysteries  were  committed,  knew  that  there  is  in  all  persons  the  natural 
pollution  of  sin,  which  must  be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit ;  by 
reason  of  which,  the  body  itself  is  called  the  body  of  sin." — Wall,  vol.  i. 
pp.  1U4,  105,  1G6. 

Now,  the  question  arises — what  is  the  testimony  of  this  witness  worth  ? 
Let  it  be  remeynbered.  I  am  not  concerned  about  his  theological  opinions. 
I  bring  him  forward  onb/  as  a  tvilness  to  a  simple  matter  of  fact.  The 
fact  to  which  he  testifies,  is — that,  in  his  day,  the  "  baptism  of  the 
church"  was  given  to  infants,  and  that  it  was  done  by  command  of  the 
apostles.  What  means  had  Origen  of  being  informed  concerning  the 
faith  and  practice  of  the  church  ?  He  was  a  man  of  eminent  learning,  and 
of  very  extensive  information.  That  I  may  not  seem  to  exalt  him  un- 
duly, I  will  read  the  following  testimony  of  Mr,  Jones,  the  Baptist 
historian. 

"  But  the  name  of  Origen  is  too  important  to  be  passed  over  in  a 
history  of  the  christian  church,  with  only  a  casual  or  incidental  men- 
tion. '  He  was  a  man,'  says  Dr.  Priestly,  '  so  remarkable  for  his 
piety,  genius,  and  application,  that  he  must  be  considered  an  honor  to 
Christianity  and  to  human  nature.'  Even  Jerom,  his  great  adversary, 
admits  that  he  was  a  great  man  from  his  infancy." — Church  Hist.  p.  147. 
Even  Jerom,  though  a  great  adversary  of  Origen,  [Mr.  Campbell  repre- 
sented him  as  quite  an  admirer,]  admitted  him  to  have  been  a  very 
great  man. 

Origen  was  descended  from  a  christian  ancestry.  His  father  was  a 
martyr,  and  his  grandfather  and  great  grandfather  were  christians.  He 
traveled  very  extensively.  He  resided  in  Alexandria,  in  Palestine,  and 
in  Rome.  He  found  it  necessary  repeatedly  to  fly  from  persecution. 
His  learning  and  his  fame  caused  him  to  be  consulted,  doubtless,  on  all 
important  questions  relative  to  the  interests  of  religion.  If  there  was,  in 
fliat  day,  a  man  in  the  world  who  was  qualified  to  gi^e  correct  information 
concerning  the  universal  practice  of  the  church,  Origen  was  that  man. 
What  does  he  testify  ?  That  the  church — not  a  portion  of  it — gave  bap- 
tism to  infants,  and  believed  the  doctrine  to  be  apostolical.  Can  we,  at 
this  late  day,  expect  to  gain  more  correct  information  than  Origen  pos- 
sessed, who  lived  in  the  third  century,  and  whose  pious  ancestors  reached 
back  to  the  very  days  of  the  aposdes  ■  His  testimony  settles  this  ques- 
tion, so  far  as  history  or  the  most  credible  uninspired  testimony  can  set- 
lie  it. 

I  will  now  give  you  the  testimony  of  another  very  important  witness  : 


393  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

or  ratner  the  testimony  of  about  sixty-seven  bishops,  who  met  in  council 
at  Carthage,  only  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  apostles.  Cyp- 
rian, whom  Jones,  the  Baptist  historian,  admits  to  have  been  an  eminent 
man,  presided  in  the  council ;  and  the  question  was  proposed  to  them,  not 
whether  infants  should  be  baptized,  (for  about  that  there  was  no  con- 
troversy;) but  whether  it  was  proper  to  baptize  them  before  the  eighth 
day.  I  will  read  their  decision,  contained  in  a  letter  written  by  Cyprian, 
to  the  minister  who  presented  the  inquiry  : 

Cyprian,  and  the  sixty-six  bishops,  thus  write : 

"  We  read  your  letter,  most  dear  brother,  in  which  you  write  of  one 
Victor,  a  priest,"  &c.  *  *  *  "  But  as  to  the  case  of  infants,  whereas 
you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three  days  after 
they  are  born  ;  and  that  tiie  rite  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  so  that 
none  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is 
born  ;  we  are  all  in  our  assembly  of  the  contrary  opinion.  For,  as  for  what 
you  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  was  not  one  of  your  mind,  but  all  of 
us,  on  the  contrary,  judged  that  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  is  to  be  denied 
to  no  person  that  is  born.  For  whereas  our  Lord,  in  his  gospel,  says.  The 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  destroy  jnen^s  souls,  [or  lives]  but  to  save  thein;  as 
far  as  lies  in  us,  no  soul,  if  possible,  is  to  be  lost." — Wall,  vol  i.  p.  129. 

I  need  not  read  the  whole  of  this  long  epistle,  sotting^  forth  various 
reasons  for  their  decision.  They  determined  mianimously,  that  it  Avas 
not  necessary  to  delay  baptism  until  the  eighth  day.  And,  so  far  as  his- 
tory can  inform  us,  their  decision  called  forth  not  one  word  of  contro- 
versy ;  which  proves  conclusively,  that  there  was  no  difference  in  the 
faith  and  practice  of  the  church  on  this  subject.  This  council  met,  as 
I  stated,  about  the  year  A,  D.  250 ;  and  Cyprian  was,  at  the  time  of  its 
meeting,  advanced  in  age.  Of  course,  he  must  have  lived  within  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  apostles. 

The  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is,  in  substance,  that  infant  bap- 
tism was  universally  practiced  in  their  day,  and  had  been  practiced  so  far 
back  as  they  could  gain  information.  This  testimony,  added  to  that  of 
Origen,  Tertullian,  and  Ireneus,  becomes  almost  irresistible.  To  these 
may  be  added  Gregory  Nazianzen,  St.  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  bishop  of 
Constantinople,  Jerom,  Augustine,  Pelagius,  &c.,  some  of  whom  I  will 
bring  forward  in  my  next  speech ;  although  it  seems  a  work  of  superero- 
gation to  attempt  to  add  to  the  testimony  of  those  who  lived  so  near  the 
apostles,  and  who  enjoyed  such  oppoitunities  to  know  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  churches. — [Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — 111  o^ clock,  Ji.M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  ninth  reply.^] 
Mr.  President — It  is  important  always  to  keep  before  us  the  main 
issue.  It  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  I  have  complained  of  what  I 
call yaZse  issues,  and  of  irrelevant  issues  ;  that  is,  making  matters  of  great 
moment  out  of  matters  casually  or  subordinately  introduced,  and  thus  ex- 
pending a  large  portion  of  a  speech  upon  matters  not  at  all  at  issue,  while 
the  main  points  are  greatly  neglected.  My  friend  has  not  yet  abandoned 
this  course  ;  though  I  am  gratified  to  observe  that  he  has  in  some  smaU 
degree  reformed  in  that  particular.  He  has,  however,  again  made  a  false 
issue  this  morning.  He  says  I  complain  of  my  brethren  for  want  of 
attention  to  their  children,  and  that  I  say,  from  the  superior  attention 
paid  to  the  education  of  children  in  Presbyterian  families,  their  children 
have  made  superior  attainments  in  piety.     It  always  gives  me  pleasure  ta 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  393 

commend  virtue  wherever  I  see  it ;  still  I  must  give  to  Romanists  more 
praise,  in  this  respect,  than  to  most  Protestants.  It  is,  indeed,  a  very- 
great  shame  to  Protestants  that  they  do  not  give  that  attention  to  family- 
culture,  so  far  as  religion  is  concerned,  that  is  generally  exhibited  by  the 
Catholics,  who  have  it  in  their  power ;  so  that  it  is  by  no  means  so  easy 
to  convert  them  from  what  they  receive  as  good  and  wholesome  instruc- 
tion from  their  parents,  as  it  is  for  them  to  proselyte  Protestants.  Now 
observe,  the  issue  which  Mr.  Rice  manufactures  out  of  this,  is :  that  I  as- 
cribe these  superior  benefits  to  sprinkling,  and  to  sprinkled  children,  who, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  are  therefore  more  intelligent  than  the  children  of 
Baptists,  or  of  our  brethren. 

Again  :  with  regard  to  the  quotations  from  the  Christian  Baptist.  I 
am  not  only  willing  but  gratified  and  pleased  that  my  friend  should  read 
so  much  from  my  writings.  I  should  be  pleased  if  he  would  spend  more 
of  his  time  in  reading  such  portions  as  these  you  have  now  heard.  He 
could  not  do  me  a  greater  honor.  He  shows  that  I  am  willing  to  hold  up 
the  defects  of  my  own  brethren,  while  I  acknowledge  even  the  appear' 
ance  of  virtues  in  his,  I  hope  that  I  may  never  be  so  blinded  by  partiality 
as  not  to  be  able  to  see  the  faults  of  my  own  brethren,  or  my  own.  I  will 
hold  up  every  thing  of  the  kind  to  public  attention,  so  far  as  I  deem  it  ex- 
pedient or  necessary,  that  it  may  stir  them  up  to  reformation.  1  may  have 
occasion  hereafter  to  speak  more  fully  of  this  matter. 

The  gentleman  often  alludes  to  my  changing.  But  if  Ichange  for  the 
better  it  seems  to  grieve  him ;  if  for  the  worse,  to  please  him  ;  and  if 
I  do  not  change  at  all,  it  is  yet  worse  than  either.  Well,  I  confess,  I  am 
changing  a  little  every  day — I  am  always  learning  something.  I  am 
wiser  to-day  than  yesterday,  and  I  hope  to  be  wiser  to-morrow  than  to- 
day. But  of  all  the  great  principles  that  I  have  advocated  in  this  com- 
monwealth for  twenty  years,  and  in  other  communities  for  a  longer  pe- 
riod, in  which  of  them  have  I  changed,  and  how  far  ?  I  have,  indeed, 
changed,  or  been  changed  once — very  essentially  changed  indeed  :  I  gave 
up  with  all  my  hereditary  faith  in  human  creeds,  and  formulas — my  he- 
reditary faith  in  every  branch  of  Pedo-baptism — subject,  action  and 
design,  and  in  all  its  aspects  and  tendencies,  in  all  its  influences  and 
bearings  on  the  christian  system,  and  the  christian  religion ;  and  they  are 
neither  few  in  number,  nor  minute  in  character.  I  have  experienced  one 
great  change  of  views,  thereby  giving  up  an  hereditary  faith  for  one  ob- 
tained from  the  Bible,  by  my  own  personal  instrumentality,  through  the 
favor  of  God.  But  on  baptism  I  advocate,  on  this  occasion,  precisely  the 
same  views — in  action,  subject,  and  design — sustained  in  my  debate  with 
Mr.  McCalla  twenty  years  ago.  Mr.  Rice,  however,  has  never  changed 
it  seems,  nor  has  been  changed  in  his  faith. 

Well,  I  am  pleased  to  hear  him  commend  the  style  of  Luke,  and  the 
propriety  of  using  it,  as  well  as  to  hear  of  the  high  regard  which  his 
brethren  entertain  for  this  same  style  of  Luke.  I  profess  to  be  an  admirer 
of  it  too.  Suppose  then  we  take  a  sally  into  Luke's  style,  and  try  which 
of  us  speaks  most  like  it.  Take  one  case  direcdy  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  Luke  never  confounds  the  Jewish  and  christian  religions. 
He  always  speaks  of  Jews  and  christians,  or  disciples,  as  not  only  a  dis- 
tinct people,  but  having  a  different  religion.  He  reports  the  speeches  of 
Paul  when  he  tells  of  his  "conversation  in  the  Jews'  religion;'"  how 
Paul  "profited  in  the  Jews'  religion;"  how,  "after  the  strictest  sect 
of  OUR  (Jews)  RELIGION,  he  lived  a  pharisee  1 " 


394  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

There  is  sometimes  a  volume  of  sense  in  a  single  sentence,  as  there 
are  some  whole  volumes  without  one  good  idea.  "  The  Jews'  religion," 
commended  by  Luke — "  our  religion"  too.  Yet,  this  amateur  of  Luke 
and  his  fine  style,  will  contend  that  the  Jewish  church  and  the  christian, 
had  "  o?ie  and  the  same  religion  ;^^  that  is,  the  Jews'  religion  and  the 
christian  religion,  are  just  one  and  the  same  religion  !  !  Yet  Paul  posi- 
tively, directly,  and  literally  places  them  in  opposition.  Hear  him  say  : 
"  You  have  heard  of  my  behavior  in  the  Jeivs'  religion,  how  that,  be- 
yond measure,  I  persecuted  the  church  of  God,  and  wasted  it."  Here  is 
the  most  explicit  contradiction  of  Mr.  Rice  and  his  theory  of  identity, 
than  can  be  imagined.  Here  is  "  the  church  of  God"  and  the  "Jews' 
religion,"  direcdy,  formally,  literally  contrasted;  and  that,  too,  by  the 
most  learned  aposde,  and  the  greatest  teacher  of  Christianity  the  world 
ever  saw,  or  ever  will  see.  Which  of  us  now,  fellow-citizens,  pays  the 
greater  deference  to  the  sacred  style  ?  I  state  this  fact,  that  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  58,  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Galatians  on  the  difference  be- 
tween the  law,  the  covenant,  and  all  the  dispensations  of  redemption,  he 
then  spake  of  "  the  church  of  God"  and  the  "Jews'  religion,"  in  direct 
and  positive  contrast.  No  one  can,  in  my  humble  opinion,  dispose  of  this 
fact  and  argument  against  this  assumed  identity.  Yet,  Mr.  Rice  argues,  that 
the  Jews'  religion  and  Christ's  religion  are  one  and  the  same  religion ! ! 

I  hope  the  gentleman  will  give  this  up,  with  the  argument  formally 
based  on  the  14th  verse  of  the  7th  chapter  1  Corinthians.  He  must  per- 
ceive and  feel  the  weight  of  these  arguments.  I  have  too  much  respect 
for  his  sagacity  and  discrimination,  to  think  that  he  does  both  see  and 
feel  that  they  are  insuperable  objections  to  his  sj-stem.  I  am  bold  to  say, 
he  never  can  dispose  of  them. 

As  to  the  novelty  of  the  view  of  1  Cor.  vii.  14, 1  am  not  wholly  sin- 
gular or  alone  in  it.  I  do  not  claim  a  patent-right  for  it ;  a  few  others 
entertain  nearly  the  same  view  of  it.  It  is,  however,  a  clear  and  satis- 
factory exposition  of  the  whole  passage.  Paul  teaches,  that  all  the  chil- 
dren of  christians,  in  their  unconverted  state,  were  just  as  ecclesiastically 
unclean  as  those  unsanctified,  unbelieving  husbands  and  wives  ;  and  if 
the  believing  party  may  not,  in  civil  life  and  in  the  same  family,  live  with 
an  unbelieving  and  ecclesiastically  unclean  partner,  they  must,  for  the 
same  reason,  put  away  their  children  ?  Answer  this  who  can  :  Pedo- 
baptists  cannot! 

My  friend  says,  he  was  glad  that  I  touched  household  baptism  so 
lightly.  I  have  seen  a  new  work  from  the  New  York  press,  1843,  main- 
ly based  upon  household  baptism,  in  favor  of  baptizing  infants.  My 
friend  has,  doubtless,  seen  it ;  and  has  not  yet  seen  fit  to  bring  it  forward 
in  this  controversy.  It  is  from  the  pen  of  a  gentleman  no  less  distin- 
guished than  the  author  of  Calmet's  dictionary  of  the  Bible,  [Mr.  Tay- 
lor.] It  was  published  in  England  some  thirty  years  ago,  and  lately  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  It  is,  to  the  minds  of  the  English,  an  unanswer- 
able performance. 

In  my  debate  with  Mr.  McCalla,  he  introduced  some  extracts  from  this 
work,  and  brought  them  up  in  proof  of  infants  in  households.  My  friend 
has  read  that  debate,  and  knows  full  well  how  I  disposed  of  them  twenty 
years  ago.  It  is  little  else  than  a  collection  of  palpable  sophisms.  Still, 
the  English  think  and  represent  it  unanswered  and  unanswerable.  They 
have  given  them  all  up,  except  the  solitary  case  of  Lydia :  and  how 
many  assumptions  are  there  in  this  case  of  Lydia ! 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  395 

Mr.  Rice  assumes,  that  Lydia  was  a  married  lady  ;  in  the  second  place, 
he  assumes  that  she  had  children  ;  in  the  third  place,  he  assumes  that  she 
had  infant  children  ;  and  in  the  fourth  place,  that  those  infants  were  bap- 
tized on  her  faith.  Give  me  four  assumptions  like  these,  and  what  can  I 
not  prove  ?  Now,  Lydia's  case  is  the  most  plausible  one  in  the  New 
Testament;  and  that,  no  doubt,  is  the  reason  why  the  gentleman  passed 
over  all  the  others,  and  perched  upon  this  one.  I  discover  there  is  some 
poetry  and  romance  in  the  constitution  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  as  well 
as  there  was  in  our  old  friend,  John  Taylor,  with  whom  he  amused  us 
the  other  day.  He  made  Ananias  and  Paul  pass  along  in  mutual  embra- 
ces, on  their  way  to  the  water,  holding  a  very  fanciful  conversation.  But 
now,  all  at  once,  ray  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  is  inspired  with  the  same  gift  of 
poetic  imagination.  He  sees  Mrs.  Lydia  and  her  handmaids,  carrying 
along  with  them  her  little  children  down  to  the  oratory  on  the  bank  of  the 
river,  near  to  the  city  of  Philippi,  [a  laugh.]  She  carries  an  infant  in 
her  bosom  into  the  house  of  prayer  ;  Paul  arrives,  begins  to  preach, — Ly- 
dia listens — her  heart  is  opened.  She  comes  forward — makes  the  good 
confession.  They  return  to  the  river  for  baptism — she  and  all  her  little 
ones.  Mr.  Rice  sees  some  one  going  down  to  the  river  for  a  cup  full  of 
water  ;  and  instantly  he  observes  the  apostle  dipping  his  fingers  into  it, 
and  sprinkling  first  mother  Lydia  and  all  her  dear  little  children,  one  by 
one.  But  in  the  noise  and  screaming  of  the  little  ones,  he  cannot  be 
certain  whether  Paul  baptized  any  of  ijie  young  ladies  that  belonged  to 
her  household.  If  they  were,  however,  he  infers  they  must  have  been 
upon  her  faith  too,  according  to  the  text :  for  Lydia's  heart  is  the  only 
one  said  to  have  been  opened  on  that  occasion  !  Well,  now,  to  my  taste, 
the  fancy  of  John  Taylor  is  in  just  as  good  taste  and  keeping  as  that  of 
Mr.  Rice. 

Here  is  the  late  ecclesiastic  history  of  Niander,  fresh  from  a  German 
press.  It  has  passed  through  the  ordeal  of  Pedo-baptist  learning,  both 
European  and  American.     He  is  a  Pedo-baptist.     Hear  him  : 

"  It  is  certain  that  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism ;  he  left,  indeed, 
much  that  was  not  needful  for  salvation,  to  the  free  development  of  the 
christian  spirit,  witliout  here  appointing  binding  laws.  We  cannot  prove 
that  the  apostles  ordained  infant  baptism,  from  those  places  where  the 
baptism  of  wliole  families  is  mentioned,  as  in  Acts  xvi.  33,  1  Cor.  i.  16. 
We  can  draw  no  such  conclusion,  because  the  inquiry  is  still  to  be  made, 
whether  there  were  any  children  in  these  families  of  such  an  age,  that  they 
were  not  capable  of  any  intelligent  reception  of  Christianity  ;  for  this  is  the 
only  point  on  which  the  case  turns." — J^eander''s  Church  Hist.  p.  198, 
Philad.  edit.,  1843. 

I  think  my  friend  must  have  heard  this  passage :  "  It  is  certain 
THAT  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism."  He  left  much  that 
was  not  needful  to  salvation.  One  such  learned  and  dignified  author,  in 
this  age  of  improvement  and  strict  research — one  such  witness,  most  pro- 
foundly read  in  church  history,  is  worth  a  thousand  special  pleaders,  and 
their  ephemeral  productions,  got  up  at  the  impulse  of  the  moment,  for  sec- 
tarian purposes.  This  gentleman  writes  for  posterity.  His  researches 
into  the  highest  antiquity  are  said  to  have  been  more  ample  than  those 
of  any  other  historian  living. 

There  is  another  question  upon  this  subject  of  identity,  which  we  have 
not  forgotten  nor  given  up.  Infants,  he  says,  ''are  born  in  the  church.'* 
Presbyterian  infants  are  born  members  of  the  Presbyterian  church — they 
are  therefore  in  it.  Yet  he  has  spoken  of  baptism  as  a  door.    Now  if  they 


396  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

are  born  in  the  church,  the  question  is,  through  what  door  do  they  enter 
into  the  church?  or  rather  what  is  the  use  of  a  door?  I  should  be  glad  to 
be  informed,  since  children  are  born  in  the  church,  what  need  have  they 
of  a  door  ?  The  Jews  were  born  in  the  church,  and  circumcised  because 
they  were  born  in  it.  Presbyterians,  and  all  other  Pedo-baptists,  are  born 
in  the  church.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  identity,  I  should  like  to 
know  why,  then,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  door'  at  all,  unless  to  turn 
them  out.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  answer  this  most  interesting  ques- 
tion at  his  earliest  convenience. 

I  shall  now  advance  to  some  other  points.  I  have  not  yet  done  with 
the  Bible.  I  will  leave  church  history  for  a  time,  but  I  may  read  from 
it,  more,  perhaps,  than  my  friend  would  like  to  hear.  I  have  a  passage 
lying  before  me,  to  which  I  must  now  beg  your  attention.  It  is  found 
in  Rom.  iv.  "  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations."  The  Jews, 
as  it  now  appears,  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  to  show  that  they 
were  of  the  elect  nation. 

To  father  Abraham,  that  renowned  friend  of  God,  as  I  stated  at  the 
commencement,  were  two  distinct  promises  made.  One  constituting  him 
the  father  of  many  nations,  according  to  the  flesh;  the  other  constituting 
him  the  father  of  many  nations,  according  to  the  spirit.  It  has  been 
proved  that  he  was  the  father  of  the  Jews,  the  Edomites,  the  Ishmaelites, 
and  other  descendants  of  Keturah.  But  he  asked  me  to  show  an  instance 
where  circumcision  was  adminis.tered  to  adults  without  faith.  Has  he 
shewn  a  precept  requiring  faith,  or  connecting  faith  with  circumcision  ? 
I  gave  the  adult  slaves  of  Abraham,  who  were  circumcised,  as  his  pro- 
perty merely,  and  consequently,  that  fact  precludes  faith  altogether  as  a 
pre-requisite.  But  if  that  will  not  suffice,  he  may  have  a  stronger  case — 
that  of  the  Shechemites,  as  detailed  Gen.  xxxiv.  Certainly  he  must  ad- 
mit, that  no  faith  was  either  propounded  or  professed,  in  that  case. 

Why  does  this  case  of  adult  circumcision,  as  property,  without  faith, 
give  him  so  much  pain !  On  his  new  doctrine  of  substitutes,  avowed  the 
other  day,  there  is  no  need  for  identity,  or  even  similarity.  I  gave  some 
fifteen  or  sixteen  points  of  dissimilarity.  But,  he  says,  I  am  wrong  for 
supposing  that  any  such  identity  or  similarity  belongs  to  the  subject ! ! 
It  is  enough  that  the  one  supplies  the  place  of  the  other ! !  In  what  single 
point,  then,  must  there  be  identity?  His  doctrine  of  substitutes  is  fatal 
to  identity.  But  to  return  again  to  the  covenants  of  promise.  It  has 
been  observed  that  the  covenants  with  Abraham,  which  alone  could  be 
called  the  '^'^  covenants  of  promises,''''  (for  as  yet  the  nation  was  not,)  were 
engrossed  at  Sinai  into  one  national  covenant,  with  the  exception  of  the 
one  concerning  the  Messiah,  given  to  them  merely  on  deposit.  They 
had  the  use  of  this  promise  concerning  the  Messiah,  and  all  their  saints 
believed  and  hoped  in  it.  Still  they  had  it  only  on  deposit.  It  was  not 
theirs  only  in  common  with  the  nations  for  whose  benefit  they  held  it. 
Their  chief  advantage  from  circumcision,  or  their  national  peculiarity,  was, 
that  "unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  If,  then,  I  might 
compare  them  to  a  great  bank,  to  speak  in  our  own  style,  they  had  a  cap- 
ital stock  of  their  own,  in  the  charter  given  them  at  Mount  Sinai.  Be- 
sides that,  there  was  a  much  greater  sum  left  in  their  vaults  on  deposit. 
They  had  the  use  of  that  sum  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  without  interest^ 
just  for  preserving  it  for  those  of  their  own  issue,  and  of  other  nations, 
for  whose  benefit  it  was  then  laid  up.  It  was  no  part  of  the  Jewish  cap- 
ital.    It  was  not  in  the  company's  charter,  but  simply  placed  in  their 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  397 

hands  for  safe  keeping.  Bat  he  was  not  only  the  father  of  the  Jews,  in 
a  literal  sense  ;  but  the  spiritual  father  of  all  the  Jews  that  believe.  He 
was  the  spiritual  father  of  those  persons,  in  all  nations,  who  walk  in  the 
steps  of  that  faith,  which  he  had  while  he  was  yet  uncircumcised.  By  vir- 
tue of  these  two  promises,  he  is  constituted  the  father  of  multitudes.  By 
one,  he  became  the  natural  ancestor  of  many  nations  ;  by  the  other,  he  is 
the  father  of  all  that  believe,  in  every  age  and  nation.  Thus,  you  see, 
that  the  two  promises  made  to  Abraham,  were  prolific  of  blessings,  nu- 
merous and  various. 

Mr.  Rice,  on  yesterday,  did  not  advert  to  the  covenants  with  Abraham 
in  the  plural  form.  I  brought  up  only  one  passage  representing  plurality 
of  covenants.  The  gentleman  seems  to  regard  it  as  a  solitary  case.  But, 
while  he  can  quote  passages  speaking  of  covenant  in  the  singular  num- 
ber, we  must  give  him  instances  in  the  plural  form.  Paul,  then,  tells  the 
gentiles,  at  Ephesus,  that  they  had  been,  formerly,  strangers  to  the  cove- 
nants of  promise.  Let  him  note  this.  The  gentiles  were,  indeed,  inter- 
ested in  those  covenants,  though  no  party  to  them.  Abraham's  seed,  then, 
was  Christ,  so  far  as  the  gentiles  were  interested.  Through  that  seed 
Abraham  became  the  father  of  all  believers  in  his  seed  ;  therefore,  if  we 
gentiles  are  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  or  in  Christ,  we  are  Abraham's 
children,  or  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise — not  the  promises — 
but  the  promise ;  that  is,  the  promise  of  blessing  all  nations  (spiritually 
and  eternally,)  in  his  seed,  which  is  the  Messiah.  They  who  are  of  the 
faith,  then,  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  blessed  with  believing  Abraham.  All 
the  promises  concerning  spiritual  blessedness,  made  to  Abraham,  when 
taken  in  detail,  are  now  in  Christ,  "  Yea  and  Amen.''''  When,  then,  we 
have  the  word  covenant  in  the  singular  form,  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
either  refers  to  this,  or  the  new  covenant — that  dispensation  of  mercy, 
righteousness,  and  life,  through  Jesus  Christ.  Of  this,  however,  still 
more  hereafter. 

Next  comes  the  olive-tree.  Our  Pedo-baptist  friends  ought  not  to 
quote  this  passage.  It  is  all  against  them.  Our  Lord,  at  one  time,  told 
the  Jews,  that  the  seed,  and  all  the  blessings — or  rather  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  its  blessings,  should  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to  a  people 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  it.  While  they  had  that  relation  to  God,  "sal- 
vation was  of  the  Jews ;"  as  the  Messiah  said  to  the  Samaritans.  But 
God  now  gives  salvation  to  the  gentiles.  A  portion  of  the  Jews  believed — 
they  became  the  nucleus  of  the  new  dispensation.  They  are  "the  first 
fruits,  and  the  root  of  the  christian  church."  They  hold  by  faith,  and 
not  by  flesh,  all  the  spiritual  blessings  promised  Abraham.  Paul  com- 
pares them  to  a  good  olive-tree  of  which,  in  one  sense,  Abraham  was  the 
root — standing  as  a  spiritual  father  to  the  believing  Jews,  and  as  contain- 
ing in  the  covenant,  made  with  him  concerning  Christ,  all  these  bless- 
ings. On  Abraham's  account,  then,  the  believing  Jews  were  first — dear 
to  God  on  two  accounts,  both  in  the  flesh,  for  the  sake  of  Abraham,  his 
friend,  and  also/or  the  sake  of  the  Lord,  his  and  Abraham's  son.  Hence 
the  Jew  is  always ^?'s?  with  Paul,  and  the  Greek  second. 

But  to  the  point,  the  single  point,  now  before  us.  Paul  says,  You  gen- 
tiles must  not  mistake  God's  dealings  with  this  people — "  for  if  the  first 
fruit  be  holy  the  mass  is  also  holy,  and  if  the  root  be  holy  so  are  the 
branches.'^  Well,  now,  the  Gentiles  Avere  grafted  in  among  the  believ- 
ing Jews.  On  the  same  old  identical  principle  ?  No  :  truly  ! — not  on 
the  same  principle,  at  all,  on  which  the  Jews  stood  naturally  related  to 

2L 


398  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Abraham.  Both  enter  the  new  covenant  by  faith,  and  both  stand  by 
faith  in  it,  and  whosoever  has  not  faith,  is  broken  off  and  cast  away. 

There  is,  then,  clearly  a  repudiation  of  the  fleshly  principle.  Because 
of  unbelief,  the  Jews  were  bi'oken  off;  because  of  faith,  the  nations  were 
grafted  in  :  and  now  faith  in  the  Messiah  is  the  principle  and  bond  of 
union — so  that  there  is  not  an  atom  of  identity  in  the  connecting  princi- 
ple and  covenant  of  the  new  institution.  I  will  concede,  if  the  gentle- 
man pleases,  all  he  assumes  concerning  Abraham  as  the  holy  root.  He 
admits  that  a  great  change  has  taken  place ;  that  all  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
but  those  who  have  the  holy  faith  that  made  him  holy,  are  rejected ;  that 
the  believing  gentiles,  or  those  gentiles  made  holy  by  faith,  are  never 
engrafted  with  the  holy  seed  of  Abraham,  and  both  make  a  new  body 
STANDING  Bv  FAITH.  And  this,  therefore,  is  a  perfect  and  complete  anni- 
hilation of  his  imaginary  identity.  Faith  and  not  flesh,  is  now  the  only 
bond  of  union  to  Christ  and  among  christians.     So  the  matter  ends. 

The  two  promises,  one  concerning  the  natural,  and  one  concerning  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  have,  then,  been  fully  developed.  The  cove- 
nant concerning  Canaan,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  were  ulti- 
mately engrossed  into  one  great  national  institution.  The  latter  prom- 
ise was,  under  Christ,  developed  and  made  the  constitution  of  a  "  new 
man,''''  a  new  body,  a  new  community — and  thus,  with  Paul,  we  arrive 
at  the  place  of  beginning,  in  the  allegory,  of  the  two  covenants,  the  two 
seeds,  the  two  nations,  the  two  inheritances,  and  the  casting  out  of  the 
one  to  make  room  for  the  other. 

On  yesterday,  t!ie  gentleman  said,  if  I  understood  him,  that  the  moral  law 
was  the  constitution  of  the  christian  church ;  thus  making  it  a  legal  insti- 
tution. Paul,  on  this  point  as  well  as  on  many  others,  essentially  differs 
from  my  friend.  He  compares  the  new  and  old  constitutions,  (vulgarly 
called  testaments,)  and  contrasts  them  in  his  second  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, third  chapter,  in  some  four  points.  The  law,  or  old  constitution, 
he  calls  '■'■letter,'"  "  the  ministration  of  death  written  and  engraven  on 
stone  i^''  "  the  ministration  of  condemnation,^''  and  "  to  be  done  away" 
The  new  constitution,  in  contrast  with  the  former,  he  called  "  the  Spi- 
rit," "  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,"  "  the  ministration  of  righteous- 
ness," and  "  that  which  remaineth."  I  know,  indeed,  that  the  comparison 
takes  in  the  two  institutions,  and  their  introduction  or  ministration ;  and 
although  the  first  was  "  glorious,"  as  Moses'  face  indicated,  the  sec- 
ond "  excelled  in  glory."  Letter,  condemnation  and  death,  define  the 
former  in  its  nature  and  operation — Spirit,  righteousness,  and  life,  the 
latter  in  its  nature  and  operation.  Mr.  Rice's  christian  church  is  organ- 
ized under  the  former ;  and  that  in  which  I  believe,  was  organized  under 
the  latter. 

Can  any  one  imagine  a  more  clearly  marked  contrast  than  that  de- 
picted by  our  apostle  when  speaking  of  the  difference  of  Moses  and  the 
apostles — as  employed,  the  one  in  organizing  the  old  institution,  the  other 
in  introducing  the  new  ?  It  is  the  first  time  in  my  life  that  I  have  ever 
heard  any  one  say  that  the  christian  church  was  founded  upon  the  moral 
law  as  its  constitution.  The  moral  law,  indeed,  in  its  two  grand  abstrac- 
tions, of  love  to  God  and  our  fellows,  is  the  foundation  of  all  governments 
— celestial,  terrestrial,  patriarchal,  Mosaic,  christian,  angelic,  human,  tem- 
poral, eternal — but  that  it  is  specially  or  properly  the  constitution  of  the 
christian  church  in  the  hands  of  a  Mediator,  is  without  reason  and  with- 
out proof.     Paul's  contrasts  between  the  two  testaments,  his  face  and 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  399 

that  of  Moses,  with  all  that  written  in  the  aforesaid  chapter,  concerning 
letter  and  spirit,  righteousness  and  condemnation,  is  at  variance  with 
such  an  hypothesis.  The  moral  universe  is  all  one  church,  if  the  moral 
principles  be  its  constitution. 

The  method  pursued  on  this  proposition  is  rather  singular,  methinks. 
Instead  of  furnishing  us  with  New  Testament  facts,  precepts,  examples  or 
promises,  in  development  and  proof  of  his  proposition ;  he  is  all  the  while 
hiding  in  the  remote  questions  of  patriarchal  and  Jewish  institutions — 
listening  to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  rather  than  to  the  Messiah  and  his 
apostles  ;  and  all  this  for  an  identity  which  is  impossible  to  prove ; 
and  which,  if  it  were  proved,  avails  nothing,  so  long  as  circumcision  is  a 
substitute  for  baptism :  for  here  identity  fails  with  the  law  of  baptism- 
But  he  has  made  the  admission,  that  invalidates  his  own  argument!  Why 
then  prosecute  it  farther? — [Time  expired. 

TVcdnesday,  Nov.  22 — 12  0^ clock,  M. 
[mr.  rice's  tenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — It  is  a  litde  remarkable,  that  I  am  always  charged 
with  making  false  issues,  when  I  adduce  arguments  which  precisely 
match  those  of  Mr.  Campbell !  He  urges,  as  an  argument  against  infant 
baptism,  that  many  baptized  children  live  and  die  unconverted.  I  answer 
his  exaggerated  statement  by  proving,  that  large  numbers  of  adults  im- 
mersed into  his  own  church,  have  apostatized  and  become  worse  than 
before.  And  this  is  making  "  false  issues !"  It  is  somewhat  singular, 
too,  that  I  am  rarely  ever  diverted  from  the  subject  under  discussion,  ex- 
cept when  I  am  in  pursuit  of  him  ! 

The  gentleman  is  obliged  to  admit,  that  he  has  expressed  the  opinion, 
that  there  is  more  probability  of  the  salvation  of  the  children  of  Presbyte- 
rians, than  of  the  children  of  Baptists ;  but  he  does  not  ascribe  this  differ- 
ence to  the  virtue  of  sprinkling.  I,  however,  do  ascribe  it  to  the  fact, 
that  Presbyterian  parents  have  solemnly  covenanted  with  God  to  train  up 
their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord ;  and  whilst  they 
had  applied  to  them  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  have  been  encouraged  in 
their  difficult  duties  by  the  soul-cheering  promise — '« I  will  be  a  God  to 
tliee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  Is  nothing  gained,  when  an  individual, 
who  is  disposed  to  neglect  an  important  duty,  is  induced  honestly  and 
solemnly  to  promise  to  neglect  it  no  more  ?  Is  he  not  more  likely  to 
persevere  in  the  effort  to  accomplish  it,  if  he  have  assurance  of  the  assist- 
ance he  needs  ?  If  human  nature  can  be  affected  by  the  most  solemn 
promises,  or  encouraged  by  the  prospect  of  needed  help ;  much,  very 
much  is  gained  by  the  baptism  of  infants.  It  was  not  the  mere  act  of 
circumcising  a  child  in  Abraham's  family,  that  secured  the  blessing.  It 
was  the  covenant  with  God,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal,  which 
bound  him  more  strongly,  and  more  encouraged  him  to  command  his 
household  after  him,  that  they  might  enjoy  the  blessing  of  the  covenant- 
keeping  God.  The  gentleman's  own  acknowledgment,  drawn  from  him 
in  spile  of  his  prejudices,  is  proof  conclusive  of  the  value  of  infant 
baptism. 

I  have  said,  that  there  has  been,  properly  speaking,  but  one  true  reli- 
gion on  earth,  and  that  the  Savior  did  not  send  his  apostles  to  establish  a 
new  one.  Mr.  C.  insists  that  this  cannot  be  true,  because  Paul  says, 
that  before  his  conversion  to  Christianity  he  profited  in  the  Jeivs'  religion. 
But  at  the  time  when  Paul  was  converted,  the  Jews'  religion  was  false. 


400  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  prophecies,  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  pointed  them  to 
the  Messiah,  as  the  Savior  of  men.  They,  in  their  blindness  rejected  the 
glorious  substance,  and  clung  to  the  shadow.  They  had  rejected  the  Sa- 
vior, and  were  unbelievers — apostates.  Their  religion,  therefore,  was 
false.  But  does  this  prove,  that  the  piety  of  Paul,  as  a  christian,  was 
essentially  different  from  the  piety  of  Abraham,  the  father  of  believers? 
or  from  that  of  Daniel,  or  Isaiah,  or  Jeremiah,  or  other  devout  servants  of 
God,  under  the  former  dispensation  ? 

The  genUeman  would  fain  induce  you  to  believe,  that  I  have  abandoned 
the  argument  from  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  How  have  I  abandoned  it?  By  put- 
ting the  learning  of  Scott,  Doddridge,  Whitby,  Woods  and  other  eminent 
men  against  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Campbell!  He  affirms,  that  they  have 
all  entirely  mistaken  the  apostle's  design;  and  he  calls  on  me  to  prove, 
that  they  have  not.  They  evidently  thought  that  they  understood  some- 
thing about  the  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  and  so  long  as  he  deals  in  bold 
assertions  without  proof,  I  am  content  to  throw  his  learning  into  the  one 
scale,  and  theirs  into  the  other.  I  have  said,  that  the  word  holy  and  clean 
have  in  the  Bible  two  meanings  ;  and,  in  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, they  can  mean  nothing  but  consecration  to  God.  If  the  gentleman 
can  show  that  these  words  have  other  meanings,  let  him  do  it ;  but  it  is 
vain  for  him  to  put  forth  his  assertions  against  the  views  of  such  men  as 
those  just  named. 

He  is  quite  pleased  that  I  touched  household  baptisms  so  lightly,  and 
that  I  have  not  brought  forward  the  argument  on  which  Mr.  Taylor  relies. 
We  are  rich  in  resources  on  this  subject.  I  did  not  design  to  offer  all  the 
arguments  by  which  infant  baptism  can  be  proved.  The  gentleman  says, 
one  good  argument  is  enough  to  establish  a  point.  I  have  given  him  sev- 
eral, which  he  has  not  been  able  to  answer.  Were  I  to  bring  forward 
Mr.  Taylor's  argument,  I  think  it  very  doubtful  whether  he  could  answer 
it ;  but  I  do  not  need  it.  It  is  true,  I  remarked  on  but  one  case  of  house- 
hold baptism,  for  the  very  good  reason,  that  the  remarks  made  concerning 
that,  will  apply  to  the  others.  I  remember,  not  long  since,  reading  a 
critique  of  the  gentleman  on  an  argument  in  brother  Hendrick's  book  on 
Baptism.  The  author  gave,  perhaps,  nineteen  instances  in  which  the 
Greek  preposition  precedes  the  verb,  where  the  idea  of  going  into  is 
designed  to  be  definitely  expressed.  Mr.  Campbell  decided  very  critically> 
that  the  nineteen  examples,  being  just  alike,  amounted  to  only  one!  But 
when  I  give,  as  an  example,  one  household  baptism,  he  is  quite  amused, 
that  the  subject  is  touched  so  lightly  ! 

I  have,  he  says,  assumed  that  Lydia  had  a  husband  and  children,  &c. 
I  have  assumed  nothing.  I  have  no  occasion  to  draw  upon  my  imagina- 
tion, as  did  Mr.  Campbell  and  father  Taylor,  to  supply  the  defects  of  sa- 
cred history.  I  state  simple,  indisputable  facts — that  the  Evangelist  states 
that  Lydia  believed,  and  that  she  and  her  family  were  baptized  ;  but  he 
did  not  say  that  her  family  believed.  I  say,  we  write  as  Luke  wrote ; 
and  anti-Pedo-baptists  do  not  thus  write.  I  cheerfully  leave  the  audience 
to  decide,  in  view  of  these  facts,  whether  we,  or  the  gentleman  and  those 
who  agree  with  him,  practice  as  Luke  and  the  apostles  did. 

Mr.  Campbell  quotes  Dr.  Neander's  opinion,  that  Christ  did  not  ordain 
infant  baptism,  and  also  a  statement  concerning  the  history  of  it.  Dr. 
Neander  lives  at  too  late  a  period  to  be  admitted  as  a  witness,  only  as  he 
gives  authority  for  his  statements.  We  are  not,  however,  discussing  the 
question,  whether  Christ  ordained  infant  baptism.     That  he  instituted 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  40I 

the  ordinance  of  baptism,  all  admit.  But  the  question  arises,  viz.  to 
whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered?  We  prove,  at  least  to  our  own 
satisfaction,  that  adult  believers  and  their  children,  are  scriptural  sub- 
jects of  this  ordinance.  Our  Savior  did  not  ordain /ema/e  communion. 
He  did,  however,  appoint  his  supper  to  be  observed  in  all  future  time  ; 
and,  although  there  is  no  precept  for  admitting  females  to  commune,  it 
can  be  proved  to  be  their  privilege  and  their  duty.  And  so  it  is  with  in- 
fant baptism. 

Dr.  Neander,  though  a  great  man,  does  not  always  reason  as  conclu- 
sively as  he  might,  as  we  may  see  by  an  extract  which  I  will  read  from 
his  history  of  the  church  : 

"  But  immediately  after  Ireneus,  in  the  latter  years  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, Tertullian  appeared  as  a  zealous  opponent  of  infant  baptism,  a  proof 
that  it  was  not  then  usually  considered  as  an  apostolic  ordinance,  for  in 
that  case  he  would  hardly  have  ventured  to  speak  so  strongly  against 
it."— CA.  Hist.  p.  199. 

According  to  his  logic,  infant  baptism  could  not  have  been  usually  con- 
sidered an  apostolical  ordinance  ;  or  Tertullian  would  not  have  ventured 
to  speak  so  strongly  against  it.  But  did  he  not  speak  as  strongly  against 
the  baptism  of  young  and  unmarried  persons?  And  are  we  thence  to 
conclude,  that  the  baptism  of  such  persons  was  not  usually  considered  as 
of  divine  authority  ?  The  reasoning  would  be  quite  as  conclusive  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other. 

The  children  of  believers,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  are,  according  to 
Presbyterian  doctrine,  born  in  the  church ;  and,  therefore,  baptism  cannot 
be  to  them  a  door  of  entrance.  I  am  not  at  all  tenacious  about  the  particu- 
lar word  door,  which,  however,  when  figuratively  used  in  regard  to  the 
church,  is  correct.  Baptism  is  a  rite  by  which  membership  in  the  church 
of  Christ  is  recognized.  The  children  of  Jews  were,  by  birth,  entitled 
to  membership  in  the  church  ;  but  they  could  not  partake  of  the  passover 
nor  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  church,  till  circumcised.  Precisely  so  the 
children  of  believers  cannot  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  church,  until  their 
membership  is  recognized  by  baptism. 

By  the  way,  the  gentleman  says,  he  has  more  to  say  on  the  history  of 
infant  baptism,  than  I  will  be  inclined  to  hear.  I  am  prepared  to  listen 
patiently  to  all  the  history  he  can  produce  ;  and  I  will  be  with  him  when- 
ever he  chooses  to  enter  upon  it. 

He  is  again  descanting  on  the  covenants  with  Abraham.  He  found 
fault  with  me  for  going  to  the  Qld  Testament  in  support  of  infant  mem- 
bership ;  and  yet  admitted  that  the  New  Testament  could  not  be  under- 
stood without  the  Old.  Still,  however,  though  he  has  continued  to 
■wander  through  the  Old  Testament,  he  fails  to  find  more  than  one  cove- 
nant with  Abraham.  And  if  he  could  find  half  a  dozen,  my  argument 
would  not  be  affected  by  the  discovery ;  since  it  is  certain  that  the  cove- 
nant sealed  by  circumcision,  contains  the  promise  of  spiritual  blessings, 
and,  as  Andrew  Fuller  says,  constituted  him  the  father  of  the  church  of 
God  in  future  ages. 

I  have  repeatedly  called  on  the  gentleman  to  prove,  that  any  adult  ever 
entered  the  Jewish  church,  according  to  God's  law,  without  professing 
faith  in  the  God  of  Abraham.  He  failed  to  produce  an  example ;  but  he 
thinks  he  has  found  one  to-day.  My  friend  will  rally  sometimes.  He 
has  brought  forward  the  case  of  the  Shechemites,  whom  two  of  Jacob's 
sons  induced  to  be  circumcised,  that  they  might  murder  them,  because  of 
26  2l2 


402  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

an  insult  offered  their  sister  by  a  son  of  the  prince  !  And  this  ungodly 
trick,  resorted  to  by  two  wicked  young  men,  ibr  purposes  of  revenge, 
and  severely  condemned  by  Jacob,  is  brought  up  by  Mr.  Campbell,  as 
an  example  of  the  scriptural  administration  of  circumcision  ;  to  show 
that  adults,  without  professing  faith,  might  be  circumcised  according  to 
the  law  of  God  ! ! !  His  cause  is  surely  laboring  under  great  difficulties, 
or  he  would  not  have  attempted  to  sustain  it  by  such  means.  Let  him 
show,  if  he  can,  that  the  Shechemites  were  circumcised  according  to 
God's  law. 

The  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  gentleman  says,  was  to  be  taken  from  the 
Jews  and  given  to  the  gentiles.  But,  if  it  be  true,  as  he  contends,  that 
a  7iew  religion  was  given  to  the  gentiles,  and  a  new  church  established 
among  ihem,  what,  I  ask,  was  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  given  to  the 
gentiles?  The  kingdom  of  Christ — the  church,  with  its  privileges  and 
blessings,  was  taken  from  the  former,  and  given  to  the  latter ;  and  this 
adds  strength  to  the  argument,  proving  the  identity  of  the  church. 

It  is  vain  for  Mr.  Campbell  to  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment afforded  by  the  olive-tree,  (Rom.  xi.  16 — .)  He  cannot  deny  that, 
by  the  olive-tree,  is  meant  the  christian  church ;  but  he  says,  the  first 
fruit,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  were  the ^rs^  converts  to  Christianity. 
If  this  be  true,  how  is  it  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off  from 
it,  as  the  apostle  declares  ?  Were  they  broken  off  from  the  first  converts 
to  Christianity  ? !  The  olive-tree  is  the  church,  from  which  the  Jewish 
nation  (so  far  as  they  rejected  Christ)  were  broken  off;  into  which  the 
believing  gentiles  were  grafted,  and  into  which  the  Jews,  when  converted 
to  Christianity,  shall  be  again  introduced.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable, 
that  the  church  to  which  the  Jews  belong,  is  the  same  into  which  the 
gentiles  were  brought,  and  to  which  the  converted  Jews,  with  their  chil- 
dren, shall  return.  I  wish  the  gentleman  would  have  told  us  how  the 
unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off  from  the  first  converts  to  Christianity; 
but  he  seemed  to  forget  to  remove  this  difficulty  ! 

He  says,  I  stated,  that  the  moral  law  is  the  constitution  of  the  chriS' 
tian  church.  I  did  not  say  so.  I  said,  the  moral  law  may  be  consid- 
ered, in  a  sense,  the  constitution  of  God's  moral  government ;  inasmuch 
as  it  defines  the  duties  of  the  subjects  to  the  great  King,  and  their  duties, 
rights,  and  privileges  relative  to  each  other.  So  he  is  again  mistaken, 
and  has  spent  some  time  in  disproving  what  I  never  thought  of  affirming. 

I  will  now  resume  the  argument  for  infant  baptism,  derived  from  his- 
tory. I  have  quoted  Ireneus,  the  discriple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  the 
disciple  of  John  the  apostle,  and  have  proved  that  he  speaks  of  infant 
baptism,  so  as  to  make  the  clear  impression,  that,  at  that  very  early  period, 
it  was  universally  believed  and  practiced,  as  of  divine  institution.  That, 
by  the  language  he  used,  he  meant  baptism,  I  can  prove  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell himself  and  by  Dr.  Neander,  whom  he  has  quoted  as  a  very  learned 
man. 

I  have  also  given  the  testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  of  Tertul- 
Uan,  Origen,  and  of  Cyprian  and  the  council  of  sixty-six  bishops.  I 
will  now  give  you  the  testimony  of  Augustin  and  Jerom,  two  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  christian  fathers,  who  flourished  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
4th  and  beginning  of  the  5th  centuries  ;  and  who  speak  of  infant  baptism, 
not  only  as  in  their  day  universally  practiced  by  the  whole  church,  but  as 
having  ever  been  regarded  as  of  divine  authority. 

I  will  first  quote  a  passage  from  the  writings  of  Jerom. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  403 

♦'  This  is  said  of  those  that  have  understanding  of  such  as  he  was,  of 
whom  it  is  written  in  the  gospel,  He  is  of  age,  let  him  speak  for  himself. 
But  he  that  is  a  child,  and  thinks  as  a  child,  (till  such  time  as  he  come  to 
years  of  discretion — and  Pythagoras'  letter  (Y)  do  bring  to  the  place  where 
the  road  parts  into  two,)  his  good  deeds,  as  well  as  his  evil  deeds,  are  im- 
puted to  his  parents.  Unless  you  will  tliink  the  children  of  christians  are 
themselves  only  under  the  guilt  of  the  sin,  if  they  do  not  receive  baptism  ; 
and  that  the  wickedness  is  not  imputed  to  those  also  who  would  not  give 
it  them,  especially  at  that  time  when  they  that  were  to  receive  it,  could 
make  no  opposition  against  the  receiving  of  it,"  &c. — [Epist.  ad  Letam.'] 
Wall.  vol.  i.  p.  240. 

Augustine  thus  comments  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14: 

"  Fo7'  an  unbelieving  husband  has  been  sanctified  by  his  believing  wife, 
and  an  unbelieving  wife  by  her  believing  husband. 

I  suppose  it  iiad  then  happened  that  several  wives  had  been  brought  to 
the  faith  by  their  believing  husbands,  and  husbands  by  their  believing 
wives.  And  though  he  does  not  mention  their  names,  yet  he  makes  use  of 
their  example  to  confirm  his  advice. 

Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  arc  they  holy. 

For  there  were  then  christian  infants  that  were  sanctified,  [or  made 
holy,  i.  e.  that  were  baptized]  some  by  the  authority  of  one  of  their  parents, 
aome  by  the  consent  of  both  ;  which  would  not  be,  if  as  soon  as  one  party 
believed,  the  marriage  were  dissolved,"  &c. — De  Strmone  Domini  in  MotUe. 

Again, — p.  251  : 

*'  So  that  many  persons,  increasing  in  knowledge,  after  their  baptisna, 
and  especially  those  who  have  been  baptized  either  when  they  were  infants, 
or  when  they  were  youths ;  as  their  understanding  is  cleared  and  enlighten- 
ed, and  their  inward  man  renewed  day  by  day,  do  themselves  deride,  and 
with  abhorrence  and  confession  renounce  their  former  opinions  which  they 
had  of  God,  when  they  were  imposed  on  by  their  imaginations.  And  yet 
they  are  not,  therefore,  accounted  either  not  to  have  received  baptism,  or  to 
have  received  a  baptism  of  that  nature  that  their  error  was,"  &c. 

Again — p.  254  : 

"  And  as  the  thief,  who  by  necessity  went  without  baptism,  was  saved; 
because  by  his  piety  he  had  it  spiritually  :  so  where  baptism  is  had,  though 
the  party  by  necessity  go  without  that  [faith]  which  the  thief  had,  yet  he 
is  saved.  Which  the  whole  body  of  the  church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them, 
in  the  case  of  little  infants  baptized :  who  certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with 
the  heart  to  righteousness,  or  confess  with  the  mouth  to  salvation,  as  the 
thief  could,"  &c.  *  *  *  "  And  if  any  one  do  ask  for  divine  authority  in 
this  matter:  though  that  which  the  whole  church  practices,  and  which 
has  not  been  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use,  is  very  reasonably 
believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  delivered  [or  ordered]  by  authority  of 
the  apostles:  yet  we  may  besides  take  a  true  estimate,  how  much  the  sa- 
crament of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the  circumcision  which  God?8 
former  people  received." — De  Baptismo  cont.  Donatistas. 

Augustine,  you  observe,  states,  that  the  whole  church  practiced  infant 
baptism,  and  that  it  was  never  instituted  by  councils.  I  will  read  one  or 
two  more  extracts,  (pp.  382,  383.)  Having  quoted  some  passages  from 
the  writings  of  Jerome,  he  remarks  as  follows : 

"  And  now  some  people,  by  the  boldness  of  I  know  not  what  disputing 
humor,  go  about  to  represent  that  as  uncertain  which  our  ancestors  made 
nse  of  as  a  most  certain  thing,  whereby  to  resolve  some  things  that  seemed 
uncertain.  For,  when  this  began  first  to  be  disputed,  I  know  not :  but  thia 
I  know,  that  holy  Hierome,  whose  pains  and  fame  for  excellent  learning  in 
ecclesiastical  matters  is  at  this  day  so  great,  does  also  make  use  of  this  as 
a  thing  most  certain,  to  resolve  some  questions  in  his  books,"  &c. 


404  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Then  having  quoted  some  passages  out  of  St.  Hierome  on  Jonah,  he 
proceeds : 

"  If  we  could  with  convenience  come  to  ask  that  most  learned  man,  hovr 
many  writers  of  christian  dissertations  and  interpreters  of  holy  scripture  in 
both  languages  could  he  recount,  who  from  the  time  that  Christ's  church  has 
been  founded,  have  held  no  otherwise,  have  received  no  other  doctrine  from 
their  predecessors,  nor  left  any  other  to  their  successors'!  For  my  part, 
(though  my  reading  is  much  less  than  his,)  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever 
heard  any  other  thing  from  any  christians  that  received  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  non  solum  in  Catholica  ecclesia  verum  eliam  in  qitalibet  hceresi 
vel  schismate  constitutis :  neither  from  such  as  were  of  the  Catholic  church, 
nor  from  such  as  belonged  to  any  sect  or  schism.  JVbm  memini  me  aliud 
legisse,  &c.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read  otherwise  in  any  writer 
that  I  could  ever  find  treating  of  these  matters,  that  followed  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  or  did  mean  or  did  pretend  to  do  so." 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  two  of  the  most  eminent  fathers  of  the  chris- 
tian church.  There  not  only  was,  in  their  day,  no  controversy  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism,  but  they  declare  that  there  never  had  been  any 
difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  it. 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Pelagius.  And  let  it 
be  remarked,  his  testimony  is  peculiarly  valuable,  not  only  because  he 
was  a  man  of  extensive  learning,  but  especially  because  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism  was  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
his  system — the  denial  of  original  sin ;  and  with  this  difficulty  he  was 
constandy  pressed  by  his  opposers.  He  had,  therefore,  every  motive 
to  deny  the  doctrine,  and  to  prove  it  an  innovation  in  the  church.  But 
hear  what  he  says  : 

"  Men  slander  me  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants,  or 
did  promise  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption 
of  Christ :  which  is  a  thing  that  I  never  lieard,  no  not  even  any  wicked 
heretic  say.  For  who  is  there  so  ignorant  of  that  which  is  read  in  the  gos- 
pel, as  (I  need  not  say  to  affirm  this,  but)  in  any  heedless  way  to  say  such 
a  thing,  or  even  have  such  a  thought,"  &c. —  Wall,  vol.  i.  p.  450. 

Now  look  at  the  strength  of  this  testimony.  I  began  with  Ireneus, 
almost  in  sight  of  the  apostle  John.  Then  came  Tertullian  and  Origen, 
a  few  years  later;  then  Cyprian  and  the  sixty-six  bishops;  then,  at  a 
later  period,  Jerom  and  Augustine  ;  and,  finally,  Pelagius — all  testifying 
to  the  universal  prevalence  of  infant  baptism.  Now,  if  any  fact  can  be 
established  by  history,  it  is  the  fact,  that  this  practice  prevailed  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles  themselves. 

I  have  another  interesting  portion  of  history,  which  I  will  present  for 
your  consideration.  Mr.  Campbell,  and  other  anti-Pedo-baptists,  have 
claimed  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  (those  witnesses  for  God  and  the 
truth,  in  the  3ark  ages,  when  Christianity  seemed  almost  lost  from  the 
earth,)  as  anti-Pedo-baptists.  This  claim  is  set  up  by  Mr.  Jones,  the 
Baptist  historian,  of  whose  history  Mr.  Campbell  has  spoken  in  the 
highest  terms ;  yet  in  his  account  of  the  Waldenses,  though  quoting 
avowedly  from  Perrin's  history,  he  left  out  every  thing  that  squinted  at 
infant  baptism  1  Perrin  was  a  descendant  from  these  people,  and  he 
took  the  pains  to  visit  them,  and  obtained  their  confessions  of  faith,  and 
other  books  and  documents,  from  which  he  wrote  their  history.  Their 
enemies,  (the  Roman  priests,)  did  charge  them  with  denying  the  baptism 
of  infants ;  and  Mr.  Jones  published  the  charge  as  if  it  were  undoubted- 
ly true.  In  reply  to  it  John  Paul  Perrin,  their  historian,  thus  r&- 
marks: — (Book  i.  ch.  iv.  p.  15.) 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  405 

"The  fourth  calumnie  was  touching  baptisme,  which,  it  is  said,  they 
[Waldenses]  denied  to  little  infants :  but  from  this  imputation  they  quit 
themselves  as  followeth  : — The  time  and  place  of  those  that  are  to  be  bap- 
tized is  not  ordained,  but  the  charitie  and  edification  of  the  church  and  con- 
gregation must  serve  for  a  rule  therein,  &c. ;  and  therefore,  they  to  whom 
the  children  were  nearest  allied,  brought  their  infants  to  be  baptized,  as 
their  parents,  or  any  other  whom  God  hath  made  charitable  in  that  kind." 
Again:   (Perrin,  book  i.  chap.  vi.  pp.  30,  31.) 

"  King  Lewis  XII,  having  been  informed  by  the  enemies  of  the  Walden- 
ses, dwelling  in  Provence,  of  many  grievous  crimes,  which  were  imposed 
[charged]  upon  them,  sent  to  make  inquisition  in  those  places,  the  lord 
Adam  Fumee,  Maister  of  Requests,  and  a  doctor  of  Sorbon,  called  Parne, 
who  was  his  confessor.  They  visited  all  the  parishes  and  temples,  and 
found  neither  images,  nor  so  much  as  the  least  show  of  any  ornaments  be- 
longing to  their  masses  and  ceremonies  of  the  church  of  Rome,  much  lesse 
any  such  crimes  as  were  imposed  [charged]  upon  them  ;  but  rather  that 
they  kept  their  Sabbathes  duely,  causing  their  children  to  be  baptized  ac- 
cording to  the  order  of  the  primitive  church,  teaching  them  the  articles  of 
the  christian  faith  and  the  commandments  of  God." 

Now  let  us  see  how  faithfully  the  historian,  Mr.  Jones,  who  has  been 
recommended  by  my  friend,  has  quoted  Perrin:  (Church  Hist.  p.  348.) 

"  Louis  XII,  king  of  France,  being  informed  by  the  enemies  of  the  Wal- 
denses, inhabiting  a  part  of  the  province  of  Provence,  that  several  crimes 
were  laid  to  their  account,  sent  the  Master  of  Requests  and  a  certain  doc- 
tor of  the  Sorbonne,  who  was  confessor  to  his  majesty,  to  make  inquiry  into 
the  matter.  On  their  return,  they  reported  that  they  had  visited  all  the 
parishes  where  they  dwelt,  had  inspected  their  places  of  worship,  but  that 
they  had  found  there  no  images,  nor  signs  of  the  ornaments  belonging  to 
the  mass,  nor  any  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Romish  church;  much  less  could 
they  discover  any  traces  of  those  crimes  with  which  they  were  charged. 
On  the  contrary,  they  kept  the  Sabbath  day,  observed  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism according  to  the  primitive  church,  instructed  their  children  in  the  arti- 
cles of  the  christian  faith,  and  the  commandments  of  God." — Joachim 
Camerarius,  in  his  History,  p.  .352,  quoted  by  Perrin,  book  i.  chap.  v. 

Here  Mr.  Jones,  when  he  came  to  infant  baptism,  wholly  omitted  it ; 
and  instead  of  saying,  as  did  the  author  he  quoted — "  causing  their  chil- 
dren to  be  baptized  " — he  says,  "  observed  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ac- 
cording to  the  primitive  church ! ! !"  Thus  the  Waldenses  are  proved  to 
be  anti-Pedo-baptists,  by  concealing  their  testimony.  A  more  glaring 
falsification  of  history  I  never  saw !  I  have  a  great  deal  more  testimony 
upon  the  same  point,  only  part  of  which  I  can  present;  I  will  read  some 
passages  from  their  confessions  of  faith. 
Perrin,  book  ii.  chap.  iv.  pp.  60,  61 : 

"  Touching  the  matter  of  the  sacraments,  it  hath  been  concluded  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  that  we  have  but  two  sacramental  signes,  the  which  Christ 
Jesus  hath  left  unto  us  ;  the  one  is  baptisme,  the  other  the  eucharist,  which 
wee  receive  to  shew  what  our  perseverance  in  the  faith  is,  as  wee  have  pro- 
mised when  wee  were  baptized,  being  little  infants  :  as  also  in  remembrance 
of  that  great  benefit,  which  Jesus  Christ  hath  done  unto  us,  when  bee  died 
for  our  redemption,  washing  us  with  hie  most  precious  blood." — Con/,  of 
Faith,  Art.  17. 

"  Amongst  others  there  appeared  a  poore,  simple,  laboring  man,  whom 
the  president  commanded  to  cause  his  child  to  be  re-baptized,  which  had 
lately  been  baptized  by  the  minister  of  Saint  John,  neere  Angrongne. 
This  poore  man  requested  so  much  respite,  as  that  bee  might  pray  unto  God 
before  bee  answered  him,  which  being  granted  with  some  laughter,  he  fell 
downe  upon  his  knees  in  the  presence  of  all  that  were  there,  and  his  prayer 
hsing  ended,  he  said  to  the  president,  that  hee  would  cause  his  childe  to  be 


406'  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

re-baptized,  upon  condition,  that  tlie  said  president  would  discharge  him 
by  a  bill  signed  with  his  owne  hand,  of  the  sinne  which  hee  should  commit 
in  causing  it  to  be  re-baptized,  and  beare  one  day  before  God,  the  punish- 
ment and  condemnation  which  should  befall  him,  taking  this  iniquity  upon 
him  and  his.  Which  the  president  understanding,  hee  commanded  him 
out  of  his  presence,  not  pressing  him  any  farther." — Perrin,  book  ii.  p.  64. 

Doctrine  of  the  Waldenses  and  ALbigenses,  book  i.  ch.  vi.  p.  43. — "Now 
this  baptisme  is  visible  and  materiall,  which  maketh  the  partie  neither  good 
nor  evill,  as  it  appeareth  in  the  Scripture,  by  8imon  Magus  and  Saint  Paul. 
And  whereas  baptisme  is  administered  in  a  full  congregation  of  the  faith- 
full,  it  is  to  the  end  that  hee  that  is  received  into  the  church,  should  be 
reputed  and  held  of  all  for  a  christian  brother,  and  that  all  the  congregation 
might  pray  for  him,  that  he  may  be  a  christian.  And  for  this  cause  it  is, 
that  wee  present  our  children  in  baptisme  :  which  they  ought  to  doe,  to 
whom  the  children  are  neerest,  as  their  parents,  and  they  to  whom  God 
had  given  this  charitie." 

"The  things  that  are  not  necessary  in  the  administration  of  baptisme. 
are  the  exorcismes,  breatliings,  the  sigue  of  the  crosse  upon  the  forehead 
and  breast  of  the  infant,  the  salt  put  into  his  mouth,  spittle  into  his  eares 
and  nostrills,  the  anoynting  of  the  breast,"  &c. — Book  iii.  ch.  iv.  p.  99. 

The  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  whilst  they  boldly  and  fearlessly  testi- 
fied against  all  the  corruptions  of  popery,  still  contended  for  the  scripture 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism. 

We  have  now  a  connected  chain  of  evidence  in  favor  of  this  doctrine., 
extending  from  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  up  through  Pelagius,  Au- 
gustin,  Jerom,  Origen,  Cyprian  and  the  council  at  Carthage,  and  Tertul- 
Uan,  to  Ireneus ;  between  whom  and  the  apostle  John  there  was  but  a 
single  individual. 

I  will  now  read  to  the  audience  the  conclusion  to  which  Dr.  Wall,  af- 
ter long  and  careful  examination,  was  induced  to  come. — [^Time  expired. 

TJ'ednesday,  Nov.  22 — 12,1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  tenth  reply. 3 
Mr.  President — IMr.  Rice  has  to  address  us  but  once  more  on  this 
proposition.  It  is,  therefore,  incumbent  on  me  to  give  him  all  the  points 
on  which  I  rely.  I  will  premise  on  the  identity  question,  and  on  some 
one  or  two  other  matters,  a  few  items,  that  he  may  be  prepared  to  respond 
in  his  next  speech.  He  commenced,  and  he  seems  disposed  to  conclude, 
his  defence  of  infant  affusion  by  an  appeal  to  maternal  tenderness,  or  that 
it  some  way  takes  hold  of  the  conscience  and  obliges  parents  to  do  for 
their  offspring  more  than  either  nature  or  the  precepts  of  Christianity 
would  or  could  possibly  accomplish.  Thus  he  infuses  into  infant  sprink- 
ling a  moral  power  of  constraining  parental  affection,  or  obliging  parents 
to  do  for  their  children  what,  without  these  vows  and  protestations,  they 
could  not  otherwise  be  induced  to  do.  Well,  now,  the  first  question  is — 
Is  this  fact?  I  shall  make  ray  appeal  at  once  to  christian  mothers.  I  put 
the  question  to  every  christian  mother,  whether  her  maternal  affections 
for  her  own  offspring,  and  her  christian  obligations  to  the  Lord,  growing 
out  of  his  love  and  authority,  commanding  and  enjoining  her  to  bring  up 
her  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  can  be  augmented 
and  enhanced  by  a  promise  extorted  from  her  without  any  authority  for  it 
in  the  Bible,  to  do  what  the  Divine  impulses,  the  motherly  instincts,  which 
the  God  of  love  and  sympathy  has  planted  with  his  own  hand  in  her 
bosom;  and  the  pure,  and  holy,  and  authoritative  precepts  of  the  Savior 
that  bought  her,  cannot  accomplish  ?   I  have  no  doubt  of  the  issue  of  such 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  407 

an  appeal.  Nature  is  stronger  than  the  artificial  vows  appended  to  the 
rite  of  initiation — and  so  reads  the  history  of  the  world,  so  far  as  it  details 
the  experience  of  all  ages  and  nations.  You  cannot  exercise  maternal 
affection  if  you  would  lead  every  mother  to  the  altar  and  make  her  swear 
seven  times  to  do  her  duty  to  her  children,  after  you  have  laid  before  her 
the  precepts  of  Christ. 

Why  did  my  friend  stop  with  the  case  of  Lydia?  Why  went  he  not 
round  all  the  other  households,  as  usual?  Why  did  he  not,  when  asked, 
produce  the  case  of  Stephanus  and  his  house,  of  Cornelius  and  his  house, 
of  the  jailor  and  his  iiouse?  He  thought  it  enough  to  try  the  strongest 
case,  and  failing  in  that,  despaired  of  the  others.  He  makes  so  many 
assumptions,  he  has  not  time  to  defend  them.  He  would,  in  Parthian 
style,  say,  as  he  moves  along,  that  there  is  no  precept  for  female  commu- 
nion. This  objection  is  a  surrendering  of  the  plea  for  any  authority  pre- 
ceptive of  infant  baptism;  and  then  by  way  of  reprisals,  to  gain  conces- 
sion, says — You  have  no  precept  nor  example  for  female  communion! 
Well,  as  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  communion,  but  christian  com- 
munion— proving  the  latter,  we  prove  both  male  and  female.  But  as  he 
will  not  ask  for  proof  on  tiiat  point,  I  will  refer  him  especially  to  Acts, 
1st  and  2d  chapters.  He  will  find  that  one  hundred  and  twenty  men 
and  women  were  in  communion  in  Jerusalem,  before  the  first  Pentecost. 
He  will,  also,  find  that  three  thousand  were  added  to  them  on  that  day; 
and  he  will  next  find  that  these  three  thousand  one  hundred  and  twenty 
disciples,  male  and  female,  continued  in  all  christian  communion,  and 
among  the  rest,  in  breaking  the  loaf.  Here  is  a  Divine  warrant  for  male 
and  female  communion  in  the  loaf.  Give  only  one  such  case  of  infant 
baptism — we  ask  no  more  ! 

Well,  we  have  gained  another  point  of  some  importance.  He  now 
says  that  baptism  is  not  the  door.  I  congratulate  him  in  giving  that  up. 
He  has  no  use  for  a  door  in  getting  into  his  church.  He  rather  needs  one  to 
get  out  of  it.  Indeed,  none  of  us  imagines  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  form 
of  a  door  into  a  Christian  or  Jewish  community.  We  use  the  term  meta- 
phorically. By  initiation,  entrance,  and  door,  we  mean  the  same  thing. 
Infant  baptism,  then,  does  not  initiate  into  the  christian  church  on  the 
principle  of  identity,  for  circumcision  did  not  initiate.  No  initiation,  no 
door.  So  that  matter  is  also  settled.  If  he  should  ever  speak  of  baptism 
as  a  door  or  an  initiation,  I  will  again  request  him  to  tell  us  into  ivhat 
does  it  initiate  a  child  ;  or  into  what  is  it  a  door? 

I  might  advert  to  the  new  version  of  the  commission,  given  from  Mark, 
though  he  has  not  replied  to  the  other  versions — Mark's  version  and 
Luke's  version.  What  does  Mark  say:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  ;  he  that  believelh  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned."  Luke  is 
still  more  clear.  Here  the  Savior  commands  that  "repentance  or  refor- 
mation and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all 
nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  That  single  word,  reformation,  in- 
cludes the  whole — among  all  nations.  Faith,  first;  repentance,  next, 
and  baptism  next.  These  versions  we  plead  in  explanation  of  the  words, 
disciple  them. 

With  regard  to  the  Schechemites — I  know  it  was  an  ugly  affair;  but  if 
circumcision  had  required  a  confession  of  faith,  I  am  persuaded  that  the 
whole  clan  never  could  have  been  prevailed  upon  to  submit  to  the  rite.  It 
could  not  be  supposed  that  advantage  was  taken  of  their  ignorance.     No 


408  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

one  ever  thought  of  such  a  thing  as  professing  faith  in  order  to  circumci- 
sion. Can  the  gentleman  name  any  one  who  was  ever  called  to  make 
profession  of  faith  in  order  to  circumcision  ?  There  is  the  breadth  of 
the  heavens  of  difference  between  circumcision  and  baptism  ;  otherwise, 
there  would  be  some  passage  found,  or  some  precept,  saying — '^Believe, 
and  be  circumcised.''^ 

The  gentleman  did  say  that  we  are  under  the  same  moral  law  ;  for  I 
wrote  it  down  as  he  uttered  it,  and  I  have  company  in  this  assertion.  I 
have  others  with  me  who  heard  the  satne.  I  said  in  replication,  that 
Massachusetts  and  Kentucky  had  the  same  moral  law.  It  is  so  written 
out  in  so  many  words  in  my  notes,  and  I  am  particular  in  writing  down 
every  important  matter. 

As  to  Mr.  Jones  and  this  accusation,  I  have  nothing  to  say  at  this  mo- 
ment. He  is  an  honest  historian,  as  I  believe,  though  he  does  not  agree 
with  me  in  some  matters.  His  reputation  as  an  historian  stands  very 
high.  The  gentleman  might  have  saved  himself  the  trouble  of  quoting 
many  authorities  in  favor  of  infant  baptism. 

Against  his  doctrine  of  identity  I  offer  the  following  arguments,  alrea- 
dy hinted,  though  not  fully  developed.  The  Savior  has  positively  said, 
"  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  (in  authority,  or  were  public  instruc- 
tors) your  teachers  till  John  came.  Since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  preached,  and  all  men  press  zn/o  t7,"  Lukexvi.  16.  What  language 
could  be  more  clearly  expressive  of  the  cessation  or  withdrawal  of  one 
class  of  teachers,  and  the  introduction  of  a  new  institution  ?  The  law  and 
prophets  were  the  Old  Testament;  but  now  a  new  institution  into  which, 
out  of  some  other  one,  all  the  conscientious  press.  The  Jews'  religion 
was  corrupted,  the  gentleman  says ;  but  so  has  been  the  christian.  The 
Jews'  religion  was  once  reformed,  so  has  the  christian,  nominally,  been 
reformed  at  sundry  times.  But  this  is  more  than  reformation ;  it  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  that  is  preached,  and  men  are  now  leaving  the  law  and 
the  prophets,  and  that  institution,  and  pressing  into  it.  There  were  many 
pious  Jews  amongst  that  people,  like  Simeon  and  Anna,  Zacharias  and 
Elizabeth — and  even  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  was  so  pious  and  zealous  for 
the  religion  of  his  fathers,  and  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  that  he  per- 
secuted the  christians,  because  they  had  got  up,  as  he  understood  it,  a 
new  religion.  It  would  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  one  so  learned  as 
Paul,  and  so  discriminating,  as  not  to  have  seen  that  Christianity  was  only 
reformed  Judaism,  if  that  were  its  real  character. 

Again,  the  church  is  said  to  be  "  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone." 
Were  these  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish  church  ?  Was  it  built  on  this 
foundation?  Did  Jesus  Christ  live  cotemporary  with  Moses,  and  the  an- 
cients who  prophecied  of  him  !  !  Into  what  wild  extremes  are  we  driven, 
in  avoiding  the  truth,  whether  the  evasion  be  voluntary  or  involuntary! 

Another  proof  1  have  always  deduced  from  Daniel.  This  most  cele- 
brated of  Jewish  prophets  foretold,  that  in  the  time  of  the  Romans,  the 
God  of  heaven  would  set  up  a  kingdom,  a  new  institution  of  course  ;  for 
who  SETS  UP  an  old  institution  already  existing  ?  How  could  that  king- 
dom be  set  up,  while  that  of  Moses  was  standing?  Will  God  have  two 
kingdoms  on  earth  at  the  same  time?  Messiah,  the  prince,  then,  was  to 
come  first,  and  then  his  kingdom.  Certainly  Daniel  foretold  a  new  insti- 
tution— a  kingdom  of  God.  Who  can  plausibly  show  that  the  kingdom 
of  God;  to   be  setup,  was   the  identical  Jewish  church?  in  its  national 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  409 

and  wordly  form,  too,  for  that  was  an  essential  element  of  its  constitution  ! 
Isaiah,  also,  is  indisputably  with  us.  He  says,  or  rather  the  Lord  says 
by  him,  chap,  xxviii.,  Thus  sailh  the  Lord  God,  "Behold  I  lay  in  Zion, 
for  a  foundation  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure 
foundation."  'I'his  is  the  foundation  of  all  those  brilliant  passages,  read 
from  the  prophets,  in  proof  of  identity.  Every  bright  scene  of  the  future 
glory  of  the  true  Israel  of  God,  is  drawn  from  the  visions  of  the  Messiah 
and  his  saints,  then  in  the  flesh,  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial.  All  the  bright 
scenes  are,  by  the  apostles,  applied,  in  this  way,  to  Him  who,  at  first, 
was  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  off"ence. 

I  need  not  say,  for  no  one  will  debate  it,  that  this  passage  is  quoted 
and  applied  by  the  apostles  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  appeared  in  the  days  of 
the  Caesars;  consequently  it  must  be  conceded,  that  ike  foundation  of 
the  new  institution  was  not  laid,  while,  as  yet,  the  Mosaic  was  standing. 

Evident,  then,  it  is,  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  is  radically,  es- 
sentially, and  formally  different  from  the  Jewish  theocracy,  from  the  pa- 
triarchal, and  every  other  religious  institution  on  the  earth.  It  was  to  be 
builded  on  an  entirely  new  foundation,  and  to  consist  of  a  spiritual  peo- 
ple, whose  nativity  should  be  spiritual  and  heavenly.  Since  the  world 
began  there  never  was,  till  the  day  of  Pentecost,  a  society  of  men  who 
met  together,  purely  upon  spiritual  grounds  ;  never  a  church  of  God,  in 
the  New  Testament  acceptation  of  that  most  abused  word.  On  that  com- 
menced a  new  society,  who  met  together  purely  on  the  ground  of  a  spiri- 
tual faith,  hope,  and  love.  These  were  believers  in  Christ,  converted 
men.  No  such  a  separate  society  was  ever  before  convened.  The  fam- 
ily religion  of  the  patriarchal  age  had  natural  bonds  of  association,  and 
was  necessarily  mixed  in  its  character.  The  Jewish  religion  was  nation- 
al, and  therefore  mixed  in  its  very  nature  and  constitution.  But  the 
church  is  neither  natural  nor  national ;  but  supernatural,  spiritual,  and 
divine.  That  there  were  saints  among  Jews  and  patriarchs,  by  myriads, 
I  believe  and  hope.  But  there  was  no  church,  such  as  Christianity  con- 
templates, at  all.  Nothing  like  it.  If  Christ's  church  be  a  continuation 
of  the  Jewish,  then  it  must  be  national! 

Defection  and  corruption,  alas,  follow  men  every  where  on  earth — in 
paradise  and  out  of  it;  under  all  dispensations  and  administrations.  Out- 
side of  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  church  authority  whatever;  no 
christian  authority.  The  arguments  heard  are  no  earlier  than  the  third  cen- 
tury— for,  indeed  there  is  no  vestige  of  infant  baptism  till  in  the  third — Ter- 
tullian  is  the  first  person  that  names  it.  But  suppose  it  were  found  in  the 
second  century,  evident  as  any  other  historical  fact  whatever,  what  then  ? 
It  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the  most  learned  Presbyterian  doctors  now  liv- 
ing, of  no  value  or  authority  whatever.  You  shall  now  have  these  words 
fully  confirmed,  by  one  of  the  most  virulent  opponents  of  the  Baptists 
now  living  ;  one  of  the  greatest  devotees  to  Presbyterianism,  and  one 
who  has,  for  his  opportunities,  said  and  written  as  bitter  things  against 
myself,  as  any  other  doctor  of  divinity  in  that  church  ;  I  mean  Dr.  Miller, 
of  Princeton  Theological  school,  and  professor  of  ecclesiastic  history, 
and,  of  course,  he  ought  to  know  what  such  evidence  as  you  have  just 
heard  from  Mr.  Rice  is  worth.  I  am  sorry  I  have  not  time  to  read  so 
much  from  him  as  I  could  wish. 

Dr.  Miller  says  :   (Letters  on  Epis.  pp.  290,  291.) 

"  We  are  accustomed  to  look  back  to  the  first  ages  of  the  church  with  a 
veneration  nearly  bordering  on  superstition.     It  answered  the  purpose  of 

2M 


410  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

popery,  to  refer  all  their  corruptions  to  primitive  times,  and  to  represent 
those  times  as  exhibiting  the  models  of  all  excellence.  But  every  repre- 
sentation of  this  kind  must  be  received  with  distrust.  The  christian 
church,  during  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  half  a  century,  did  indeed  present 
a  venerable  aspect.  Persecuted  by  the  w^orld  on  every  side,  she  was  favor- 
ed in  an  uncommon  measure  with  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  her  divine 
Head,  and  exhibited  a  degree  of  simplicity  and  purity,  which  has,  perhaps, 
never  since  been  equalled.  But  before  the  close  of  the  second  century,  the 
Bcene  began  to  change  ;  and  before  the  commencement  of  the  fourth,  a  deplo- 
rable corruption  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  morals,  had  crept  into  the 
church,  and  disfigured  the  body  of  Christ.  Hegesippus,  an  ecclesiastical 
historian,  declares  that  the  "  virgin  purity  of  the  church  was  confined  to 
the  days  of  the  apostles." 

"  I  shall  not  now  stay  to  ascertain  what  degree  of  respect  is  due  to  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  in  general.  It  is  my  diity,  however,  to  state,  that 
we  do  not  refer  to  them,  in  any  wise,  as  a  rule  either  of  faith  or  practice^ 
We  acknowledge  the  Scriptures  alone  to  be  such  rule.  By  this  rule  the 
fathers  themselves  are  to  be  tried;  and  of  course  they  cannot  be  considered 
as  the  christian''s  authority  for  any  thing.  It  is  agreed,  on  all  hands,  that 
they  are  not  infallible  guides  :  and  it  is  perfectly  well  known  to  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  their  writings,  that  many  of  them  are  inconsistent,  both 
with  themselves  and  with  one  another.  We  protest,  therefore,  utterly 
against  any  appeal  to  them  on  this  subject.  Though  they,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  should  bring  us  any  doctrine,  as  essential  to  the  order  and  well- 
being  of  the  church,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  word  of  God,  we  are 
bound  by  the  command  of  our  Master  to  reject  them." 

Dr.  Miller,  in  his  Letters  on  Epis.  pages  164  and  149,  says: 

"  Even  supposing  you  had  found  such  declarations  in  some  or  all  of  the 
early  fathers  ;  what  then  ]     Historic  fact  is  not  divine  institution." 

Once  more : 

"  Suffer  me,  my  brethren,  again  to  remind  you  of  the  principle  on 
which  we  proceed,  in  this  part  of  our  inquiry.  If  it  could  be  demonstrated 
from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  that  in  one  hundred,  or  even  in  fifty  years, 
[in  four  years,  or  four  centuries,  he  remarks  in  another  place,]  after  the 
death  of  the  last  apostle,  the  system  of  diocesan  episcopacy  had  been  gene- 
rally adopted  in  the  church,  it  would  be  nothing  to  the  purpose.  As  long 
as  710  traces  of  this  fact  can  be  found  in  the  Bible,  but  much  of  a  directly 
opposite  nature,  we  should  stand  on  a  secure  and  immovable  foundation. 
To  all  reasonings,  then,  derived  from  the  fathers,  I  answer  with  the  vene- 
rable Augustine,  who,  when  pressed  with  the  authority  of  Cyprian,  replied, 
*  His  writings  I  hold  not  to  be  canonical,  but  examine  them  by  the  canoni- 
cal writings  :  and  in  tliem,  what  agreeth  with  the  authority  of  divine  Scrip- 
ture, I  accept,  with  his  praise  ;  what  agreeth  not,  I  reject  with  his  leave.'" 

I  have  a  liberal  set  of  extracts  from  Taylor's  Ancient  Christianity  here, 
prepared  for  this  place ;  but  I  have  not  time  to  read  nor  comment  on 
them.  Those  of  Mr.  Miller,  then,  must  suffice  for  the  present.  And  the 
words  of  no  man  in  America  can  be  read  with  more  acceptance,  I  pre- 
sume, by  Mr.  Rice. 

I  must  treat  you  to  a  word  or  two  from  that  St.  Cyprian,  of  whom  you 
heard  so  much  in  commendation  from  Mr.  Rice,  who,  in  his  council  of 
si.Kty-six  African  bishops,  decided  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  He  was 
one  also  of  Mr.  Rice's  learned  men,  that  decided  that  sprinkling  water  or 
sand  made  good  valid  christian  baptism.  He  was  an  advocate  for  infant 
communion,  and  for  many  other  such  human  traditions.  I  am  sorry  that 
I  can  read  but  one  such  extract  as  the  following,  for  every  ten  that  I  might 
read,  and  that  ought  to  be  read,  with  notes  and  comments,  especially 
adapted  to  the  ears  of  Pedo-baptists.     I  admit,  that  from  St.  Cyprian's 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  41 1 

time,  kifant  baptism  and  infant  communion  were  very  common  ;  for  they 
began  about  the  same  time,  and  continued  for  centuries,  as  true  and  faith- 
ful companions.  But  let  us  hear  this  saint.  I  quote  from  Wall's  History 
of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  ii.  pages  482-3  : 

"  St.  Cyprian  says :  I  will  tell  you  what  happened  in  my  own  presence. 
•The  parents  of  a  certain  little  girl,  running  out  of  town  in  a  fright,  had  for- 
got to  take  any  care  of  their  child,  whom  they  had  left  in  the  keeping  of  a 
nurse.  The  nurse  had  carried  her  to  the  magistrates  :  they,  because  she 
was  too  little  to  eat  the  flesh,  gave  Iier  to  eat  before  the  idol  some  of  the 
bread,  mixed  with  wine,  which  had  been  left  of  the  sacrifice  of  those 
wretciies.  Since  that  time  her  mother  took  her  home.  But  she  was  no 
more  capable  of  declaring  and  telling  the  crime  committed,  than  she  had 
been  before  of  understanding  or  of  hindering  it.  So  it  happened  that  once 
when  I  was  administering,  her  mother,  ignorant  of  what  had  been  done, 
brought  her  along  with  her.  But  tiie  girl,  being  among  the  saints,  could 
not  with  any  quietness  hear  the  prayers  said;  but  sometimes  fell  into 
weeping,  and  sometimes  into  convulsions,  with  the  uneasiness  of  her  mind: 
and  her  ignorant  soul,  as  under  a  rack,  declared  by  such  tokens  as  it  could, 
the  conscience  of  the  fact  in  those  tender  years.  And  when  the  service  was 
ended,  and  the  deacon  went  to  give  the  cup  to  those  that  were  present,  and 
the  others  received  it,  and  her  turn  came,  the  girl  by  a  divine  instinct  turn- 
ed away  her  face,  shut  her  mouth,  and  refused  the  cup.  But  yet  the  deacon 
persisted  ;  and  put  into  her  mouth,  though  she  refused  it,  some  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  cup.  Tlien  followed  retchings  and  vomiting.  The  eucharist 
could  not  stay  in  her  polluted  mouth  and  body  ;  the  drink  consecrated  in  our 
Lord's  blood  burst  out  again  from  her  defiled  bowels.  Such  is  the  power, 
such  the  majesty  of  our  Lord:  the  secrets  of  darkness  were  discovered  by 
its  light :  even  unknown  sins  could  not  deceive  the  priest  of  God.  This 
happened  in  the  case  of  an  infant,  who  was  by  reason  of  her  age  incapable 
of  declaring  the  crime  which  another  had  acted  on  her." 

From  such  teachers  and  doctors,  who,  in  the  name  of  reason,  would 
expect  to  find  any  authority  to  infiuenee  christians  in  the  performance  of 
the  most  solemn  acts  of  religion — the  administration  of  baptism,  and  the 
supper ! 

That  infant  communion  was  as  common  as  infant  baptism,  I  say 
again,  can  be  fully  proved,  as  Mr.  Rice  very  well  knows,  or  ought  to 
know — and  that  from  the  same  sources,  too.  I  must  give  one  or  two 
short  extracts : — 

"St.  Austin  says:  The  christians  of  Africa  do  well  call  baptism  itself, 
one's  salvation  ;  and  the  sacrament  of  Christ  body  one's  life.  From  whence 
is  this,  but,  as  I  suppose,  from  that  ancient  and  apostolical  tradition,  by 
which  the  churches  of  Christ  do  naturally  hold,  that  witliout  baptism  and 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  table,  none  can  come  either  to  the  kingdom  of  God, 
or  to  salvation  and  eternal  life]  For  the  Scripture,  as  I  shewed  before, 
says  the  same.  For  what  other  thing  do  they  hoh!,that  call  baptism  salva- 
tion, than  that  which  is  said,  '  He  saved  us  by  the  wasliing  of  regeneration:' 
and  that  which  Peter  says,  '  The  like  figure  whereunto.  even  baptism,  doth 
now  save  us!'  And  what  other  thing  do  they  liold,  that  call  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  table,  life,  than  that  which  is  said,  I  am  the  bread  of  life,  &c. 
and  The  bread  which  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  wliicii  I  will  give  for  the  life 
of  the  world  ;  and.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  tlie  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you]  If  then,  as  so  many  divine  testimonies  do 
agree  neither  salvation  nor  eternal  life  is  to  be  hoped  for  by  any  without 
baptism,  and  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  ;  it  is  in  vain  promised  to 
infants  without  them."— /Fa//,  pp.  485,  486. 

"  Innocent  L,  Bishop  of  Rome,  does  indeed,  A.  D.  417,  plainly  and  posi- 
tively say,  that  infants  cannot  be  saved  without  receiving  the  eucharist; 


412  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  that  in  a  synodical  epistle  written  to  the  fathers  of  the  Milevetian  coun- 
cil. The  council  had  represented  to  him  the  mischief  of  that  tenet  of  the 
Pelagians,  that  unbaptized  infants,  though  they  cannot  go  to  heaven,  yet 
may  have  eternal  life ;  which  the  Pelagians  maintained  on  this  pretence : 
that  our  Savior,  though  he  said,  '//e  that  is  not  born  of  water  cannot  enter 
the  kingdom,^  yet  had  not  said  he  cannot  have  eternal  life.  To  this,  Inno- 
cent's words  are — '  That  which  your  brotherhood  says  that  they  teach,  that 
infants  may  without  the  grace  of  baptism  have  eternal  life,'  is  very  absurd. 
Since,  '  Except  they  eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood, 
they  have  no  life  in  them.'  His  meaning  is  plainly  this  :  they  can  have  no 
eternal  life  without  receiving  the  communion;  and  they  cannot  do  that,  till 
they  be  baptized.'  *  *  *  And  it  is  true  what  Mr.  Daille  urges,  'That 
St.  Austin  says  the  same  thing  eight  or  ten  times  over,  in  several  places  of 
his  books.'  And  some  of  these  books  are  dated  a  little  before  the  letter  of 
Innocent." — Wall,  vol.  i.  p.  484. 

•'  It  is  a  brave  thing  to  be  infallible.  Such  men  may  do  what  they  will, 
and  it  shall  be  true.  What  is  a  contradiction  in  other  men's  mouths, 
is  none  in  theirs.  Pope  Innocent,  in  a  synodical  letter  sent  to  the  council 
of  Milevetia,  says — "  If  infants  do  not  eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
drink  his  blood,  [meaning  the  sacrament,]  they  have  no  life  in  them.'  Pope 
Pius,  in  confirming  the  council  of  Trent,  says,  '  If  any  man  say  so,  let  him 
be  anathema." — Wall,  vol.  i.  p.  489. 

I  have  one  fact  to  state,  that  says  more  than  a  hundred  volumes  can  say, 
against  placing  any  confidence  whatever  in  any  document  outside  of  the 
New  Testament,  so  far  as  countenance,  support,  or  authority  is  regarded, 
for  any  tenet,  practice,  or  tradition,  not  found  endorsed  by  some  one  or 
more  of  the  apostolic  school.  It  is  a  fact,  clear  and  indisputable,  that  in 
less  than  fifteen  years  after  the  ascension  of  the  Messiah,  circumcision 
would  have  been  imposed  on  the  gentile  christians,  by  a  large  and  re- 
spectable number  of  ministers  and  others,  even  from  the  mother  church 
and  city  of  Jerusalem  too,  had  the  apostles  been  then  dead.  The  case  is 
this :  certain  men  came  down  from  Judea  to  Antioch,  in  Syria,  a  very 
large  and  respectable  church,  and  there,  in  the  presence  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, boldly  debated,  and  for  some  time  with  considerable  warmth  dis- 
puted with  them,  in  support  of  the  proposition  that — The  gerUile  breth- 
ren ivho  had  been  baptized  must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law  of 
Moses,  on  peril  of  damnation.  One  thing  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  from 
this  fact ;  that  not  yet  in  Judea,  nor  Jerusalem,  nor  ..Antioch,  was  ths 
notion  that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  else  such  a  ques- 
tion never  could  have  arisen  ;  or  if  it  had,  could  have  been  very  easily 
decided.  It  seems  that  the  church  in  Antioch  was  not  fully  .satisfied  on 
hearing  the  whole  debate  between  these  great  men,  but  sent  Paul  and  BaF- 
nabas,  and  others  with  them,  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  have  a  grand  confer- 
ence on  the  question,  in  the  presence  of  apostles,  elders,  and  the  whole 
church  assembled.  There  was  a  meeting  held  for  the  purpose,  and  a 
considerable  debate,  in  which  Peter,  Paul,  and  James  distinguished  them- 
selves. It  was  decided  that  those  brethren  from  Judea,  that  had  gone 
down  to  Antioch,  were  wrong.  Yet  it  called  for  a  general  epistle,  dic- 
tated by  James,  and  borne  by  chosen  messengers,  to  disabuse  the  churches 
of  this  mistake.  From  this  whole  incident,  and  the  transactions  there- 
apon,  I  learn  two  important  facts : — 

1st.  That  either  the  idea  of  baptism  in  room  of  circumcision  had  not 
yet  been  born,  or  if  it  had,  the  whole  assembly  in  Jerusalem,  apostles 
and  all,  were  miserable  debaters,  for  it  would  have  at  once  settled  the  dis- 
pute, had  Paul  or  any  other  aposde  stood  up  and  said ;  "  Brethren,  do 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  413 

you  not  know  that  baptism  now  stands  in  the  place  of  circumcision;  and, 
therefore,  it  is  preposterous  to  circumcise  those  persons  who  have  re- 
ceived it  already  in  the  christian  form?"  Circumcision  is  done  away, 
and  baptism  has  just  come  to  fill  its  place  in  the  new  institution.  Every 
man  of  any  intelligence  or  reflection  will  feel  this  argument,  and  feel,  too, 
that  it  is  a  triumphant  refutation  of  that  notion. 

In  writing  the  letter  to  the  Greek  churches,  would  it  not  have  occurred 
to  some  of  the  twelve  apostles,  or  those  present,  to  say  :  Brethren,  do 
you  not  know  that  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
have  also  been  spiritually  circumcised  ?  for  circumcision  is  now  substi- 
tuted by  christian  baptism. 

But  the  second  and  most  important  inference  before  us  now,  is — that 
there  is  no  authority  to  be  placed  in  the  very  highest  antiquity — I  will 
say,  not  in  any  document  only  five  years  after  the  apostolic  age ;  for  if, 
while  the  apostles,  with  a  single  exception,  were  all  living,  and  their  per- 
gonal con/erts  settled  in  myriads  all  over  Judea,  Samaria,  and  Syria, 
&c.,  (fee,  a  new  institution  was  brought  in,  by  persons  of  so  much  learn- 
ing and  influence  as  to  call  forth  such  an  array  of  wisdom  and  learning, 
who  will  confide  in  any  tradition  not  evidently  apostolic,  because  we  can 
find  distinguished  names  advocating  it  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  ? 

I  have  yet  one  argument,  out  of  many  more  not  stated,  which  I  hope  to 
have  time  to  state  before  my  time  expires.  It  is,  that  circumcision  never 
was  done  away  by  any  apostolic  word  or  action.  The  Jews  practiced 
both  circumcision  and  baptism  in  theirfamilies  during  the  apostolic  age 
— a  matter  which  would  have  been  intolerable,  had  the  one  been  divinely 
ordered  in  lieu  of  the  other.  The  proof  of  this  fact  which  I  have  to 
offer,  is  from  Acts  xxi.  It  is  full,  clear,  and,  to  my  mind,  perfectly  con- 
clusive. Paul,  after  an  absence  of  fourteen  years,  visits  Jerusalem,  after 
having  been  in  the  apostleship  to  the  gentiles  seventeen  years.  On  his 
arrival,  he  was  waited  upon  by  a  portion  of  the  brethren,  who  accosted 
him  with  the  following  words  :  "  Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many  thous- 
ands of  the  Jews  believe,  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law ;  and  they 
are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the 
gentiles  to  forsake  Moses,  saying  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their 
children,  nor  to  walk  after  the  customs.  What  is  it  therefore  ?  The 
multitude  will  hear  that  thou  artcome,"&c.  They  proceed  to  request  Paul 
to  take  upon  him  a  vow — to  purify  himself,  to  shave  his  head,  and  to  be 
at  charges  with  some  others  ;  and  all  this  for  the  purpose  of  showing  to 
the  Jews,  that  all  that  they  had  heard  was  nothing,  (not  true,)  but  that  he 
walked  after  the  customs.  They  also  added,  that,  as  "  for  the  gentiles 
who  believe,  we  have  written  to  them  that  they  observe  no  such  things." 
Here,  then,  it  is  declared  that  the  gentiles,  but  not  the  Jews,  had  been 
discharged  from  such  observances.  Now,  either  Paul  falsified,  or  he  had 
not  taught  the  Jews  who  believed,  to  cease  from  circumcising  their  chil- 
dren— and  not  Paul  only  falsified,  but  all  the  brethren  who  advised  this 
course.  They  all  conspired  to  deceive  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  touching 
Paul's  customs,  or  he  had  not  interfered  with  the  circumcision  of  the 
children  of  believing  Jews.  The  proof,  then,  that  circumcision  was  not 
done  away  by  any  apostolic  enactment  or  teaching,  is  irresistible  ;  and, 
therefore,  it  cannot  be  believed  that  the  apostles  either  believed  or  taught 
that  baptism  had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  among  the  Jews.  These 
two  arguments,  adduced  from  Acts,  15th  and  21st  chapters,  are  alone  suf- 
ficient, in  mj'  humble  opinion,  to  settle  this  question  with  every  one  who 

2if2 


414  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

ean  understand  them.     I  hazard  nothing  in  avowing  my  belief  that  they 
will  never  be  answered. 

I  have  now  attended  to  all  the  prominent  points  of  Mr.  Rice's  argu- 
ment, and  have  given  him  a  few  new  ones,  by  way  of  objections  to  his 
propositions,  that  he  may  have  an  opportunity  to  answer  them  in  his  last 
speech.  I  call  his  attention  to  these  most  prominent  and  palpable  facts, 
any  one  of  which  is  fatal  to  his  assumptions.  I  hope  he  will  also  ex- 
plain the  appendages  to  infant  baptism,  the  meaning  of  the  exorcism, 
chrism,  and  holy  salt  and  spittle,  and  the  opening  of  the  ears,  so  early 
associated  with  infant  baptism.  I  would  have  been  pleased  to  read  from 
Mr.  Taylor  some  of  the  copious  evidence  he  affords,  that  the  papal  sy*. 
lem  originated  in  its  elementary  principles  about  the  time  that  infant 
baptism  came  into  being.  The  authors  of  the  papal  system,  according  to 
this  most  deservedly  distinguished  opponent  of  the  Oxford  tracts,  and  of 
infant  baptism,  if  not  the  same  identical  persons,  were  certainly  their 
cotemporaries.     But  my  time  is  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M, 
[mr.  rice's  closing  address.]    , 

Mr.  President — When  I  sat  down,  I  was  about  to  read  to  you  a  kind 
of  epitome  of  the  leading  facts  in  the  history  of  infant  baptism,  embody- 
ing Dr.  AVall's  conclusions,  founded  on  long  and  thorough  examination. 
It  is  as  follows  : 

Wall,  vol  ii.  eh.  x.  p.  501. — "  Lastly,  as  these  evidences  are  for  the  first 
fbur  hundred  years,  in  which  there  appears  one  man,  Tertullian,  that  ad- 
vised the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in  some  cases  ;  and  one  Gregory  that  dicL 
perhaps,  practice  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  children,  but  no  society  or 
men  so  thinking,  or  so  practicing  ;  nor  no  one  man  saying  it  was  unlawful 
to  baptize  infants  :  so  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years,  there  is  not  so  much 
aa  one  man  to  be  found,  that  either  spoke  for,  or  practiced  any  such  delay. 
But  all  the  contrary.  And  when,  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect  among  the 
Albigenses  declared  against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being  incapable  of 
salvation,  the  main  body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinion  ;  and  they  of 
them  that  held  that  opinion,  quickly  dwindled  away  and  disappeared  ;  there 
being  no  more  heard  of  holding  that  tenet,  till  the  rising  of  the  German 
anti-Pedo-baptists,  anno,  1522." 

Such,  briefly,  is  the  testimony  of  faithful  history.  There  were  some 
remarks  and  statements  in  the  gentleman's  last  speech,  which,  when 
fairly  exposed,  must  astonish  this  audience.    I  shall  notice  them  presently. 

Infant  baptism,  he  tells  us,  cannot  increase  maternal  affection,  and 
therefore,  there  can  be  no  necessity  that  mothers  shall  solemnly  covenant 
with  God  to  train  their  children  for  his  service.  Why,  then,  I  ask,  doea 
he,  in  his  writings,  put  forth  so  many  complaints  that  parents  do  greatly 
neglect  the  religious  training  of  their  children,  and  so  repealed  exhorta- 
tions to  greater  fidelity  ?  Will  his  complaints  and  exhortations  have 
greater  influence  with  parents,  than  a  solemn  promise  to  God  to  do  their 
duty,  and  the  encouragement  derived  from  his  promise  of  the  needed  as- 
sistance ?  Why,  according  to  his  logic,  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  that 
God  should  ever  have  made  a  covenant  with  men.  For  it  certainly  is 
their  interest  to  serve  him  ;  and  self-love  cannot  be  increased  by  a  promise 
or  a  covenant !  But  the  truth  is,  that  neither  parental  affection  in  the  onfl 
case,  nor  self-interest  in  the  other,  is  sufficient  to  induce  the  regular  and 
faithful  discharge  of  difficult  duties. 

In  regard  to  female  communion,  I  will  only  remark,  that  if  the  gentlo 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  415 

man  will  point  out  to  us  the  passage  of  Scripture  which  either  directly 
commands  it,  or  records  a  clear  example  of  it,  I  will  be  prepared  to  at- 
tend to  it. 

He  tells  you,  I  admitted  that  baptism  is  not  a  door  into  the  church.  I 
admitted  no  such  thing.  I  said,  that  I  was  not  at  all  strenuous  about  the 
use  of  that  particular  word ;  though  I  did  not  admit  that  it  had  been  in- 
correcdy  employed.  Baptism,  I  have  repeatedly  said,  is  a  rite  for  the 
recognition  of  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ.  Whether  the  word 
door  is  correctly  employed  in  regard  to  it,  is  a  very  unimportant  matter. 

The  circumcision  of  the  Shechemites  by  Jacob's  sons,  brought  forward 
by  Mr.  Campbell  to  prove  that  this  ordinance  did  not  require  of  adults, 
a  profession  of  faith,  he  acknowledges,  was  a  very  ugly  affair.  Still,  he 
is  strongly  disposed  to  urge,  that  it  was  scriplurally  done  !  He  cannot 
bring  himself  to  believe,  that  those  young  men,  with  hearts  burning  with 
revenge,  would  have  circumcised  the  Shechemites  in  order  to  be  able  to 
kill  them,  if  they  had  known  that  faith  was  a  pre-requisite  to  its  recep- 
tion !  !  !  And  this  is  the  only  instance  he  has  been  able  to  produce  to 
sustain  his  assertion,  that  circumcision  did  not  require  piety  in  adult  per- 
sons— an  assertion,  as  I  have  proved,  directly  contradictory  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  inspired  Paul.  Paul  says,  "  Circumcision  verily  profiteth, 
if  thou  keep  the  law  ;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumci- 
sion is  made  uncircumcision."  Again  ;  he  teaches,  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Mr.  C,  that  "  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly  ;  neither 
is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which 
is  one  inwardly;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  Spirit; 
whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  The  clear  meaning  of  this 
language  is,  that  the  external  rile  was  worth  nothing  without  the  inward 
grace — true  piety.  But  the  gentleman  (who  finds  many  cunows  Jig ure/i) 
told  us,  circumcision  was  here  used  figuratively.  But  when  Paul  said, 
♦*  circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law,''''  did  he  mean  figtb- 
rative  circumcision  ?     How  the  cause  of  my  friend  labors  ! 

He  says,  I  certainly  asserted  that  the  christian  church  was  under  the 
moral  law.  I  certainly  said,  that  the  moral  law  is  obligatory  on  the 
church — that  under  both  dispensations,  it  has  been  received  and  obeyed. 
But  he  charged  me  with  having  said,  that  the  moral  law  is  the  constitu- 
tion OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  Can  he  see  no  difference  between  its 
being  obligatory  on  the  church,  and  its  being  the  constitution  of  the 
church  ?     I  should,  indeed,  be  astonished  if  he  were  so  blind. 

To  disprove  the  identity  of  the  church  under  the  old  and  new  dispen- 
sations, Mr.  Campbell  quotes  the  passage:  "The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  until  John :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and 
every  man  presseth  into  it,"  Luke  xvi.  16.  But  has  not  he  published  it  as 
his  faith,  that  the  christian  church,  which  he  seems  here  to  understand  by 
the  kingdom  of  God,  was  not  set  up  till  after  Christ  had  risen  from  the 
dead  ?  How,  then,  could  men  press  into  it  before  it  existed  ?  So  the  gen- 
tleman is  obliged  to  cross  his  own  track,  and  to  twist  and  turn  in  all  direc- 
tions to  keep  his  head  above  water,  fond  as  he  is  of  water. — [A  laugh.] 

The  phrase  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  which  commonly  has  the  same 
meaning  as  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  passage,  is  translated  by  him, 
"  the  reign  of  heaven  ;  "  and  he  has  told  us  that  a  reign  is  one  thing, 
and  a  kingdom  quite  another.  The  expressions  "kingdom  of  heaven," 
or  "  kingdom  of  God,"  are  frequently  employed  with  reference  to  tha 
more  spiritual  modes  of  worship  under  the  new  dispensation. 


416  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

I  am  quite  pleased  to  hear  him  quote  the  passage  from  Daniel's  proph- 
ecy :  "And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a 
kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed."  I  was  looking  for  him  to 
bring  forward  this  passage  ;  for  I  had  read  his  debate  with  McCalla,  and 
had  seen  the  words  "  set  up  "  printed  in  capitals.  He  was  careful,  how- 
ever, to  pay  no  attention  to  the  inspired  explanation  of  the  expression 
which  I  had  previously  read.  In  the  council  at  Jerusalem  James  said: 
"  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets ;  as  it  is  written,  after  this 
I  will  return,  and  will  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David,  which  is  fallen 
down  ;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I  will  set  it  up  ;  that 
the  residue  of  men  might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  gentiles,  upon 
whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord,  who  doeth  all  these  things," 
Acts  XV.  Here  we  learn  that  the  tabernacle  which  had  fallen  down  was 
to  be  re-built.  Does  this  look  like  building  ^  new  tabernacle?  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  the  Hebrew  word  used  by  Amos,  in  the  passage 
quoted  by  James,  the  Chaldaic  word  used  by  Daniel,  and  the  Septuagint 
translation,  all  have  the  same  meaning,  viz.  :  to  cause  to  stand.  The 
meaning  of  the  passage  then  is  :  that  God  would  raise  up  and  establish 
his  church  which  had  been  so  long  oppressed  and  down-trodden. 

Mr.  Campbell  has  made  a  most  violent  attack  upon  the  old  fathers.  I 
will  not  quote  Dr.  Miller ;  though  I  am  confident  that  his  views  were 
misrepresented.  I  will  read,  however,  from  anotlier  author  of  very  high 
authority  with  my  friend  :  I  mean  Mr.  Campbell  himself: 

Testimony  of  Christian  Fathers. — "  Though  no  article  of  christian  faith, 
nor  item  of  christian  practice  can,  legitimately,  rest  upon  any  testimony, 
reasoning,  or  authority  out  of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  apostles,  were  it 
only  one  day  after  their  decease  ;  yet  the  views  and  practices  of  those  who 
were  the  contemporaries,  or  the  pupils  of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  suc- 
cessors, may  be  adduced  as  corroborating-  evidence  of  the  truths  taught,  and 
the  practices  enjoined  by  the  apostles ;  and  as  such  may  be  cited  ;  still  bearings 
in  mind,  that,  where  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  ends,  christian  faith  ne- 
cessarily terminates." — Christian  System,  p.  227. 

This  is  not  all.  Mr.  Campbell  has  actually  introduced,  as  a  good  and 
competent  witness,  Origen,  one  of  those  "  old  wives,"  whose  testimo- 
ny he  now  contemns.  He  says  :  "  Origen,  though  so  great  a  visionary, 
is,  nevertheless,  a  competent  witness  in  ajiy  question  of  fact.'' ^ — Ibid.  p. 
233.  And  did  not  I  introduce  him  simply  as  a  witness  to  prove  a  matter  of 
fact  ?  Cyprian,  too,  whom  he  now  pronounces  so  great  a  simpleton,  is  one 
of  the  important  witnesses  introduced  by  Mr.  Campbell  to  prove  his  doc- 
trine o{  baptismal  regeneration  I  These  fathers  were  excellent  witnesses 
when  he  could  make  capital  of  their  testimony ;  but  now  it  is  not 
worth  a  straw '. 

I  am  not  through  with  Mr,  Campbell  yet.  In  the  Milennial  Harbin- 
ger, vol.  ii.  Extra  pp.  37,  38,  he  reproves  a  Mr.  Broaddus  for  discrediting 
the  testimony  of  these  very  fathers,  in  the  following  style : — 

"  But  would  it  not  have  been  more  in  accordance  with  reason,  and  more 
satistiictory  to  his  readers,  to  have  adduced,  or  attempted  to  have  adduced, 
some  contradictory  testimony,  or  some  document  to  set  aside  or  impair  my 
eleventh  proposition"!  Is  all  antiquity  so  silent  on  the  views  of  my  opponent, 
as  not  to  furnish  one  document,  hint,  or  allusion  in  vindication  of  his  views 
of  the  point  at  issue]     [Argumentum  ad  hominem.'] 

My  eleventh  proposition  is  in  the  following  words:  '  All  the  apostolical 
fethers,  as  they  are  called,  all  the  pupils  of  the  apostles,  and  all  the  ecclesi- 
astical writers  of  note,  of  the  first  four  centuries,  whose  writings  have  come 
down  to  us,  allude  to  and  speak  of  christian  immersion,  dec.  as  the  regenera- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  417 

tion  and  remission  of  sins  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament.'  This  proposi- 
tion I  have  sustained,  Andrew  Broaddus  himself  being  judge  :  for  he  has  not 
brought  a  shadow  of  proof  to  the  contrary.  But  there  is  a  paragraph  pre- 
ceding this  proposition  in  the  Extra,  which  I  must  transcribe  for  the  sake 
of  those  who  may  not  have  it  to  refer  to.  It  explains  the  use,  the  sole  use, 
we  make  of  the  numerous  and  decisive  witnesses  we  summon  to  sustain 
this  proposition.     It  reads  thus — "     [Already  quoted.] 

To  discredit  the  testimony  of  these  venerable  ancients,  as  they  are  called, 
my  friend  alledges  their  opinions  on  other  matters,  showing  how  whimsical  they 
were  in  some  things.  Grant  it :  and  what  then  !  Does  any  man's  private 
opinion  discredit  his  testimony  on  any  question  of  fact?  If  so,  how  do  we 
receive  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament !  Upon  the  very  testi- 
mony here  adduced,  so  far  as  we  regard  human  testimony  at  all.  Andrew 
does  not  see  where  his  imputations  terminate.  [Nor  my  friend,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, neither  !]  But  he  admits  them  to  be  competent  witnesses  of  facts, 
and  would  take  them  out  of  our  hands  by  this  question,  '  When  Origen  testi- 
fies that  infants  were  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  does  he  not  as 
clearly  testify  that  infants  were  baptized,  as  that  they  were  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  sins  V  I  say,  yes  :  and  who  says,  no  !  And  have  I  not  always 
admitted  that  in  Origen's  time,  infants  were  immersed  !  have  I  not  affirm- 
ed, upon  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  and  Origen,  that  in  Tertullian's  time, 
infants,  in  some  cases,  began  to  be  immersed!!  How  impertinant  to  the 
subject  are  these  allegations  against  the  formidable  host  of  witnesses  during 
four  hundred  years !  And  is  this  all  that  can  be  offered  upon  or  against  my 
eleventh  proposition  1" 

Here  we  have  Mr.  Campbell  directly  against  Mr.  Campbell!  I  am 
amazed  to  see  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Campbell  place  himself  in  such  a  pre- 
dicament as  this  !     It  is  most  astonishing  indeed  ! 

The  gentleman  has  told  us,  that,  but  for  the  opposition  of  the  apostles, 
circumcision  would  have  been  introduced  into  the  christian  church,  with- 
in fifteen  years  from  the  day  of  Pentecost;  and  he  thinks,  if  baptism 
came  in  place  of  circumcision,  certainly  the  apostles,  assembled  at  Jeru- 
salem to  determine  the  question  concerning  circumcising  the  gentile  be- 
lievers, would  have  so  stated.  It  was  wholly  unnecessary  that  they  should 
say  so.  They  decided,  that  circumcision,  the  old  seal,  was  no  longer 
binding — that  only  baptism,  the  new  seal,  was  now  obligatory.  But,  as 
I  have  repeatedly  said,  I  might  admit  that  baptism  did  not  come  precisely 
in  place  of  circumcision,  and  yet  triumphantly  defend  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  am  contending. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  says,  he  could  defend  the  reputation  of  Mr.  Jones, 
as  a  faithful  historian.  No  man,  I  assert,  can  successfully  defend  him 
from  the  charge  of  having  most  grossly  garbled  the  testimony  of  Perria. 
It  is  absolutely  certain,  as  I  have  proved,  that  he,  in  quoting  that  author, 
omitted  infant  baptism,  and  supplied  "  baptism  according  to  the  primitive 
church;"  in  order  to  conceal  the- fact,  that  the  Waldenses  were  Pedo- 
baptists  !  An  attempt  to  defend  such  conduct,  would  very  nearly  make 
tlie  gentleman  himself  particeps  criminis. 

I  will  now  close  my  address  by  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  argument. 
I^rst — As  strong  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism,  I  stated  the  fact,  admitted  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  the  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  Christendom,  in  all  ages,  so  far  back  as  history  can  in- 
form us,  not  of  the  ignorant  and  superstitious  only,  or  chiefly,  but  of  the 
wise  and  the  good,  have  firmly  believed  it  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible.  The 
Bible,  as  Mr.  C.  admits,  is,  on  all  important  points,  a  plain  book.  The 
fact,  then,  that  it  has  been  so  universally  understood  by  those  who  have 
27 


418  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

carefully  studied  it,  to  teach  this  doctrine,  is  very  strong  presumptive  evi- 
dence in  its  favor. 

Second — Concerning  the  commission  given  the  apostles,  I  have  stated 
several  facts.  1.  That  it  is  not  a  commission  to  organize  a  neiv  church, 
but  to  extend  the  boundaries  of  one  already  in  existence.  2.  That  it  does 
not  specify  infants  or  adults  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  but  says,  "  Go 
make  disciples  of  all  nations — baptizing  them — the  nations."  3.  That 
it  does  not  say,  that  in  all  cases,  or  in  any  case,  teaching  must  precede 
baptizing ;  and,  therefore,  this  question  must  be  determined  from  other 
sources  of  evidence.  4.  That  it  does  require  all  to  be  baptized  who  are, 
by  God's  law,  enthled  to  membership  in  the  church.  This  Mr.  C 
does  not  deny. 

The  great  question,  then,  is — who,  or  what  characters  are  entitled  to 
membership  in  the  church  ?  To  find  an  answer  to  this  question  we  went 
to  its  organization.  The  church  I  defined  to  be  a  body  of  people,  sepa- 
rated from  the  world,  for  the  service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine 
appointment,  and  a  door  of  entrance,  or  rite,  for  the  recognition  of  mem- 
bership. To  this  definition,  or  description,  Mr.  C.  has  not  objected. 
Now  consider  the  following  facts  : 

1.  It  is  a  fact,  that  we  find  such  a  body  organized  in  the  family  of 
Abraham,  the  father  of  believers.  From  the  time  of  this  organization, 
God  spoke  of  them  as  '^  my  people  ;^^  and  the  inspired  writers  call  them 
the  church.  2.  It  is  a  fact,  indisputable,  that  believers,  and  their  chil- 
dren, were  constituted  members  of  this  church.  3.  It  is  a  fact,  that 
they  remained  together  in  the  church  to  the  moment  when  our  Savior 
gave  the  commission  to  the  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. 4.  It  is  a  fact,  that  the  commission  does  not  exclude  the  chil- 
dren of  believers.  This  is  an  important  fact ;  because  we  know,  that 
the  apostles  had  grown  up  in  a  church  which  embraced  the  children  of 
professed  believers ;  and  we  know,  that  their  Jewish  prejudices  were 
exceedingly  strong.  Yet,  notwithstanding  their  prejudices,  which  must 
have  inclined  them  still  to  retain, children  in  the  church,  our  Savior  gave 
not  the  slightest  intimation  of  a  purpose  to  alter  the  law  of  membership. 
I  have  found  a  positive  law  for  putting  the  children  of  believers  into  the 
church.  fPliere,  I  ask,  is  the  law  for  excluding  them?  The  gentle- 
man has  not  produced  such  a  law  ;  and  he  cannot.  Consequently,  they 
still  are  entided  to  membership ;  and,  of  course,  to  baptism — the  initiato- 
ry ordinance. 

I  have  proved,  that  the  christian  church  is  the  same  into  which  God 
did  put  the  children  of  believers.  What  do  we  understand  by  ecclesias- 
tical identity?  I  illustrated  this  point  by  the  principles  o( political  iden- 
tity. How  do  we  know  that  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  is  the 
same  political  body  that  existed  under  this  name  forty  years  ago  ?  Be- 
cause "the  sovereign  people"  still  reign;  and  the  constitution,  in  all  its 
essential  features,  is  the  same.  Apply  the  same  principles  to  the  identi- 
ty of  the  church.  Let  me  again  state  the  incontrovertible  facts  which 
prove  the  church  to  be  the  same  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispen- 
sations : 

1.  It  is  a  fact,  that,  under  both  dispensations,  the  church  worships  and 
serves  the  same  God. 

2.  It  is  a  fact,  that  she  receives  and  obeys  the  same  moral  law. 

3.  It  is  a  fact,  that,  under  both  dispensations,  tbe  church  receives  and 
trusts  in  the  same  gospel.     Paul  teaches,  that  the  Gospel  was  preached 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  419 

to  Abraham,  (Gal.  iii.  8,)  and  to  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  (Heb.  iv, 
2.)  And  it  is  a  fact,  that  all  the  prominent  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament — such  as  the  divinity  and  humanity  of 
Christ,  the  fall  and  depravity  of  man,  the  atonement,  sanctification  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  future  rewards  and  punishments,  the  resurrection ;  repent- 
ance, faith  and  reformation,  as  conditions  of  salvation.  Every  important 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament. 

4.  The  conditions  of  membership  in  the  church  are  the  same  under  both 
dispensations.  Adults,  as  I  have  proved,  were  required  to  profess  faith 
in  the  true  God,  and  a  purpose  to  serve  him,  before  they  could  be  cir- 
cumcised ;  and  then  they  brought  their  children  into  the  church  with 
them.     Precisely  so  it  is  in  the  christian  church. 

5.  I  have  proved,  that  the  christian  church  enjoys  her  spiritual  bless- 
ings under  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham.  This  I  proved  by  several 
incontrovertible /ac^s ;  1st.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  was  confirmed 
in  Christ;  (Gal.  iii.  17.)  2d.  It  contained  the  gospel;  (Gal.  iii.  8.) 
3d.  It  constituted  Abraham  the  father  of  all  believers — the  father  of  the 
christian  church  ;  (Gal.  iii.  29.)  4th.  It  is  never  in  the  Scriptures  called 
old,  and  never  said  to  have  passed  away.  The  covenant  at  Sinai,  the 
temporary  addition  to  it,  is  called  old  ;  because,  as  Paul  says,  it  "  decay- 
eth  and  waxeth  old,"  and  "is  ready  to  vanish  away;"  Heb.  viii.  13. 
But  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  never  represented  as  vanishing  away. 
This  covenant  originally  embraced  believers  and  their  children ;  and,  of 
course,  it  embraces  them  still. 

6.  I  turned  to  the  prophecies,  and  proved,  that  promises  great  and  pre- 
cious were  made  to  the  church  under  the  old  dispensation,  to  comfort  her 
in  her  affliction,  which  never  were,  nor  could  be  fulfilled  until  the  new 
dispensation  was  introduced.  And  if,  as  Mr.  Campbell  contends,  the 
Jewish  church  ceased  to  exist  as  the  church  of  God,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  new  dispensation  ;  those  promises  never  were,  and  never  can 
be  fulfilled  !  The  only  reply  the  gentleman  has  made  to  this  unanswera- 
ble argument,  is — that  these  prophecies  are  irrelevant !  !  ! 

7.  I  proved  the  identity  of  the  church  unanswerably  by  the  11th  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  olive-tree,  it  is  admitted,  means  the 
christian  church.  Now  it  is  a  fact,  that  from  this  church  the  unbelieving 
Jews  were  broken  off — excommunicated;  and  the  believing  gentiles  were 
grafted  into  the  same  tree — introduced  into  the  same  church.  And  when 
the  Jews  shall  be  converted,  they  are  to  be  again  grafted  into  their  own 
olive-tree,  of  which  they  were  the  natural  branches — into  their  own 
church,  from  which  they  were  expelled.  The  church  under  both  dis- 
pensations is  the  same. 

I  have  now  produced  much  more  evidence  to  prove  the  identity  of  the 
church  under  the  two  dispensations,  than  can  be  brought  forward  to  estab- 
lish the  identity  of  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  during  the  last  forty 
years. 

Now  mark  the  fact — Believers  and  their  children  were  put  into 
THIS  church  by  positive  LAW  OF  GoD.  There  is  no  law  for  excluding 
either  the  one  or  the  other.  The  children  of  believers,  therefore,  still  are 
entitled  to  membership  in  the  church,  and  consequently  to  baptism,  the 
initiatory  ordinance.     The  commission  requires  their  baptism. 

The  only  difl'erence  between  the  two  dispensations,  so  far  as  the  present 
discussion  is  concerned,  is — that  the  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of  the  old 
dispensation  liave  passed  away,  and  given  place  to  a  few  simple  ordi- 


420  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

nances,  adapted  to  the  extension  of  the  church  to  all  nations.  Those 
laws,  as  I  have  proved,  were  added  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant  for  a  spe- 
cific purpose — "because  of  transgression" — and  for  a  limited  time — till 
the  promised  seed  should  come.  When  Christ  came  and  died  on  the 
cross,  the  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of  the  church  expired  by  virtue  of 
their  own  limitation ;  and  the  officers  appointed  to  execute  them,  went  out 
of  office.  Just  so  the  legislature  of  Kentucky  might  enact  a  number  of 
laws  to  meet  a  particular  exigency,  to  be  in  force  twenty  years.  At  the 
end  of  that  period  those  laws  would  cease  to  be  binding,  having  answered 
the  purposes  for  which  they  were  enacted ;  and  all  officers  appointed  to 
carry  tliem  into  effect,  would  go  out  of  office.  But  no  man  in  his  senses 
would  pretend,  that  the  expiration  of  those  temporary  enactments  could 
destroy  the  identity  of  the  commonwealth.  No  more  could  the  passing 
away  of  the  ceremonial  laws  of  the  old  dispensation,  affect  the  identity  of 
the  church.  The  evidence  is,  therefore,  most  conclusive,  that  the  church 
of  Christ  is  the  same  church  into  which  believers  and  their  children  were 
introduced  by  God,  and  from  which  neither  have  ever  been  excluded. 

I  have  invited  your  attention  to  household  or  family  baptisms.  I  con- 
fined my  remarks  to  the  family  of  Lydia.  The  inspired  historian  says, 
that  Lydia  believed,  and  that  she  and  her  household  were  baptized ;  but 
he  does  not  say,  that  the  household  believed.  We  write  like  Luke, 
whether  we  act  like  him  or  not.  Our  opponents  do  not  write  like  him ; 
and  the  conclusion  is  obvious,  that  they  do  not  practice  as  he  and  the 
apostles  did. 

I  have  proved  by  the  history  of  the  church,  that  for  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  not  a  writer  can  be  found  maintaining, 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  unscriptural,  excepting,  perhaps,  a  small 
sect  called  Petrobrussians.  Ireneus,  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  the  disci- 
ple of  the  apostle  John,  speaks  of  it  as  a  matter  universally  understood 
and  admitted.  Tertullian,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  opposes 
it,  but  does  not  venture  to  pronounce  it  either  unscriptural,  or  contrary  to 
the  universal  practice  of  the  church.  His  opposition,  therefore,  makes 
him  a  more  important  witness  to  us ;  for  certainly  he  would  oppose  it 
with  the  strongest  arguments  he  could  command. 

Origen,  a  few  years  later,  whose  talents,  learning  and  piety  are  so 
highly  commended  by  Jones,  my  friend's  favorite  historian,  testifies  thai 
the  whole  church,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  by  their  direction, 
did  practice  infant  baptism.  No  man  could  have  possessed  more  fully 
the  qualifications  necessary  to  give  weight  to  his  testimony.  He  had 
traveled  extensively,  had  resided  in  Alexandria,  in  Rome,  and  in  Pales^ 
tine ;  he  was  a  man  of  great  learning  and  great  celebrity.  If  any  man 
in  that  day  knew  what  had  been  the  practice  of  the  church,  he  was  the 
man.  And  my  friend  himself  admits,  that  as  to  matters  of  fact,  he  was  a 
competent  witness. 

Cyprian,  and  the  council  at  Carthage,  Jerom,  Augustine,  Pelagius, 
and  many  others,  bear  similar  testimony.  They  tell  us  they  never  heard 
of  any  controversy  about  it,  or  of  a  contrary  practice.  Pelagius,  though 
a  denial  of  the  doctrine  would  have  relieved  him  from  serious  embarrass- 
ments, was  constrained  to  testify  that  he  had  never  known  even  the  most 
impious  heretic  to  deny  it. 

The  Waldenses  and  Albigenses — those  eminent  witnesses  for  th© 
truth  in  the  dark  ages — complete  the  chain  of  testimony  from  the  aposr 
ties  to  the  Reformation  of  the  16th  century.     With  the  exception  of  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  42I 

insignificant  sect  called  Petrobrussians,  all  admitted  infant  baptism  to  be 
according  to  the  Scriptures. 

Here  is  evidence  conclusive  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  history.  I 
have  omitted  much  that  might  have  been  introduced,  because  I  conceived 
it  unnecessary  to  multiply  arguments.  One  good  argument  my  friend 
has  told  us  is  enough.     I  have  given  many. 

In  conclusion,  I  offer  one  more  argument.  It  is  this — if  it  should  turn 
out  that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  and  that  Mr.  Campbell's  views  of 
immersion  as  the  only  valid  baptism,  are  true  ;  we  are  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  for  several  centuries  there  was  no  church  of  Christ  on 
earth!  From  a  very  early  period  the  great  body  of  christian  ministers 
received  baptism  in  infancy,  and,  of  course,  were  unbaptized.  As  we 
descend  in  the  history  of  the  church,  infant  baptism  becomes  the  only  bap- 
tism administered.  Dr.  Gill,  I  think,  has  admitted  that  for  several  centu- 
ries there  were  no  adult  baptisms  ;  and  it  is  not  denied  that  from  the  thir- 
teenth century  baptism  was  verj'^  commonly  administered  by  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  So  that,  by  the  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  and  of  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling,  christian  baptism  was  lost,  if  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C. 
be  true,  and  there  was  on  earth  no  church  of  Christ.  We  are,  then, 
obliged  to  believe  that  the  Savior's  promise  has  failed  ;  and  "  the  gales 
of  hell  "  did  prevail  against  his  church  !  !  !  Robertson,  the  celebrated 
anti-Pedo-baptist  historian,  says:  "Baptism  rose  pure  in  the  east,  rolled 
westward,  obscured  in  lustre,  and  was  finally  lost  amongst  attenuated 
particles,  shades,  nonentities,  and  monsters  !  "  I  think  I  have  given  his 
words  exactly. 

Mr.  Campbell  will  say  that  the  Greek  church  has  always  immersed, 
and  has  preserved  scriptural  baptism.  But  if  his  doctrine  be  true,  the 
Greek  church  is  not  a  true  church,  for  she  has  always  practiced  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  The  conclusion,  then,  returns  upon  us,  that  for  centu- 
ries there  was  not  a  church  of  Christ  on  earth  ;  and  the  promise  of  the 
Savior  has  failed  ! 

In  the  Milennial  Harbinger  I  observe,  that  Mr.  Campbell  proves,  that 
there  are  some  christians  among  "the  sects"  by  this  very  argument.  For, 
he  argues,  if  there  are  not,  the  church  of  Christ  has  ceased  to  exist ;  which, 
he  says,  it  will  not  do  to  admit.  Now,  he  informs  us,  that  he  has  proved 
immersion  to  be  the  only  apostolic  or  christian  baptism,  and  infant  bap- 
tism to  be  a  human  tradition.  Then  he  has  proved,  that  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  has  been  lost.  And  who,  I  ask,  had  the  authority  to  restore  it  ? 
An  unbaptized  person  certainly  is  not  authorized  to  administer  baptism. 

The  gentleman  has  labored  faithfully  to  destroy  the  validity  of  his  own 
baptism  !  If  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  not  valid,  and  if  infant 
baptism  is  worthless,  his  own  baptism  is  not  worlli  a  straw  ;  for  it  has 
descended  from  infant  baptism  and  from  pouring.  If  the  fountain  be 
corrupt,  is  not  the  stream  equally  so  ?  So  it  would  seem,  he  has  succeed- 
ed in  demonstrating,  that  our  Savior  has  failed  to  fultill  his  promise,  and  that 
he  himself  and  all  his  church  are  unbaptized  !  If  he  maintains,  that  an 
unbaptized  man  maj''  administer  baptism,  I  call  for  the  passage  of  Scripture 
that  authorizes  it ;  and  he  professes  always  to  give  a  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,"  for  his  faith  and  his  practice. 

I  now  cheerfully  leave  the  audience  to  judge  of  the  force  of  the  facts 
and  arguments  I  have  presented,  and  to  decide,  in  view  of  their  responsi- 
bility to  God,  whether  I  have  proved  that  the  infant  of  a  believing  parent 
is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. — \_Ti7ne  expired. 

2N 


422  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  22 — U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  closing  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  peculiarly  gratified  to  hear  so  much  read  from 
the  Christian  System  and  Milennial  Harbinger.  I  did  not  expect  to 
hear  so  much  from  these  works,  in  such  ample  and  perfect  confirmation 
of  what  I  am  now  endeavoring  to  sustainj  The  gentleman  will,  I  hope, 
frequently  assist  our  eff'orts  in  this  way. 

I  have,  occasionally,  to  complain  of  his  singular  talent  and  proficiency 
in  the  art  of  forming  false  issues.  What,  sir,  was  the  issue  formed  on 
the  extracts  read  from  Miller,  Cyprian,  and  others? — that  their  testimony 
on  matters  of  fact  transpiring  in  their  times,  is  i??credible  ! !  Mr.  Rice 
has  been  laboring  to  prove  that  their  testimony  is  credible.  Is  that  the 
issue  ?  No,  sir;  you  know,  and  this  audience  and  Mr.  Rice  know,  that 
I  admit  their  testimony,  when  fairly  made  out,  on  questions  of  fact.  There 
is  no  issue — no  controversy,  on  that  subject,  at  all.  In  all  my  debates, 
with  infidels,  Romanists,  and  sectarians,  I  have  admitted  their  testimony 
on  questions  of  fact.  Was  there  any  other  fact  in  the  extract  from  St. 
Cyprian,  but  that  he  was  a  dupe  of  the  most  visionary  and  romantic 
character  ! 

Mr.  Rice.  Allow  me  to  ask  a  question.  Did  not  I  say,  distinctly,  that 
I  introduced  these  fathers  as  witnesses  to  facts? 

Mr.  Campbell.  If  the  gentleman  did  so,  I  do  not  oppose  them  as  such. 
I  oppose  them  as  authorities  for  opinions  or  religious  institutions ;  and 
for  this  purpose,  and  no  other,  read  I  the  extracts  from  Dr.  Miller,  all 
of  which  went  to  prove,  that,  outside  of  the  Bible,  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, there  is  no  dependence  to  be  put  in  them,  for  any  of  their  opinions, 
customs,  usages,  ordinances,  ceremonies  whatever.  I  will  receive  the 
solemn  affirmation  of  a  Quaker,  in  support  of  a  fact  which  he  saw,  de- 
spite of  all  his  visions  and  imaginations  in  matters  of  religion.  But, 
neither  St.  Cyprian,  nor  any  of  the  fathers,  can  depose  to  facts  that  hap- 
pened in  other  countries,  or  before  they  were  born  :  therefore  we  have  no 
issue  of  that  sort  before  us. 

I  contend  that  infant  baptism,  like  infant  communion,  grew  out  of  the 
reasonings,  or  inferences,  or  dreams  of  such  men.  No  one  testifies  that  he 
saw  an  apostle  baptize  an  infant.  No  one,  for  two  hundred  years  after 
Christ's  birth,  has  even  named  infant  baptism.  There  is  not  a  book 
on  earth  that  can  be  produced — no  Greek  or  Latin  father  of  that  period, 
that  has  recorded  the  words,  ^'■infant  baptism,''^  or  ever  used  baptism 
with  allusion  to  an  infant.  Tertullian,  Mr.  Rice  says,  was  opposed  to  it. 
He  is  the  first  writer  in  all  the  annals  of  the  church  that  has  named  it ; 
and  no  one  can  tell  whether  he  meant  babes  or  boys.  Pelagius,  who 
lived  two  hundred  years  after  Tertullian,  is  frequently  quoted  by  Pedo- 
baptists,  with  approbation  of  his  great  talents  and  great  learning,  as  de- 
posing that  he  never  heard  of  any  one,  that  he  never  knew  any  one,  who 
denied  infant  baptism.  Ifso,  thenhe  proves  himself  ignorant  of  church 
history :  for  Tertullian  opposed  it,  as  Mr.  Rice  says,  and  as  I  affirm. 

No  one  can  explain  the  institution  of  the  catechumens,  trained  in  the 
early  christian  churches,  for  baptism,  on  the  ground  of  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism.  But  when  I  hear  Mr.  Rice  and  others  talking  about  the 
probable  high  antiquity  of  infant  baptism,  tracing  it  up  to  Ireneus'  or 
TertuUian's  time,  I  am  struck  with  the  singular  illusion  that  flits  before 
their  fancy.  They  speak  of  one  or  two  hundred  years  as  a  period  of 
short  duration — as  if,  in  so  short  a  time  after  Christ,  any  great  errors,  or 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  423 

apostasies,  or  innovations  could  have  occurred  !  What  a  delusion! — two 
hundred  years  !  Why,  sir,  our  federal  government,  our  very  national 
existence,  is  less  than  the  lil'e  of  one  man ;  and  what  changes  ! — what 
innovations ! — what  departures  from  first  principles  ! — what  corruptions  ! 
— how  many  political  castes,  sects,  parties,  shibboleths  ! — and  what  con- 
structions, and  interpretations,  and  debates  about  the  meaning  of  some 
parts  of  the  constitution,  the  bills  of  rights,  and  even  our  declaration  of 
independence  !  How  few  men  could  now  relate,  from  his  memory  or  his 
own  reading,  the  great  political  events  of  this  period — the  public  assem- 
blies, conventions,  and  changes  !  And  yet  we  live  in  an  age  of  books, 
pamphlets,  magazines,  newspapers,  issuing  irom  all  sorts  of  printing 
presses,  and  in  such  numbers  and  sizes  that  Kentucky  might  all  be  car- 
peted with  the  millions  of  sheets  that  issue  in  almost  one  year  from  the 
American  press.  When  to  this  we  add  our  canals,  rivers,  rail-roads, 
steam-boats,  and  steam-ships,  (by  which  we  have  reduced  time  and  space 
to  the  mere  tythe  of  other  times  and  spaces,)  and  contrast  all  these  advan- 
tages with  an  age  of  a  few  books  and  parchments,  without  printing  offices, 
post-offices,  post-roads,  &-c.,  &c.,  what  shall  we  think  of  the  mental  hal- 
lucination of  those  who  talk  of  one,  two,  or  three  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  as  necessarily  a  more  cnliglitened,  pure,  and  incorrupt  period  of 
Christianity,  than  the  present !  It  is  a  monstrous  delusion.  Taylor  and 
others  have  shown  that  all  the  abominations  of  popery  were  hatched  in 
the  second  century  ;  and  Paul,  of  still  higher  authority  and  greater  learn- 
ing, says,  "  even  already  the  mystery  of  iniquity  inivardly  works!!'''' 

The  gentleman  has  at  length  responded  something  to  the  question 
about  the  door  :  but  yet  the  mystery  remains  !  I  still  ask — but  I  ask  in 
vain — If  Presbyterian  infants  are  born  in  Christ's  church,  by  virtue  of 
the  flesh  of  one  of  their  parents  ;  and  if  baptism  be  still  regarded  sub- 
stantially as  a  door,  into  ivhat  does  it  introduce  them?"  Whenever  he 
answers  this,  he  will  have  annihilated  at  least  one  half  of  all  his  logic  and 
rhetoric  upon  this  question.  This  is  an  argumentum  ad  hominem.  It 
is,  in  this  case,  as  will  probably  appear  in  my  next  proposition,  however, 
a  good  and  valid  argument. 

Mr.  Rice  assumes  the  identity  of  "  the  commonwealth  of  Israel"  and 
the  christian  church  as  one  church  of  God,  one  and  the  same  ecclesiastical 
institution,  on  which  to  found  the  right  of  infants  of  a  certain  class  of 
parents  to  baptism  ;  and  proceeds  to  prove  that  identity  by  sundry  argu- 
ments, such  as : — 

1st.  That  the  same  God  reigns  over  the  Jewish  and  Christian  commu- 
nities. This,  if  true,  we  showed,  constitutes  no  proof  of  the  identity 
of  any  two  communities  or  their  institutions  :  because  it  proves  too  much. 
The  same  God  reigns  over  Massachusetts,  Kentucky,  and  old  England  ; 
and  does  that  prove  that  these  communities  are  one  and  the  same  insti- 
tution ?  But  we  do  not  admit,  and  have  demonstrated  that  they  have  not 
the  same  identical  king  :  for  Jesus  Christ  was  born  to  be  a  king,  and  was 
not  a  king  before  he  was  born — John  xviii.  37.  God  himself  was  king 
over  Israel,  as  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  ;  but  his  Son  is  now  made  king — 
made  Lord  and  King.  It  is  not  abstract  Divinity,  nor  Trinity,  but  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  that  is  king  of  the  church.  All  autiiority  was  given  to  him 
for  this  purpose. 

2.  But  they  have  the  same  moral  law,  or  fundamental  code.  This,  if 
admitted,  is  as  true  of  the  patriarchs.  New  Englanders,  and  Pennsylvani- 
ans.     They  acknowledge  the  same  great  principles,  and  are  obliged  by 


424  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

them;  but  that  does  not  make  these  all  one  and  the  same  body  politic,  the 
same  identical,  political  communities. 

3.  But  the  Jews  and  Christians  have  the  same  gospel.  Few  men  dare 
make  such  an  assertion.  The  patriarchs,  Jews  and  Christians,  have  one 
gospel :  as  England  and  France  have  one  alphabet,  but  not  one  and  the 
same  language.  The  ceremonial  of  the  Jews  had  the  types  of  our  gos- 
pel. But  the  christian  gospel  is  based  on  three  facts  which  transpired  at 
the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation !  These  are  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  "And  in  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  did  the  Mes- 
siah put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  We  have  had  various 
gospels  in  the  history  of  religion.  The  Jews'  gospel,  as  preached  to 
file  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  Paul  shows,  Heb.  iv.,  was  the  rest  in  Canaan- 
Ours  is  the  antitype  of  Canaan,  and  so  throughout.  Having  the  same 
gospel  does  not,  however,  make  the  communities  one ;  for  then  England, 
the  United  States,  patriarch  and  Jews,  are  one  community. 

But  the  gentleman  descends  into  special  points  of  resemblance,  from 
which  he  next  seeks  to  prove  the  churches  identical.  He  obviously 
needs  something  more  specific  than  these  three  vague  generalities.  He 
aUedges : 

1.  The  Jews  and  Christians  have  the  same  mediator.  Is  this  true? 
Moses  mediated  that  covenant;  but  Paul  says,  "  Jesus  is  the  mediator  of 
a  better  covenant,  established  upon  better  promises."  Neither  was  Aaron 
the  high-priest  and  standing  mediator  between  Israel  and  God,  the  same 
identical  mediator  with  the  high-priest  of  our  religion.  Jesus  is  a  better 
high-priest,  lawgiver,  and  mediator,  than  Moses,  Aaron  and  his  sons.  If 
Mr.  R.  looks  beyond  the  Jewish  dispensation  for  his  idea  of  a  mediator, 
it  will  prove  too  much :  for  then,  patriarchs,  Jews,  and  Christians  are 
identically  the  same  community. 

He  then  instances,  in  his  second  and  third  items,  the  same  doctrine  of 
justification,  and  the  same  doctrine  of  sanctification — but  these  extend 
through  all  dispensations,  so  far  as  there  is  any  identity,  and  Avould  make 
them  all  one  and  the  same  community.  And  certainly  the  apostles  give 
us  quite  a  dissertation  on  the  difierence  between  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  and  the  righteousness  of  faith.  He  will  also  add  to  his  list  of  iden- 
tity, the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  eternal  life,  with  all  the  same  condi- 
tions of  salvation  ! !  Until,  indeed,  he  has  falsified  the  sayings  of  Paul 
and  the  other  apostles,  who  teach  that  we  have  a  "  better  covenant,'''* 
"  better  jnomises,'''  a  "  better  mediator,''''  a  better  high-priest,  a  better 
inheritance,  better  sacrifices,  better  altars,  and  a  new  institution.  Yet, 
with  Mr.  Rice,  they  are  all  identically  the  same  ! ! 

Paul,  moreover,  argues  from  the  change  in  the  christian  priesthood, 
being  such  as  it  is,  there  must  also  be  a  change  in  the  law  and  constitu- 
tion of  acceptance.  He  establishes  this  not  only  in  the  seventh  chapter, 
but  throughout  all  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Can  any  one  conversant 
with  the  doctrines  taught  by  John  the  Baptist  in  preparing  the  way  for 
Christ's  religion,  and  the  contrasts  drawn  by  Jesus  himself  between  the 
teachings  of  former  times  and  his  own,  and  the  glorious  developments  of 
the  apostles  after  they  received  the  promised  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit^ 
that  the  Old  Testament  presents  the  same  conditions  of  salvation  as  the 
New.  Could  any  one  be  saved  now,  who  disdains  the  christian  ordinan- 
ces — and  are  these  the  same  as  the  Jewish  ? 

But,  chief  of  all,  the  gentleman  appeared  to  rely  upon  the  assumed 
fact,  that  they  have  the  same  covenant  or  constitution.     This  is,  indeed. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  425 

the  main  point — for  if  all  other  points  of  similarity  and  coincidence  were 
the  same,  a  change  here  Avill  be  fatal ;  and  this  is  just  tVie  very  point  ia 
which  he,  and  all  others  on  his  side  of  the  question,  have  always  pre- 
eminently failed.  I  think  it  of  no  consequence  to  trace  other  matters  of 
alledged  similarity  or  identity.  It  is  here  the  work  of  refutation  is 
always  complete,  and  to  all  minds  intelligible.  God  found  fault  with  the 
Jewish  institution  and  the  people  under  it,  and  solemnly  promised  to 
make  a  new  constitution  seven  hundred  years  before  the  christian  era. 
Now  all  the  logic  and  rhetoric  in  the  world  will  not  prove  that  a  new  and 
an  old  constitution  are  identically  the  same  thing.  In  every  single  pro- 
vision of  the  New,  it  is  a  perfect  contrast,  as  we  have  shown,  with  all 
the  provisions  of  the  old.  It  has  even  changed  the  very  names  '■'■Isra- 
el "  and  "  the  children  of  Abraham^''  so  far  as  to  make  the  former  and 
the  latter  indicate  a  spiritual  people,  believing  Jews  and  gentiles,  for  "  th^ 
children  of  the  flesh  are  no  longer  counted  for  the  seed."  It  is,  then,  a 
new  covenant,  new  promises,  a  new  people,  new  institutions,  new  laws, 
new  terms  of  communion,  a  new  inheritance;  "All  old  things,"  indeed, 
"have  passed  away,  and,  behold,  all  things  have  become  new:"  for  a 
Jew  in  Christ  is  just  as  new  a  creation,  as  a  gentile  in  him.  But  of  this, 
more  in  the  sequel. 

Knowing,  however,  that  the  design  of  the  argument  for  identity  was  to 
establish  an  identity  of  infant  church-membership,  as  they  call  it,  on  the 
alledged  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  I  especially  labored  that 
point.  For  here  is  the  whole  true  issue  of  the  question  of  identity.  All 
intelligent  Pedo-baptists  know  it,  and  multitudes  of  them  candidly  ac- 
knowledge it :  for  this  very  reason,  Calvin  took  this  ground.  I,  therefore, 
drew  out  in  extenso,  no  less  than  sixteen  points  of  essential  difference 
between  circumcision  and  baptism,  in  the  faith  and  practice  of  even  Pedo- 
baptists  themselves.  And,  to  ray  no  little  surprise,  the  gentleman  waived 
this,  the  main  issue  of  the  whole  matter,  and  contented  himself  with  some 
few  vague  generalities,  which,  were  they  all  true  and  veritable,  fall  short, 
by  a  hundred  particulars,  in  making  out  the  case  of  identity.  These  es- 
sential points  of  dissimilarity,  you  will  remember,  are  : 

1.  Only  males  were  subjects  of  circumcision.  It  belonged,  then,  to  but 
half  the  Jewish  church. 

2.  Infant  males  were  circumcised  the  eighth  day. 

3.  Adult  males  circumcised  themselves. 

4.  Infant  males  were  circumcised  by  their  own  parents. 

5.  Infant  and  adult  servants  were  circumcised  neither  on ^^sA  nor yai7^, 
but  as  property.     A  point,  this,  which  Mr.  Rice  strangely  overlooked. 

6.  Circumcision  was  not  the  door  into  the  Jewish  church.  It  was 
four  hundred  years  older  than  the  Jewish  church,  and  introduced  neither 
Isaac,  Ishmael,  Jacob,  or  Esau  into  any  Jewish  or  patriarchal  church.  It 
never  was  to  a  Jew,  its  proper  subject,  an  initiatory  rite. 

7.  The  qualifications  for  circumcision  were  flesh  and  property.  Faith 
was  never  propounded,  in  any  case,  to  a  Jew  or  his  servants. 

8.  Circumcision  was  not  a  dedicatory  rite.  The  rites  of  the  dedica- 
tion of  a  first-born  son,  were  different  in  all  respects. 

9.  Circumcision  requiring  no  moral  qualification,  neither  could  nor  did 
communicate  any  spiritual  blessing.  No  person  ever  put  on  Christ,  or 
professed  faith  in  circumcision. 

10.  Idiots  were  circumcised  ;  for  neither  intellect  itself,  nor  any  exer- 
cise of  it,  was  necessary  to  a  covenant  in  the  flesh, 

2x2 


426  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

11.  It  was  a  visible,  appreciable  mark,  as  all  signs  are,  and  such  was 
its  main  design. 

12.  It  was  binding  on  parents,  and  not  on  children.  Circumcise  your 
children. 

13.  The  right  of  a  child  to  circumcision,  in  no  case  depended  upon  the 
faith,  the  piety,  or  the  morality  of  parents. 

14.  Circumcision  was  a  guarantee  of  certain  temporal  benefits  to  a 
Jew. 

15.  It  was  not  to  be  performed  in  the  name  of  God,  nor  into  the  name 
of  any  being,  m  heaven  or  on  earth. 

16.  The  subject  of  circumcision  was  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law. 
These   sixteen  indisputable  facts,  are  truly  distinct  and  demonstrable 

attributes  and  properties  of  circumcision  ;  each  of  which  differs  ;  and,  of 
course,  the  aggregate  differs  from  baptism  as  now  administered  by  Ro- 
manists and  Protestants.  Had  we  deemed  it  at  all  important,  we  could 
as  easily  have,  in  all  the  other  alledged  points  of  identity,  made  out  lists 
of  specifications,  either  more  or  less  numerous  than  the  preceding.  But 
that  being  only  to  multiply  words  to  no  profit,  I  am  content  to  annihilate 
infant  church-membership,  as  founded  upon  the  identity  of  signs  and  seals. 
A  thousand  vague  generalilies  are  worth  nothing — absolutely  worth  noth- 
ing in  a  question  of  identity. 

Circumcision  conferred  no  spiritual  benefit  on  the  Jew,  as  Paul  himself 
declares  ;  inasmuch  as  he  makes  its  chief  benefit,  that  "  unto  the  nations 
were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.''''  "  What  profit  is  there  in  circum- 
cision ?"  was  the  question  which  Paul  propounded  to  himself,  and  an- 
swered, "  Chiefly  because  they  had  the  oracles  of  God.''''  This  was  the 
best  thing  Paul  could  say:  certain  it  is,  it  was  the  best  thing  he  did  say 
of  circumcision  and  the  Jews'  religion.  Salvation  was  in  the  Jews'  re- 
ligion, in  its  ceremonial,  and  'n\  prophecy  :  but  not  really  nor  truly.  In 
Christianity,  salvation  is  literally,  substantively,  and  truly.  Its  civil  ad- 
vantages were  numerous.  Its  direct  benefits  were  all  temporal  and  earthly. 
Suppose,  for  example,  A  induces  B  to  migrate  from  the  mountains  of 
Kentucky  into  Lexington,  to  superintend  his  business,  and  promises  him 
a  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  so  doing ;  but  adds,  as  a  further  inducement, 
the  social  benefits,  the  literary,  scientific,  and  moral  advantages  he  may 
enjoy  in  this  Athens  of  Kentucky.  Would  not  the  actual  remuneration, 
temporal  and  financial,  be  the  direct  and  main  inducement  to  his  migra- 
tion and  change  of  residence  ?  Just  so  the  direct  and  immediate  advan- 
tages to  the  Jew  were  all  fleshly  and  temporal ;  the  spiritual  benefits  derived 
to  any  were  altogether  exclusive  of  the  covenant  and  its  circumcision, 
and  were  derived  from  the  "  good  things  to  come,"  of  which  it  was  but  a 
faint,  a  very  faint  shadoiv,  and  not  even,  as  Paul  says,  "  an  exact  image." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  again  to  allude  to  the  conflict  we  have  had 
about  his  capital  assumption  concerning  one  only,  Abrahamic  covenant; 
which,  next  to  circumcision  is,  indeed,  the  main  point  in  this  discussion. 
His  view  is  one  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  that  an  ecclesiastic  one,  hav- 
ing the  seal  of  circumcision  !  He  thus  puts  infants  into  the  church,  and 
now  he  asks  for  a  precept  to  put  them  out.  That  there  were  three  dis- 
tinct covenants  made  with  Abraham,  based  on  three  promises — two  made 
in  Urr  of  Chaldea,  primary  and  all-comprehensive,  and  one  in  Canaan — 
has  been  fully  proved.  These  three  covenants  are  different  in  name,  time, 
•place,  and  circumstances,  recorded  in  Gen.  12th,  15th,  and  17th  chapters, 
commented  on  by  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews.     These 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  427 

covenants  were  not  made  with  all  Israel  as  a  national  covenant ;  but  a  na- 
tional covenant  based  on  two  of  them  was  developed,  proclaimed,  acceded 
to,  and  ratified  with  all  Israel  at  Horeb.  Therefore,  all  the  other  covenants 
belonging  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  besides  this  one  with  all  Israel,  are 
properly  called  covenants  made  with  Abraham,  covenants  of  promise,  as 
denominated  by  Paul  to  the  Romans  and  the  Ephesians.  These  cove- 
nants were  severally  made  with  Abraham  in  the  75th,  86th,  and  99th 
year  of  his  life ;  the  first  of  them  430  years  before  the  law  or  national 
covenant  at  Horeb,  to  which  circumcision  and  the  passover  were  finally 
added  with  the  law  of  dedication. 

In  his  last  speech  the  gentleman  has  made  another  effort  to  sustain  his 
position,  that  the  Jews  and  christians  have  the  same  moral  law,  as  a  con- 
stitution.  That  the  moral  principles  contained  in  the  decalogue  are  im- 
mutable principles,  and  that  they  are,  and  have  always  been,  the  supreme 
law  of  mind,  in  every  portion  of  God's  moral  creation,  I,  in  common 
with  all  intelligent  christians,  have  not  only  admitted,  but  always  plead. 
But  that  they  are,  as  promulged  by  Moses,  and  incorporated  on  Mount 
Sinai  with  other  enactments  and  ordinances,  the  special  constitution  of 
Christ's  church,  as  they  were  then  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  is 
what  he  seeks  to  maintain,  and  what  I  deny.  This  is  the  only  issue  in 
the  case ;  because  they  were,  as  principles  of  piety  and  humanity,  as 
much  the  law  of  paradise,  or  of  the  patriarchal  institution,  as  of  the  Jew- 
ish or  christian.  The  gentleman's  argument  would  prove  the  identity  of 
all  dispensations,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Jewisli  and  christian. 

And  with  him,  too,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  a  future  state  of  re- 
wards and  punishments,  was  identically  the  same  among  Jews  and  chris- 
tians. There  is  no  greater  mistake  in  all  his  assumptions  than  this  one: 
Moses  has  not  incorporated  one  expression,  in  all  the  Jewish  institution, 
on  the  subject  of  a  future  state.  It  is  neither  named,  nor  alluded  to,  from 
the  Exodus  to  the  last  word  of  Deuteronomy.  Bishop  Warburton,  than 
whom,  in  his  day,  the  church  of  England  had  no  man  of  superior  learning 
or  talents,  the  greatest  antiquarian  and  archaeologist  amongst  English  pre- 
lates, in  his  truly  learned  treatise  on  the  divine  legation  of  Moses,  a  work 
which  every  student  of  theology  ought  to  read,  has,  I  do  not  say  how 
logically  constructed,  an  argument,  in  proof  that  God  sent  Moses  ;  mere- 
ly, from  the  fact,  that  in  all  the  Jewish  institution  proper,  as  given  by 
Moses,  there  is  not  one  word  about  a  future  state.  TJie  fact  is  true,  but 
whether  his  argument  be  true  is  another  question.  The  knowledge  of 
a  future  life  the  Jews  had;  but  not  from  their  covenant  nor  from  Moses, 
but  from  the  patriarchs.  Enoch  prophesied  of  the  final  judgment.  The 
patriarchs  and  christians  are  rather  more  identical  in  the  fact,  though  not 
in  the  development  of  it,  than  the  Jews  and  christians. 

I  am  taught  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  to  omit  nothing  in  a  general  recapit- 
ulation, at  least  of  his  failures  to  notice  my  issues  and  arguments.  Many 
present  will  recollect  the  capital  he  made  out  of  my  omission  to  notice  a  few 
specifications  oi  baptizo  in  his  concluding  speech  on  Saturday  night.  My 
not  showing  to  his  satisfaction  how  Judith,  in  the  Apocrypha,  bathed  in 
the  camp,  at  a  fountain  of  water;  and  of  how  litde  profit  a  bath  was  to 
Sirach's  legally  unclean  person,  if  afterwards  he  touched  a  dead  body ; 
and  how  a  plaster  could  be  dipped  in  breast-milk,  in  the  days  of  Hippoc- 
rates, who  also  commanded  the  same  preparation  to  be  dipped  in  white 
Egyptian  oil,  and  flies  into  the  oil  of  roses!  Because  I  omitted  to  honor 
these,  and  some  other  matters   equally  minute  and  insignificant,  with  a 


428  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

formal  notice  and  refutation,  a  matter  to  which  a  school-boy  is  competent, 
the  gentleman  mustered  them  in  his  final  cloud  of  witnesses,  of  his  tri- 
umpliant  refutation  of  immersion !  I  do  not  say,  however,  that  I  shall 
follow  his  example,  in  attending  to  matters  eqiially  minute  and  irrelevant, 
when  I  state  the  fact,  that  in  no  one  case  in  the  discussion  of  this  propo- 
sition, would  the  gentleman  meet  mc  on  any  issue  tendered  bv  me — such 
as  circumcision  a  seal  to  Abraham  ;  the  holy  children  of  parents  not  both 
in  the  church;  household  baptism;  baptism  in  room  of  circumcision; 
and  most  of  all  remarkable,  the  precept  for  rejecting,  or  casting  out  from 
a  church  relation,  the  children  of  the  flesh.  After  so  many  demands  and 
vauntings  on  that  subject,  that  the  gentleman  should  have  been  so  per- 
fectly confounded  with  the  case  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael,  and  the  precept 

"  TO    CAST    OUT    THE    OLD    COVENANT,  AND    THE    CHILDREN    UNDER    IT,"   aS 

never  to  presume  to  reply  to  it,  is  really  no  ordinary  occurrence  in  de- 
bate. Had  he  made  any  pretence  to  answer  it,  it  would  not  have  been 
quite  so  singular.  But  to  have  passed  it  in  total  silence,  must  have  no 
little  surprised  you  all.  The  fact  was,  in  this  case,  most  triumphantly 
established  ;  viz.  that  those  born  merely  of  the  Jlesh,  shall  not  associate 
nor  inherit  with  those  born  of  the  Spirit.  This  is  the  law  of  the  chris- 
tian dispensation. 

But  I  was  not  content  to  show  that  his  attempt  to  make  out  identity 
was  abortive  in  the  aggregate  and  in  the  detail ;  that  his  logic  proved  too 
much  for  him  in  all  cases.  But  I  gave  an  induction  of  particular  proofs, 
that  the  christian  church  is  a  new  institution. 

Amongst  those  proofs  were  the  following: 

1.  According  to  the  last  chapter  of  Malachi,  and  the  ministry  of  John 
the  Baptist,  "  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  or  the  Jewish  institution,  was 
to  continue  only  till  the  preaching  of  John.  "  The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  your  instructors  until  John,"  said  Jesus,  "  but  now  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it,"  Matt,  xi.,  Luke 
xvi.  16. 

2.  God  promised,  through  Isaiah,  chap,  xxviii.  16,  to  lay  a  new  foun- 
dation for  that  glorious  church,  which,  according  to  the  predictions  read 
from  the  prophets  by  Mr.  Rice,  God  was  to  bring  out  of  the  seed,  the 
nucleus,  in  the  Jewish  kingdom.  That  promise  is  "  Behold  I  lay  in 
Zion,  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a 
sure  foundation.  He  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste."  The  gen- 
tleman cannot  see  that  all  the  glorious  things  spoken  by  the  prophets 
concerning  the  building  of  the  church,  and  the  calling  of  the  gentiles, 
that  the  enlargement  of  the  church  of  which  he  spoke,  all  these  splen- 
did things  have  their  foundation  intimated  here  and  in  other  similar  pas- 
sages. The  foundation  stone  of  this  new  institution  God  would  bring 
out  of  the  old  Zion.     So  says  Daniel. 

3.  In  the  days  of  the  Roman  empire,  or  of  its  kings,  according  to  Dan- 
iel, God  promised  to  set  up  a  kingdom.  "In  those  days,"  said  he, 
"  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom."  Of  course  it  could  not 
be  the  Jewish;  for  that  had  been  set  up  nine  hundred  years  before  Dan- 
iel was  born. 

4.  On  hearing  Peter's  confession,  Matt,  xvi.,  Jesus  promised  he  would 
build  his  church  upon  it.  This  was  the  foundation  laid  in  Zion,  on 
which  the  christian  church  was  then  about  to  commence.  How  the  gentle- 
man slurred  over,  and  passed  by  these  great  arguments,  you  have,  doubt- 
less, all  observed. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM.  429 

5.  Paul  says,  the  church  is  "  builded  on  the  foundation  of  apostles 
and  prophets."  Who  were  the  apostles,  and  who  the  prophets  on  which 
the  Jewish  church  Avas  builded  ?  Is  not  this  as  clear  as  demonstration 
itself,  that  the  Jewish  institution  and  the  Christian  church  are  not 
identical  ? 

6.  Paul  taught  the  Ephesians,  and  other  christians,  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  then  making  a  new  man,  a  new  body  ;  by  uniting  believing  Jews 
and  Gentiles  in  one  grand  association.  This  was,  itself,  a  reason  for 
changing  the  covenant  of  peculiarity,  and  instituting  a  new  initiation,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  for  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

7.  Hence,  the  New  Testament  commences  with  the  proclamation  of 
a  new  institution — a  new  church;  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
kand."  Was  this  the  Mosaic  institution  that  was  now  coming!  As  before 
showfi,  we  must  conclude,  that  "  The  church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  society 
of  faithful  men  and  women,  compactly  united  as  one  body  in  Christ  Je- 
sus— having  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  spirit,  one  hope,  one 
and  the  same  God  and  Father  ;"  a  new  society  that  began  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  never  before. 

8.  I  have  also  shown,  from  the  11th  Romans,  from  the  figure  of  the 
olive-tree,  that  the  manner  of  incorporation,  or  bond  of  union,  in  the 
christian  church,  is  radically  and  essentially  new  ;  that  faith  is  substituted 
for  flesh,  and  that  the  natural  branches  are  broken  off— every  one  broken 
off";  and  that  Gentiles  and  Jews  are  now  grafted  by  faith,  and  both  stand 
by  faith. 

9.  But  not  to  be  tedious  on  this  head — we  farther  demonstrated,  that,  if 
the  two  institutions  had  been,  as  they  certainly  are  not,  identical,  still  it 
was  compatible  with  Mr.  Rice's  own  notions  of  political  and  ecclesias- 
tic identity  to  change  the  right  of  suffrage,  the  whole  law  of  naturali- 
zation. 

10.  Was  it  not  shown,  from  Acts  xv.,  that  the  idea  of  baptism  comiug 
in  room  of  circumcision  was  never  thought  of  in  the  apostolic  age  ? 

11.  And  was  it  not  fully  demonstrated,  from  Acts  xxi.,  that  the  Jews, 
with  apostolic  approbation,  continued  to  circumcise  their  children  during 
the  apostolic  age  1  A  fact  that  flatly  contradicts  and  nullifies  the  whole 
Pedo-baptist  assumption,  that  "  circumcision  is  done  away,  and  baptism 
come  in  room  of  it."  To  these  last  facts  Mr.  Rice  prudently  made  no 
response. 

But  to  conclude,  as  I  have  not  time  to  recapitulate  and  notice  every 
tiling,  Avhen  urged  that  none  were  to  be  baptized  but  disciples,  Mr.  Rice 
found  an  infant  disciple,  of  eight  days  old,  in  the  fact,  that  Peter  asked 
the  Judaizers  why  they  should  "  tempt  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  necks 
of  the  disciples ;"  this  yoke  Mr.  R.  supposed  to  be  circumcision,  al- 
though we  are  told,  Acts  xv.  5.,  it  was  "  the  law  of  Moses."  The  law 
of  Moses  was  the  yoke,  and  not  circumcision,  which  neither  they  nor 
their  fathers,  as  7nen,  and  not  as  babes,  could  endure.  In  refutation  of 
4II  such  fallacious  hypothesis,  from  the  commission  itself  it  was  shown, 
ihat  infants  are  positively  prohibited  from  baptism,  inasmuch  as  all  com- 
missions, laws,  and  statutes,  specifying  qualifications  for  any  office  or 
privilege,  positively  exclude  all  persons  not  so  possessed :  as,  for  exam- 
ple, the  law  requiring  a  properly  qualification  in  order  to  suff'rage,  by 
making  such  a  requisition,  prohibits  all  persons  from  that  right  not  pos- 
sessed of  such  qualifications.  Faith,  then,  being,  in  any  case,  required 
ia  order  to  baptism,  not  only  according  to  a  fair  construction  of  the  com- 


430  DEBATE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

mission,  as  reported  by  all  the  evangelists,  but  also  in  particular  cases— as 
in  the  case  of  the  eunuch — positively  inhibits  infants  and  untaught  per- 
sons from  christian  baptism.  Not  having,  then,  precept  or  precedent  for 
infant  baptism,  nor  any  fact  to  support  it,  may  we  not  conclude  with  Ne- 
ander,  that — "It  is  certain  Jesus  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism?" 

Had  I  time,  I  should  have  spoken  a  few  things  on  the  degrading  and 
enslaving  tendencies  of  infant  baptism,  as  respects  the  subject  of  it  in  af- 
ter life ;  but  I  see  my  time  is  more  than  expired. 

Mr.  Rice.     May  I  be  permitted  to  ask  a  question  ? 

Mr.  Campbell.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Rice.  I  wish  to  ask,  whether  my  friend  has  not  published  that 
Ireneus  means  baptism  when  he  uses  the  word  regeneration  ? 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  believe  that  the  word  regeneration  was  used  both 
before  and  after  Ireneus,  as  equivalent  to  baptisrn, ;  but  whether,  in  this 
case,  it  does  certainly  so  mean,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove.  Still, 
tliat  the  fathers,  as  they  are  called,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  did  generally 
so  use  the  word,  I  believe.  TertuUian,  hoAvever,  who  lived  after  Irene- 
us, some  twenty  years,  is  the  first  person  known  on  earth  who  ever  men- 
tioned infant  baptism. 

[By  permission  of  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Rice  now  read  the  following 
extract  from  the  Milennial  Harbinger,  vol.  ii.  Extra,  pp.  28,  29.] 

"  In  my  debate  with  Mr.  Walker  and  Mr.  McCalla,  1  objected  to  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  word  regenerated  for  immerse,  in  the  extract  from  Ireneus, 
and  other  of  the  primitive  fathers,  as  they  are  called,  on  the  ground  of  their 
not  being  exactly  representatives  of  the  same  ideas  universally.  I  admit- 
ted that  sometimes  they  used  the  word  regenerated  for  baptized,  but  not  al- 
ways ;  and,  indeed,  not  at  all,  ia  the  popular  sense  of  regenerated.  Well, 
now  it  comes  to  pass,  that  I  represent  all  the  primitive  fathers  as  using 
the  term  regenerated  as  equivalent  to  the  term  baptized.  All  this  is  true ; 
and  what  thenl  Why,  at  that  time  I  used  the  word  regenerated  as  expres- 
sive of  a  spiritual  change,  and  found  that  these  fathers  spoke  of  a  spiritual 
change  as  well  as  we.  I  could  not  therefore  reconcile  this  to  the  exclusive 
application  of  the  term  regenerated  to  the  act  of  immersion  ;  but  on  a  more 
accurate  and  strict  exajninalion  of  their  ivritings,  and  of  the  use  of  this  term 
ill  the  JVew  Testament,  I  am  assured  that  they  used  the  term,  regenerated 
as  equivalent  to  immersion,  and  spoke  of  the  spiritual  change  iinder  other 
terms  and  modes  of  speech,^''  &lc. 

Mr.  Rice,  my  friends,  will  have  the  last  word ;  affirmative  or  negative, 
he  must  have  the  last  word.  Now  this  is  all  for  effect.  There  is  no- 
thing in  it  whatever.  Suppose  I  admit  that  all  the  fathers,  from  Justin 
Martyr  down  to  Theodoret,  423,  used  baptism  and  regeneration  as  sy- 
nonymous, and  Ireneus  generally  with  the  others,  though  he  lived  A.  D. 
178  ;  Avhat  does  it  prove  in  the  case  before  us  ?  That  infant  baptism  is  a 
Divine  institution ;  because  it  is  probable,  even  certain,  that  Ireneus  re- 
ferred to  it,  under  another  name,  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  !— 
[Time  expired. 


[end  of  the  second  proposition.] 


PROPOSITION    THIRD. 

Christian  Baptism  is  for  the  Remission  of  Past  Sins.     Mr 
Campbell  affirms.     Mr.  Rice  denies. 

Thursday,  Nov.  23—10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President — and  fellow-citizens:  the  subject  before  us  this  morn- 
ing, I  regard  as  the  most  important  of  any  that  has  yet  occupied  our  at- 
tention :  it  is  the  design  of  baptism.  It  must  be  obvious  to  all,  on  the 
slightest  reflection,  that  the  importance  of  right  views  on  the  action  and 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  depends  wholly  on  the  design  and  meaning  of 
the  ordinance  :  but  still,  in  order  to  secure  its  great  and  manifold  advantages, 
it  behooves  all,  as  accountable  agents,  to  proceed  intelligently,  with  refer- 
ence both  to  its  action,  subject  and  design.  Having  seen  the  action  of 
christian  baptism  in  immersion;  the  subject  of  it,  in  the  penitent  believer; 
we  shall  proceed  to  consider  its  design,  which,  we  say,  is  for  the  remis- 
sion of  past  sii^s.  These  are  the  terms  of  the  proposition  before  us,  to 
which  we  respectfully  invite  your  attention. 

Baptism  is  a  divine  institution ;  and,  like  all  other  divine  institutions,  it 
is  both  wise  and  good.  It  is  wise ;  because  it  secures  some  end  which 
could  not  have  been  secured  so  well  without  it.  It  is  good  ;  because  it 
tends  to  human  happiness.  These  two  attributes  must  belong  to  baptism, 
because  they  belong  to  the  institution  of  Christianity,  which  is  both  wise 
and  good  in  the  aggregate,  and  consequently,  in  all  its  parts.  But  these 
attributes  belong  to  all  divine  institutions.  Nature,  in  all  its  innumerable 
systems — in  all  its  primary  and  secondary  ordinances — is  one  vast  sys- 
tem of  benevolent  and  wise  adaptations,  the  supreme  end  of  which  is  the 
happiness  of  sentient,  intelligent  and  moral  beings. 

It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  gain  the  greatest  and  best  results  in  the 
shortest  possible  time,  and  by  the  fewest  and  most  simple  means.  This, 
and  this  only,  is  wisdom.  It  is  the  part  of  benevolence  to  diffuse  as  much 
good  over  the  largest  field  of  existence,  and  for  the  longest  duration  pos- 
sible, and  compatible  with  the  fountain  whence  it  emanates.  We  must, 
therefore,  regard  every  means  employed,  or  every  ordinance  of  God  (for 
all  means  are  ordinances,  and  all  ordinances  are  means)  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  system,  without  which  it  would  have  been  deficient — conse- 
quendy  imperfect. 

Our  mundane  system  needs  a  moon  as  well  as  a  sun.  It  needs  the 
companionship  of  six  planets,  to  give  it,  not  merely  the  number  of  per- 
fection, but  the  perfection  of  adaptation.  Destroy  any  one  of  these, 
and  philosophy  with  her  ten  thousand  tongues  would  proclaim  the  ex- 
tinction of  our  race.  Take  away  the  atmosphere,  the  water,  the  light, 
the  caloric,  the  electricity — take  away  any  of  these,  and  leave  all  the 
others,  and  who  of  all  mankind  would  live  to  report  the  disastrous  con- 
sequences ! 

431 


432  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

From  all  the  realms  of  nature,  then,  we  must  infer  that  there  is  no  re- 
dundancy, no  superfluity  in  any  divine  system,  and  especially  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual,  which  is  the  highest  and  best  of  all.  Baptism  is,  therefore, 
as  essential  to  Christianity,  as  the  moon  is  to  our  earth,  or  as  the  ocean 
is  to  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms.  In  saying  that  any  one  ordi- 
nance is  essential  to  the  perfection  of  any  one  system,  as  some  other 
ordinance  is  to  the  perfection  of  some  other  system,  we  do  not,  however, 
mean  to  say,  that  these  ordinances  severally  occupy  exactly  the  same 
place  in  their  respective  systems  :  only  that  they  are  each  equally  indis- 
pensible  to  the  system  of  which  they  are  each  an  integral  part.  Baptism 
is  therefore  essential  to  Christianity,  were  we  to  reason  only  from  the 
analogies  of  all  the  systems  that  comprise  one  grand  universe.  But  the 
precept  of  Jesus  Christ  alone,  gives  it  essentiality,  authority,  and  value, 
without  any  other  consideration  whatever.  He  has  solemnly  and  expli- 
citly commanded  faith,  repentance  and  baptism  to  be  preached,  in  his  name, 
to  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem. 

He  has  commanded  it  [baptism]  to  be  preached  for  some  specific  end- 
That  end  is  clearly  stated,  and  often  alluded  to,  in  the  gospel  of  the  king>- 
dom  over  which  Jesus  reigns,  and  in  which  alone  the  hope  of  immortal- 
ity flourishes.  We  have  but  three,  or  perhaps  at  most  four,  authentic  res- 
cords  of  the  commission  authorising  this  institution.  We  shall  compare 
them,  and  compare  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand. 

Matthew  reports  only  the  things  to  be  done  by  the  apostles,  in  estab- 
lishing the  church.  "  Go,  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  The 
things  commanded  them  to  teach  are  not  developed  here  ;  nor  is  the  end 
of  any  one  of  the  duties  prescribed  so  much  as  named. 

Mark  expresses  it  differently:  "  Go  you  into  all  the  world,  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature."  This  does  not  indicate  what  the  elements  of 
the  gospel  are.  It,  however,  adds,  that  the  reception  of  it  will  save  every 
one.  The  reception  of  the  gospel  is  thus  expressed  :  "  He  that  believetb 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  Unbelief,  or  a  rejection  of  it,  secures 
condemnation.  A  belief  of  it,  and  baptism  into  it,  secures  salvation.  Sio 
the  Evangelist  Mark  represents  it. 

Luke  gives  the  substance  of  the  commission  in  his  own  words.  He 
mentions  neither  gospel,  nor  faith,  nor  baptism,  but  simply  says,  "  Hb 
commanded  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  to  be  preached,  in  his  name, 
among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  Repentance  and  remission 
of  sins,  with  him,  then,  stand  for  the  whole  gospel — for  the  faith  and  bap- 
tism of  the  Evangelist  Mark.  Repentance  is,  however,  but  the  adjunct 
of  faith,  as  the  remission  of  sins  is  of  baptism.  In  preaching  repentance 
and  remission,  according  to  Luke,  the  apostle  must  therefore  have  preach- 
ed faith,  repentance,  baptism,  and  remission ;  for  all  these  terms,  or  their 
equivalents,  are  found  in  the  three  versions  of  the  commission  now  quoted. 

There  remains  yet  the  testimony  of  John  the  aposfle.  It  is  more  con- 
centrated and  laconic  than  any  of  the  preceding.  I  shall  read  the  whole 
passage.  John  xx.  21 — 23:  On  one  occasion,  Jesus  (after  he  aros^ 
from  the  dead)  said  to  the  apostles,  "Peace  be  to  you  :  as  my  Father  cont- 
missioned  me,  so  I  commission  you."  Having  spoken  these  words,  he 
immediately  breathed  on  them,  saying,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Spirit."  Then 
he  added,  "  Whose  sins  soever  you  remit,  they  are  remitted ;  and  whose 
sins  soever  you  retain,  they  are  retained."     They  were,  then,  evangelic- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  433 

ally  to  remit  sins  and  to  retain  them.     How  this  was  clone,  the  history  of 
the  apostles,  after  the  descent  of  ihe  Holy  Spirit,  must  explain. 

Guided,  then,  by  the  four  evanjrelists,  as  they  have  placed  the  commis- 
sion before  us,  we  shall  open  the  Acts  of  Apostles,  and  attempt  a  special 
analysis  of  the  first  gospel  sermon,  reported  by  Doctor  Luke  in  his  Acts 
of  the  Apostles. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  analysis,  with  a  special  reference  to  this  grand 
commission,  amplified  and  spread  out  before  us  verbally,  by  these  inspired 
promulgers  of  the  christian  system,  we  are  called  upon  to  state  the  reason 
why  so  much  stress  ought  to  be  placed  upon  the  second  chapter  of  the 
A(?ls — upon  the  day  of  Pentecost — upon  Peter's  sermon — and  upon  the 
other  scenes  and  transactions  of  that  day.  This  is  all  important  to  the  due 
appreciation  of  the  argument  to  be  deduced  from  this  portion  of  the  in- 
spired documents  which  constitute  our  premises  in  this  argument. 

The  three  divine  institutions,  of  nature,  of  law,  and  of  gospel,  have 
each  a  commencement  homogeneous  with  itself.  To  commence  any  in- 
stitution, and  to  continue  it,  are  very  different  manifestations  of  divinity. 
Creation  and  Providence,  are,  therefore,  different  developments  of  the 
divine  Father.  Hence,  the  glory  of  God  as  Creator,  Lawgiver,  and  Re- 
deemer, appears  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  institutions  of  nature,  of 
law,  and  of  gospel.  From  nature  we  learn  wisdom,  power  and  goodness; 
from  law,  justice,  truth  and  holiness;  from  gospel,  mercy,  condescension, 
and  love;  from  all  these,  the  eternity,  immutability,  and  infinity  of  God. 
The  brightest  display  of  each  class  of  perfections  was  seen  in  the  setting 
up  of  these  three  grand  dispensations. 

The  morning  stars  sang  together,  and  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy 
on  witnessing  the  first.  Mount  Sinai,  the  theatre  of  the  second,  sur- 
rounded by  three  millions  of  Jews,  displayed  the  fearful  grandeur  and  aw- 
ful majesty  of  the  second.  Jerusalem,  filled  with  the  pentecostal  conven- 
tion of  the  world,  with  the  litUe  family  of  Christ  hailing  the  resurrection 
morn,  saw  the  superlative  displays  of  the  spirit  of  holiness  and  of  grace 
on  opening  the  new  administration  of  the  remedial  system. 

Jesus  himself  inhibited  the  removal  of  the  apostles  from  their  own  me- 
tropolis— from  the  scenes  of  his  humiliation  and  death — till  they  were  en- 
dowed with  power  from  on  high — till,  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
endowed  with  all  manner  of  supernatural  aids,  they  could,  in  good  keep- 
ing with  the  genius  and  character  of  the  reign  of  grace,  set  forth  the  supeF- 
lative  excellencies  and  claims  of  the  evangelical  administration. 

The  time  when,  the  place  where,  and  the  persons  by  whom  this  new 
and  transcendantly  glorious  display  of  the  whole  divinity  should  be  de- 
veloped, had  been  the  subject  of  prophecy,  both  verbal  and  typical.  The 
clear  and  luminous  Micah,  the  evangelical  Isaiah,  had,  some  seven  centu- 
ries before  Messiah  was  born,  explicitly  declared,  in  immediate  reference 
to  his  time,  "  That  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of 
the  Lord  from  Jei'usalem."  That  these  predictions,  (uttered  Isa.  ii.,  Mic. 
iv.,)  had  respect  to  the  commencement  of  the  new  reign,  Jesus  himself, 
the  great  Expositor,  clearly  intimates  in  his  conversation  after  his  resur- 
rection. "  Thus,"  says  he,  "  it  is  written,  (in  the  prophets  already  alluded 
to,)  and  thus  it  behooved  the  Messiah  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead 
the  third  day,  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginnins;  at  Jeritsalem.^^ 

Jerusalem  was  then  the  place  where  the  new  law  was  to  commence. 
And  as  to  the  time,  it  was  to  be  in  the  last  days  of  the  Jewish  state,  as 
28  2  0 


434  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  same  prophets  declare.  The  interval  between  the  passover  and  the 
giving  of  the  Jewish  law,  is  more  especially  prophetic  of  the  precise  time 
of  the  promulgation  of  the  new  law.  The  passover  was  certainly  a  type 
of  Christ's  death.  So  the  apostles  distinctly  represented  it.  The  giv- 
ing of  the  Jewish  law  succeeded  that  sacrifice  on  the  fortieth  day.  The 
Lord  descended  on  that  day  to  Mount  Sinai,  and  spake  in  mortal  ears  all 
the  words  of  that  law  of  piety  and  morality  which  became  the  covenant, 
or  constitution,  of  the  typical  nation.  The  promulgation  of  that  law  occa- 
sioned the  death  of  three  thousand  persons.  Now,  Jesus  died  at  the  time 
of  the  passover  sacrifice  :  he  arose  on  the  third  day ;  he  ascended  on  the 
forty-third  day ;  and  in  one  week,  and  on  the  first  day  of  that  week,  the 
Spirit  descended  and  spake  the  new  law  before  the  world — which  occa- 
sioned the  salvation  from  death  of  three  thousand  persons.  No  typical 
prophecy  in  the  Bible,  received  a  more  exact  accomplishment  in  its  anti- 
type than  this  one.  Besides,  Jesus  himself  foretold,  before  he  left  the 
earth,  that  in  a  few  days  he  would  send  the  Spirit  down  and  introduce 
the  new  kingdom. 

The  person  by  whom  this  new  age  was  to  be  introduced  was  undoubt- 
edly Peter.  The  Messiah,  to  sanction  his  confession  of  faith,  and  to 
communicate  it  to  all  men  in  all  ages,  promised  to  him  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  that  he  should  open  it,  and  remit  and  retain  sins  with 
all  authority.  His  words  are,  (Matt,  xvi.)  "  He  saith  unto  them.  But  who 
say  ye  that  I  am  ?  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said.  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jonah :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
this  unto  you,  but  my  father  which  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  unto  you,  that 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  you  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  you  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  you  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven."  Again — Jesus  makes  another  promise  indicative  of  ihe  same 
commencement  of  his  kingdom.  (Acts  i.)  "  You  shall  receive  power 
after  the  Holy  Spirit  is  come  upon  you  ;  and  you  shall  be  witnesses  for 
me  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  to  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth."  Are  we  not,  therefore,  by  the  highest  authority,  con- 
strained to  look  to  Jerusalem,  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  the  apostle  Pe- 
ter, to  understand  what  the  new  law  is  ;  what  the  gospel  means  ;  and 
how  sins  are  to  be  remitted  to  men  of  all  nations  during  the  present  ad- 
ministration ?  No  wonder,  then,  that  we  have  given  a  new  emphasis  to 
the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  inasmuch  as  the  Messiah 
and  his  prophets  send  us  to  Jerusalem,  to  Pentecost,  and  to  Peter  for  the 
law  of  remission.  Can  we,  then,  possibly  err  in  regarding  Peter's  ser- 
mon as  the  opening  speech  of  the  gospel  age  ?  We  must,  then,  examine 
it  with  the  greatest  care.  The  synopsis  given  of  it  by  Luke  is  very 
brief,  yet  it  gives  the  great  points.  These  are  the  death  of  the  Messiah, 
his  resurrection,  ascension,  and  glorification,  with  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  These  five  points  are  all  set  in  a  clear,  distinct  and  authoritative 
form  before  the  great  assembly.  By  the  revelations  of  that  day,  three 
thousand  are  convinced  of  sin,  righteousness  and  judgment ;  and,  with 
the  most  intense  and  agonizing  interest  and  feeling,  inquire  what  they 
shall  do  under  the  new  aspects  opened  to  their  consideration.  The  an- 
swer given  is  such  a  one  as  would  have  been  given  to  the  whole  world, 
had  it  been  present  and  united  in  the  all-engrossing  question  propound- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  435 

ed.  It  is  the  gospel  in  its  preceptive  form,  with  its  promises  amiexed. 
Having  ah-eady  believed  the  facts  stated — the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Twelve,  sustained  by  the  demonstration  of  the  Holy  Spirit — the  impera- 
tives uttered  by  Peter,  fore-ordained  to  open  the  nevv^  reign,  indicate  al' 
that  was  necessary  to  be  done  to  secure  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  and 
resurrection — pardon,  justification,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  answer, 
given  by  Peter,  (Oh  that  it  were  written  in  all  languages,  and  proclaimed 
in  every  human  ear,  with  all  the  authority  of  apostles  and  prophets,)  was 
in  these  words:  "  Reform  and  be  immersed,  every  one  of  you,  in  the 

NAME  OF  THE  LoRD  JeSUS,  FOR  THE    REMISSION    OF    SINS,  AND    YOU    SHALL 

RECEIVE  THE  GIFT  OF  THE  HoLY  SpiRiT."  To  encourage  them,  he  adds, 
"  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  posterity,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  This  is,  when 
fully  and  intelligently  considered,  a  synopsis  of  the  whole  evangelical 
economy.  It  is  based  on  three  facts  which  transpired  on  earth — the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  Messiah ;  and  on  three  facts  which 
transpired  afterwards — his  ascension,  coronation,  and  reception  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  lor  the  consummation  of  the  objects  of  his  reign.  The  pre- 
cepts are  also  three — believe,  repent,  and  be  baptized.  The  promises 
are  three — remission  of  sins,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  eternal  life.  This 
classification  is  not  merely  to  assist  the  memory,  (though  in  tliat  point  of 
view  it  is  invaluable,)  but  simply  and  clearly  to  set  forth  the  facts,  the 
precepts,  and  the  promises  of  the  evangelical  system.  It  is,  therefore,  an 
admirable  opening  speech.  I  only  wonder  tiiat  a  thousand  volumes,  in 
this  book-making  age,  have  not  been  written  upon  it.  "  With  many  other 
words,"  indeed,  than  those  written  here,  we  are  informed  that  Peter  "  testi- 
fied and  exhorted,  saying.  Save  yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation." 

A  precept  in  this  discourse  is  the  subject  of  my  proposition — "^e 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins."  We,  of  course,  presume  that  the 
person  so  commanded,  has  believed  and  repented.  Peter  connects  these 
two  in  the  precept — Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  Hence  I  argue,  that,  what  God  has  joined  together, 
man  ought  not  to  separate.  If,  upon  any  other  subject  in  the  world,  a 
precept  of  this  plainness  were  promulged,  all  men,  methinks,  would  in- 
terpret it  as  I  have  done.  AVere  a  physician  asked  by  a  rheumatic  inva- 
lid. What  shall  I  do  to  be  healed  ?  and  the  physician  should  answer,  Go 
to  the  Virginia  AVhite  Sulphur  Springs,  drink  of  the  waters  and  bathe  in 
them,  for  the  removal  of  your  pains,  and  you  shall  enjoy  a  renovated  con- 
stitution ;  would  not  such  a  patient  rationally  conclude  that  it  were  neces- 
sary not  only  to  drink  the  water,  but  to  bathe  also,  in  order  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  remission  of  his  pains,  and  that  the  reception  of  a  renovated 
constitution  would  be  the  consequence  of  his  obedience  ?  Some  of  our 
ardent  opponents,  indeed,  in  the  blindness  of  their  zeal,  have  said,  that  it 
ought  to  be  read,  because  your  sins  are  remitted.  But,  in  the  case  before 
us,  would  not  the  people  laugh  the  doctor  to  scorn,  who  should  say  to 
the  aforesaid  invalid.  Go  to  the  White  Sulphur  Springs  and  drink  the 
water,  and  bathe  in  it,  because  your  pains  are  remitted?  But,  perliaps  my 
respondent  may  devise  some  better  way  of  disposing  of  the  difficulty,  and 
I  shall  not  anticipate  him. 

Peter,  then,  as  we  conclude,  like  an  honest  man,  spake  just  as  the 
Spirit  gave  him  utterance  ;  and  expressed,  in  a  plain,  unfigurative  style, 
such  as  a  popular  audience  of  several  thousand  couUi  comprehend,  what 
ought  to  be  done  by  those  that  heard  him  declare  the  glorious  fact,  that 


436  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

God  had  raised  the  crucified  Messiah  to  the  throne  of  the  universe.  He 
commanded  them  to  repent,  and  be  baptized,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  single  passage,  when  duly  estimated,  is, 
of  itself,  enough  to  establish  the  affirmation  I  have  made  of  the  design  of 
baptism.  I  am  sustained  by  the  identical  words  of  holy  writ.  True,  I 
have  inserted  one  word,  and  but  one,  among  the  words  that  Peter  spake  ; 
but  that  word  was  not  inserted  to  obviate  a  mistake.  Some  have  af- 
firmed, that,  like  John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  Presbyterianism,  we  preached 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  future  sins,  as  well  as  for  the  remission  of 
past  sins.  That  I  might  not,  then,  be  regarded  as  a  genuine  Presbyter- 
ian, of  the  pure,  primitive,  Calvinistic  school,  I  inserted  the  word  past. 
My  learned  Calvinian  opponent  has  taken  the  negative  in  some  sense  ; 
or,  perliaps,  he  only  means  to  advocate  pure,  ancient,  uncorrupted  Calvin- 
ism, by  denying  that  the  virtue  of  baptism  is  only  retrospective — he  affirm- 
ing that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  all  sins,  past,  present,  and  future. 

He  [Mr.  Kice]  can,  as  a  christian  man,  only  demur  at  the  word  past } 
for,  if  that  word  were  expunged,  my  proposition  is  then  expressed  in  the 
identical  words  of  the  king's  own  version — a  version  completed  by  forty- 
.seven  good,  learned,  pious,  Episcopalians.  We  command  inquiring  pen- 
itents, in  the  very  words  of  Peter,  "  Be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins:"  in  doing  which,  we 
exactly  conform  to  the  very  words  of  inspiration.  Our  proposition,  then, 
is  incontrovertibly  true ;  provided  only,  Peter  knew  what  he  said,  and 
said  what  he  meant. 

My  second  argument  is  deduced  from  Mark's  version  of  the  commis- 
sion— "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved" — taken  in 
connection  with  Peter's  response  to  the  thousands  in  Jemsalem.  These 
passages  mutually  explain  each  other.  Here  is  given  to  baptism  a  most 
imposing  character.  Along  with  faith,  and  as  the  adjunct  of  faith,  it 
saves  penitents.  That  it  has  power  to  save  one  from  any  thing  else  than 
sins,  is  not  to  be  imagined :  inasmuch  as  Ave  have  three  distinct  salvations 
expressed  in  the  Bible — the  first,  a  salvation  of  the  body  from  the  ills 
and  evils,  the  accidents  and  dangers  of  this  life ;  the  second,  a  salvation 
of  the  soul,  from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin  ;  the  third,  a  salvation  of 
both  body  and  soul — of  the  whole  man  in  heaven  forever. 

Now,  the  salvation  of  the  soul  being  distinguished  from  the  salvation 
of  the  body,  and  from  the  eternal  salvation  of  tiie  whole  man,  must  simply 
indicate  the  remission  of  sin,  its  guilt  and  its  pollution.  And  so  it  would 
seem  that  Peter  and  Mark  must  have  been  guided  by  the  same  spirit,  in 
expressing  the  mind  of  Christ  under  the  remedial  economy  :  the  latter, 
by  connecting  it  with  salvation,  and  the  other,  with  remission  of  sins 
This  harmonizing  of  the  two  witnesses,  leaches  the  true  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, to  wit :  that  a  saved  man  is  one  whose  sins  are  pardoned.  To 
say,  then,  that  a  sinner  is  saved,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  is  par- 
doned. He  that  is  pardoned,  is  saved ;  and  he  that  is  saved,  is  pardoned. 
But,  whether  the  saved  person  shall  hold  fast  his  begun  confidence  un- 
shaken to  the  end,  and  finally  obtain  the  salvation  to  be  revealed  when 
the  Lord  comes,  depends  not  upon  faith,  repentance,  or  baptism,  but  upon 
-'  yielding  the  fruits  of  holiness,  and  thus  having  tlie  end  everlasting  life." 
Luke  so  used  the  word  saved,  when  closing  the  narration  of  the  christian 
Pentecost.  "And,"  says  he,  "the  Lord  added  daily  the  saved  to  the 
congi-egated."  The  saved  were  those  who  had  confessed  their  sins,  had 
repented,  and  were  baptized. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  437 

My  third  argument  is  derived  from  the  fact,  that  the  baptism  of  John, 
as  well  as  that  of  the  Messiali,  was  connected  witli  the  remission  of  sins. 
So  reads  the  divine  testimony — "  In  tliese  days  came  John  the  Baptist — 
preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Nor  is 
this  the  peculiar  style  of  John  Mark.  Luke,  also,  speaks  of  the  design 
of  John's  baptism  in  almost  identical  words.  He  says,  "  And  he  came 
into  the  country  bordering  on  the  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance foi  the  remission  of  sins,"  (iii.  3.)  Again  ;  that  John's  baptism  had 
special  reference  to  remission,  appears  from  the  fact  recorded  by  Matthew, 
"All  Judea  and  Jerusalem  were  baptized  by  him,  confessing  their 
sins.^^  The  confession  of  sins  amongst  the  Jews  was  necessary  to  remis- 
sion ;  and  generally  enjoined  with  special  reference  to  it.  When  the  ad- 
ministrator baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  subject  received 
baptism  confessing  his  sins,  have  we  not  reason  to  believe  that  sins  were 
pardoned  in  the  act  of  baptism? 

A  certain  prediction  concerning  this  extraordinary  minister,  uttered  by 
his  father  about  the  time  of  his  circumcision,  is,  of  itself,  sufficient  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion,  that  the  ministry  of  John  had  peculiar  reference  to 
some  new  doctrine  of  remission.  What  could  be  more  pointedly  said  to 
communicate  that  impression,  than  the  following  words?  "And  thou, 
child,  shall  be  called  the  Prophet  of  the  Highest;  for  thou  shall  go  before 
the  Lord  to  prepare  his  way — to  give  knowledge  of  salvation  to  his  peo- 
ple in  the  remission  of  their  sins."  Literally,  it  reads — the  knowledge  of 
salvation  in  the  remission  of  their  sins.  That  this  refers  to  baptism  is  not 
only  evident  to  my  mind,  from  my  own  reasoning,  but  it  is  the  judgment 
of  our  most  profound  critics  and  authors,  of  marginal  readings  and  refer- 
ences. Mill  and  Wetsten  on  tliese  words  refer  to  Mark  i.  4:  and  to 
Luke  iii.  3,  which  we  have  belbre  quoted.  So  do  various  versions  hav- 
ing references. 

In  this  way  John's  baptism  prepared  the  way  for  that  of  the  Messiah. 
Again;  this  is  the  peculiar  distinction  between  the  new  salvation,  and  the 
ancient  salvations,  most  usual  among  the  sons  of  Abraham.  Their  deliv- 
erance was  from  temporal  grievances,  and  from  the  tyranny  of  oppressive 
enemies;  but  the  new  salvation  of  the  gospel  is  a  salvation  consisting  pri- 
marily of  the  actual,  real,  and  personal  remission  of  sins.  Hence,  John's 
baptism  was  for  the  remission  of  sins.  That  there  should  be  a  more  se-n- 
sible,  evident,  and  satisfactory  remission  of  sins  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, and  that  baptism  is  an  ordinance  especially  designed  for  that  pur- 
pose, will  appear  still  farther  evident  from  other  declarations  found  in  the 
first  discourses  on  the  opening  of  the  new  reign  of  grace.  From  the  ex- 
position of  the  transactions  which  occurred  in  heaven  immediately  after 
the  ascension,  we  therefore  deduce 

Oar  fourth  argument. — On  entering  the  heavens,  Jesus  was  constituted 
Lord  and  Christ.  This  was  the  last  act  in  the  sublime  drama  of  man's  de- 
liverance; so  far  as  the  means  of  his  redemption  from  sin  and  death  are 
contemplated.  Hence,  this  same  Peter,  when  opening  and  announcing 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  repeatedly  alludes  to  this  glorious  consummation 
of  the  gospel  facts.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  he  said,  "  Let  all  the  house 
of  Israel  know,  that  God  has  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  you  crucified, 
both  Lord  and  Christ."  Again  :  in  his  second  sermon,  reported  in  the 
next  chapter,  he  says  to  the  believing  thousands,  "Repent  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  so  that  seasons  of  refreshment 
may  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  he  will  send  Jesus  Christ, 

2o2 


438  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

who  was  beibre  preaciied  unto  you,  whom  the  heavens  must  retain  until  the 
times  of  the  restitution  of  all  things."  Antl  again,  and  still  more  strikingly 
illustrative  and  confirmatory  of  the  fact  before  us,  is  the  annunciation  made 
to  the  council  of  the  nation,  with  the  high-priest  in  the  chair :  "  God  hath 
exalted  this  Jesus  to  his  right  hand,  a  prince  and  a  Savior,  to  give  repen- 
tance to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  Princes,  when  exalted,  dis- 
pense favors  witli  a  more  munificent  hand  than  during  their  minority,  or 
before  their  accession  to  a  throne.  Jesus  being  constituted  Lord  as  well 
as  Christ;  being  invested  with  universal  riches,  power,  and  glory,  opens 
his  reign  by  forgiving,  through  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism,  three  thou- 
sand rebels,  many  of  whom  had  thirsted  for  his  blood — "Of  whom," 
said  Peter,  "you  have  been  the  betrayers  and  murderers."  His  exaltation 
to  the  throne  of  the  universe,  is  declared  to  be  with  a  special  reference 
to  the  dispensation  of  repentance  and  remission.  Of  course,  then,  these 
go  hand  in  hand,  and  are  dispensed  under  new  conditions,  and  in  a  new, 
more  striking,  vivid,  and  soul-exhilarating  manner  than  formerly.  Hence 
the  superabundant  joy  of  the  new  converts,  compared  with  that  of  the  old 
saints.  There  v^^as  not  merely  a  freshness  and  a  beauty  in  those  brighter 
displays  of  divine  philanthropy;  but  there  was  a  more  substantive  and 
real  blessedness  imparted,  in  having  an  institution  dispensed  to  them, 
that  permitted  them  to  be  buried  in  Christ,  and  to  rise  in  him,  as  well  as 
with  him,  and  to  receive  a  personal,  plenary,  and  sensible  remission,  by 
and  through  their  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism.  There  are,  then,  in  the 
new  dispensation  of  the  better  covenant,  established  upon  richer  and  bet- 
ter promises,  good  reasons  why  those  who  now  submit  to  Jesus,  the 
great  and  mighty  Savior,  should  formally  and  really  receive  a  purification 
from  sin,  unknown  in  its  amplitude  and  assurance  to  those  under  former 
dispensations.  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  argues  its  superiority  in  sundry 
points  of  view,  but  most  clearly  and  convincingly  by  reference  to  remis- 
sion. The  conscience  was  never  made  perfect  in  any  remission  of  sins, 
dispensed  through  Jewish  ordinances  ;  for  the  worshipers,  though  often 
cleansed,  still  had  a  consciousness  of  sins  ;  which  consciousness  of  sins 
is  thorougly  removed  in  those  who  truly  understand,  and  cordially  em- 
brace the  gospel  of  the  glorified  Messiah.  These,  indeed,  have  their 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  their  bodies  washed  in  the 
clean  water  of  christian  purification.  From  the  stress  laid  upon  the  ex- 
altation and  coronation  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  new  dispensation  of  favor 
entrusted  to  him,  we  are  led  to  expect  such  change  in  the  conditions  and 
forms  of  remission,  as  are  indicated  in  these  three  words — faith  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  repentance,  and  baptism. 

The  order  and  the  change  of  words  in  Acts  iii.  "  Repent  and  turn  to 
God,  or  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,"  &c.,  is  merely 
exegetical,  or  farther  declarative  of  the  answer  given  a  few  days  before, 
on  the  opening  of  the  new  kingdom.  Repent  and  be  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  is  now  expressed — "  Repent  and  be  converted,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  I  hope  my  respondent  will  make  an 
eflbrt  to  show,  that  these  words  can  be  otherwise  understood  than  as  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  Acts  ii.  38. 

Our  fifth  argument  shall  be  deduced  from  the  fact  already  assumed 
and  demonstrated  in  the  case  of  circumcision  ;  that,  whatever  circumcision 
was  to  any  one  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  whether  infant  or  adult, 
it  was  of  the  same  importance  and  significance  to  all.  This  is  a  point  of 
great  consideration  on  the  subject  of  all  divine  institutions.     It  was  true 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  439 

of  all  the  patriarchal  and  Jewish  ordinances.     To  every  proper  subject  of 
any  one  of  them,  the  observance  secured  the  same  advantages. 

This  is  equally  true  of  all  the  christian  ordinances.  To  him  who  is  a 
proper  candidate  for  baptism,  for  the  Lord's  supper,  or  for  any  christian 
institution,  the  ordinance  conveys  the  same  blessings.  This  being  so, 
whatever  baptism  was  to  the  three  thousand  Pentecostan  converts,  to 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  to  Cornelius,  or  to  any  believing  penitent  in  the  age  of 
the  aposdes,  it  is  to  every  human  being  at  the  present  time. 

Paul  assures  us  that  there  is  but  one  christian  immersion — "  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism.''^  Now,  if  our  baptism  is  for  any  other  end  or 
purpose  than  was  that  to  which  Paul  submitted,  it  is  another  baptism,  as 
much  as  bathing  for  health  is  different  from  a  Jewish  ablution  for  legal 
uncleanness  or  impurity.  The  action  has  a  meaning  and  a  design;  and 
it  must  be  received  in  that  meaning  and  for  that  design,  else  it  is  another 
baptism. 

Our  sixth  argument  is  drawn  from  the  words  uttered  in  the  ears  of 
Paul,  by  a  messenger  specially  called  and  sent  to  him  from  the  Lord^ 
Paul  was  novv  a  believing  penitent,  a  proper  subject  of  the  grace  of  bap- 
tism :  for  baptism  has  its  peculiar  grace,  as  well  as  prayer  or  fasting. 
Paul  had  inquired  of  the  Lord,  what  he  should  do.  The  Lord  commis- 
sioned Ananias  to  inform  him.  He  went  to  Paul's  room,  and  proved  his 
mission  by  restoring  him  to  sight:  and  instanUy  commanded  him  to  rise, 
be  baptized,  and  wash  away  his  sins,  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
Now,  the  washing  away  of  his  sins  was  certainly  to  be  accomplished 
through  the  water  of  baptism,  according  to  the  language  of  the  highest 
authority  in  the  universe.  Jesus  Christ  had  so  commanded.  Neither  his 
faith  nor  his  repentance  had  washed  away  his  sins,  in  the  sense  of  the 
precept  of  the  Messiah.  In  any  other  case,  the  literary  world  would  in- 
terpret this  phrase  as  I  have  done.  In  circumcising  adult  proselytes, 
when  connecting  themselves  with  the  Jewish  nation,  it  was  usual  for 
them  to  wash  off  the  blood  occasioned  by  the  performance  of  the  rite. 
From  which  fact,  some  of  the  Rabbis,  one  thousand  years  ago,  got  up 
the  notion  of  Jewish  baptism,  as  before  intimated  on  another  question. 
Suppose,  then,  an  Hebrew  should  address  a  newly  circumcised  Pagan  in 
these  words  :  "  Arise,  sir,  go  to  the  bath  and  wash  away  your  blood," 
would  not  the  whole  world  understand  it,  not  merely  as  a  necessary  pre- 
cept, but  that  the  washing  away  of  the  blood  was  not  in  the  act  of  rising 
nor  of  going  to  the  bath,  but  in  the  bathing  ?  But  when  we  place  this 
saying  of  Ananias  to  the  penitent  Saul  of  Tarsus,  along  with  that  of  Pe- 
ter to  the  penitent  Pentecostans,  "  Be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;" 
"  Be  baptized  and  wash  away  your  sins  ;"  although  spoken  by  different 
persons,  at  different  and  considerable  intervals,  what  reasonable  doubt 
can  remain,  that  all  the  aposdes  taught,  and  all  the  christians  believed,  that 
the  remission  of  sins  was  through  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism  ?  On 
this  remarkable  passage,  Calvin  observes,  "  That  you  may  be  assured, 
Paul,  that  your  sins  are  remitted,  be  baptized  ;  for  the  Lord  promises  re- 
mission of  sins  in  baptism  :  receive  it  and  be  assured."  (Inst.  4,  sec.  15, 
De  Baptism.)  This  is  the  answer  that  Calvin  gives  to  the  question: 
"  Why  did  Ananias  tell  Paul  to  wash  away  his  sins  by  baptism,  if  sins 
are  not  washed  away  by  virtue  of  baptism  ?"  This  is  scarcely  modest 
enough!  Bucer,  the  great  reformer,  "  the  very  learned,  judicious,  and 
pious  Bucer,"  as  bishop  Burnet  calls  him,  the  amiable  companion  of  Me- 
lancthon,  the  student  of  Luther,  the  associate  of  Zuinglius,  whose  body 


440  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  bloody  Mary  had  dug  up  and  burned  five  years  after  his  death;  the 
man  whose  very  bones  were  a  terror  to  a  Catholic  queen,  said  of  this  pas- 
sage, "  In  those  words,  then,  there  is  ascribed  to  baptism  the  effect  of  re- 
mitting or  washing  of  sins." — (Bucer  in  loco.)  Not  to  quote  all  the 
ancients,  Tertullian,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  &;c.,  &c.,  I  shall  only  add, 
from  Wesley's  Notes,  Acts  xxii.  16:  "Baptism,  administered  to  a  real 
penitent,  is  both  a  means  and  a  seal  of  pardon.  Nor  did  God  ordinarily, 
in  the  primitive  church,  bestow  this  on  any,  unless  through  this  means." 
It  calls  for  a  greater  than  Wesley  to  prove  that  he  acts  otherwise  in  the 
modern  church  ! 

My  seventh  argument  is  deduced  from  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and 
his  gentile  friends.  His  excellent  moral  character  and  his  great  devotion 
to  prayer  and  alms-deeds,  had  not  yet  saved  him.  The  message  re- 
ceived from  God  directed  him  to  send  for  the  man  who  had  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  who  could  "  tell  him  words  by  which  he  and  his 
family  and  friends  might  be  saved."  I  need  not  relate  the  whole  story, 
as  it  is  represented  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Acts.  Peter,  in 
relating  the  matter  afterwards,  as  reported  in  the  eleventh  chapter,  devel- 
ops more  fullv  the  intention  of  the  mission,  and  details  some  of  tlie  in- 
cidents more  at  length.  Particularly,  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  he  gives  an 
account  of  the  necessity  of  his  sermon — as  "words  whereby  Cornelius 
and  all  his  family  might  be  saved."  He  also  states,  that,  as  he  began  to 
speak  these  words — as  soon  as  he  got  to  remission  of  sins  through  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus — at  that  moment,  the  Spirit,  in  its  miraculous 
attestations,  fell  upon  all  the  gentiles  present,  as  it  had  done  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Jews  on  Pentecost.  Cornelius  and  his  friends  of  the  gentile 
world,  as  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  Jewish  friends  (assembled  on  Pen- 
tecost) of  the  Jewish  world,  were  best  prepared  for  the  coming  of  the 
new  reign — a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord — it  pleased  God  to  admit 
them  both  by  the  same  glorious,  sensible  and  visible  displays  of  his  grace 
in  the  gift  of  tongues.  Soon,  then,  as  Peter  saw  all  this,  he  asked  the 
believing  Jews,  who  had  accompanied  him  from  Joppa,  whether  they 
could,  on  any  account,  refuse  them  the  grace  of  baptism.  No  demurrer 
having  been  instituted,  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  Thus,  also,  were  the  gentiles  saved  by  faith,  repentance 
and  baptism. 

Seven  such  arguments  as  tliese  are  enough  for  one  speech.  The  first, 
indeed,  is  itself  alone  sufficient,  so  far  as  authority  goes,  to  command  and 
enforce  the  institution  upon  the  attention  and  observance  of  all.  The 
others,  besides  their  individual  weight,  explain  its  meaning  and  impor- 
tance, and  go  to  shew  what  its  true  construction  is.  The  authority  of 
Him,  in  whose  name  believing  penitents  are  to  be  baptized,  is  not  sus- 
ceptible of  augmentation  by  the  suffrages  of  an  universe,  nor  by  the  addi- 
tion of  all  the  names  amongst  the  celestial  and  terrestrial  hierarchies.  He 
alone  is  the  peerless  One,  by  whom  kings  reign  and  princes  decree  jus- 
tice. It  was  he  who  first  marshaled  the  morning  stars,  and  gave  to 
them  laws  which  they  have  never  transgressed,  during  all  the  contingen- 
cies of  untold  ages,  and  the  movements  of  all  the  agencies  of  creation. 
It  was  his  fiat  that  made  darkness  the  parent  of  light,  and  that  caused 
nothing  to  become  the  origin  of  all  things.  When  made  Head  and  Law- 
giver of  the  Church  ;  when  constituted  both  Lord  and  Christ;  when  ex- 
alted a  Prince  and  a  Savior,  after  sending  down  his  Spirit  from  his 
throne,  and  animating  his  apostles  by  his  presence  and  power,  the  first 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  441 

precept  given  to  the  first  inquiring  penitents  was,  "  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission 
of  your  sins."  On  that  precept  the  first  church  acted  with  joyful  haste 
and  implicit  confidence.  On  that  precept  the  Jerusalem  church  was 
founded  :  and  no  good  reason  can  ever  be  given  by  any  man,  why  the 
same  precept  should  not  be  given  to  every  inquiring  penitent  now, 
henceforth,  and  till  the  Lord  shall  come  again. 

Thus  far  I  had  prepared  my  opening  address.  My  time,  however,  not 
yet  being  expired,  I  sliail  proceed  to  another  argument.  One  clause  of 
the  commission,  not  commented  on  during  our  discussion  of  the  previous 
proposition,  now  demands  a  few  remarks  as  the  basis  of  a  neVv  argument, 
in  support  of  the  present  proposition,  which,  of  course,  I  shall  call  my 
eighth  argument. 

8.  "  Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.^^  No  language  could  more  clearly  indicate  a  change 
of  state  than  the  phrase  just  now  read.  The  prominent  design  of  baptism 
is  thus  fully  expressed  by  the  transition  spoken  of  in  the  words,  "  baptizing 
iiito  the  name."  The  subject  is  here  represented  as  in  some  way  enter- 
ing hito  the  name,  or  into  the  persons  represented  by  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit.  This  may  be  supposed  to  resemble  the  act  of  naturali- 
zation, in  the  fact  that  a  person  in  that  process  is  inducted  into  the  posses- 
sion of  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  a  political  institution.  So  Christ 
commanded  the  candidates  to  be  immersed  into  the  name  of  the  whole 
Divinity ;  that  is,  into  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  new  kingdom 
over  which  the  Messiah  now  presides,  by  the  authority  of  the  Father 
through  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is,  then,  a  solemn  and  sacred  enfranchise- 
ment of  a  believer  with  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

This  argument  rests  on  the  autfiority  of  the  new  version  of  eis  by  into. 
When  I  published  my  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  (which  many  per- 
sist in  calling  my  translation.)  feeling  myself  authorized  by  the  original, 
and  the  style  of  the  New  Testament,  I  departed,  in  this  instance,  as  well 
as  in  several  others,  from  Dr.  Campbell,  and  all  other  translations  then 
known  to  me.  This,  indeed,  was  but  a  verbal  matter.  Yet,  when  the 
whole  world.  Catholic  and  Protestant,  were  following  Jerom's  vulgate,  it 
was  a  great  innovation,  on  my  part,  and  so  regarded  by  others.  Since 
that  time,  however,  I  have  ascertained  that  in  one  of  T.  Dwight's  sermons 
on  the  commission,  he  took  the  same  view  of  it,  and  contended  that  it 
ought  to  have  been  so  rendered.  And  still  more  recently,  and  with  more 
authority,  archbishop  Whateley,  of  the  province  of  Dublin,  both  in  his 
logic,  and  also  in  a  recent  work  on  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  has  not  only 
sanctioned  this  version,  but  defended  it  with  zeal.  These  two  names  are 
as  authoritative  as  any  other  two  names  which  could  be  selected  in  Eu- 
rop3  or  America. 

The  new  version  of  this  passage  will  certainly  grow  into  fashion  at  no 
very  distant  day.  I  find  other  distinguished  names  in  favor  of  it.  All 
feel  the  diflerence  between  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,''''  and  "  into  Christ." 
The  former  denotes  aufhnri/i/,  alone — the  latter  intimates  union  and  rela- 
tion. "  In  the  name  of  the  commomvealth,''''  is  very  different  from  being 
inducted  info  the  commonwealth.  Into  always  denotes  change  of  posi- 
tion ;  a  transition  from  one  state  to  another.  It  marks  boundaries,  A 
person  enters  into,  not  in,  matrimony.  A  person  is  baptized  in  water, 
into  Moses,  into  Christ,  or  into  his  death,  &c. 

This  solemn  and  significant  moral  change  or  transition  out  of  the  world 


442  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

into  Christ,  is  consummated  in  the  following  manner: — The  gospel  is 
proclaimed  to  them  without  the  kingdom.  Men  have  it,  believe  it,  be- 
come penitent,  and  are  "baptized  in  water,  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.^''  They  have  then  put  on  Christ,  are  bap- 
tized into  Ciirist,  and  are  henceforth  in  him  a  new  creation. 

Baptism,  my  fellow-citizens,  is  no  mere  rite,  no  unmeaning  ceremony, 
1  assure  you.  It  is  a  most  intellectual,  spiritual  and  sublime  transition 
out  of  a  sinful  and  condemned  state,  into  a  spiritual  and  holy  state.  It  is 
a  change  of  relation,  not  as  respects  the  flesh,  but  the  spirit.  It  is  an 
introduction  into  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  by  which  he  necessarily 
obtains  the  remission  of  his  sins. 

No  one  can  understand  or  enjoy  the  sublime  and  awful  import  of  a  bu- 
rial with  Christ ;  of  a  baptism  into  death,  who  does  not  feel  that  he  is  pass- 
ing through  a  most  solemn  initiation  into  a  new  family  ;  high  and  holy 
relations  to  the  Father,  as  his  Father  and  his  God — to  the  Son,  as  his  Lord 
and  his  Messiah — to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  his  sanctifier  and  comforter.  He 
puts  ofl'his  old  relations  to  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  Satan.  Consequent- 
ly, that  moment  he  is  adopted  into  the  family  of  God,  and  is  personally 
invested  with  all  the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

But  this  ordinance  is  monumental  also.  It  is  always  a  monument  and 
an  attestation  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord.  No  one  can 
sensibly  contemplate  one  exhibition  of  it,  without  remembering  the  burial 
of  the  Messiah,  and  his  glorious  resurrection,  by  the  power  of  his  Fa- 
ther; for  it  is  the  administrator  that  raises  from  the  watery  grave  the  bu- 
ried saint.  With  the  vividness  of  a  sensible  demonstration  it  strikes  not 
only  the  eye,  but  the  heart,  of  an  intelligent  spectator.  It  is  not  only  a 
commemorative  institution,  but  also  it  is  prospective  of  our  future  desti- 
ny in  the  new  relation ;  that  when  we  die,  and  are  buried  in  the  earth — 
when  the  Administrator  of  the  new  and  everlasting  institution  revisits  our 
earth,  he  will  raise  from  their  graves  all  his  dear  brethren,  and  glorify 
them  with  his  own  immortal  beauty  and  loveliness.  How  appropriate  the 
symbol  of  the  new  birth,  this  washing  of  regeneration!  How  kind  that 
the  precept,  on  which  man's  enjoyment  of  salvation  rests,  should  com- 
memorate the  Lord's  burial  and  resurrection,  shovfld  prospectively  antici- 
pate our  own,  while  it  inducts  us  into  Ciirist  and  invests  us  with  all  the 
privileges  of  citizenship  in  his  kingdom ! — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  23 — 1 1  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[iwR.  rice's  first  reply.] 

Mr.  President — In  the  previous  part  of  this  discussion,  it  has  been 
my  business  to  advocate  views  in  regard  to  which  we  difl'er  from  some 
of  our  christian  brethren  of  evangelical  churches.  I  am  happy,  this 
morning,  to  take  my  stand  on  the  broad  ground  on  which  the  great  body 
of  Protestant  christians  are  united.  The  discussion  on  which  we  now 
enter,  is  designed,  on  my  part,  to  present  the  great  doctrines  of  the  cross 
in  their  proper  relation  to  each  other,  and  to  exhibit  the  ordinances  con- 
nected with  them  in  their  true  nature  and  design. 

I  regret  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  did  not,  in  his  address,  more 
distinctly  state  the  point  at  issue.  It  is,  however,  a  common  misfortune 
of  those  who  write  speeches,  to  give  rather  more  attention  to  the  forma- 
tion of  beautiful  sentences  and  well-turned  periods,  than  to  tiie  clear  pre- 
sentation of  the  subject  under  investigation.  In  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  before  us,  as  indeed  of  all  others,  it  is  of  the  first  importance  that 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  443 

the  audience  understand  distinctly  wherein  we  differ,  and  what  is  the 
precise  point  in  dispute.  The  proposition  is  as  follows :  "  Christian 
BAPTISM  is  for  the  REMISSION  OF  PAST  SINS."  This  Mr.  C.  affirms,  and 
I  deny. 

That  the  audience  may  distinctly  see  the  point  in  debate,  it  is  impor- 
tant to  remark,  that  we  are  not  discussing  the  question,  whether  one  who 
contemns,  or  wilfully  neglects,  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  can  have  evi- 
dence that  his  sins  are  remitted.  We  all  agree,  that  he  who  despises,  or 
designedly  neglects,  any  one  command  of  Christ,  gives  clear  evidence 
lliat  he  is  destitute  of  true  piety,  and,  consequently,  is  not  pardoned. 
But  the  question  is,  whether  n  penitent  believer  is  unpardoned  until  he  is 
baptized,  or,  as  my  friend  would  say,  'wimersed:  whether  an  individual 
who  to-day  becomes  truly  penitent,  and  believes  on  Christ  with  all  his 
heart,  but  has  no  opportunity  to  be  baptized  till  the  next  week,  is,  till  the 
next  week,  condemned,  and  is  pardoned  only  in  the  act  of  receiving  bap- 
tism— or  whelhei",  if  he  have  no  opportunity  to  be  baptized  the  next 
week,  or  if  he  never  have  such  opportunity,  he  must  live  and  die  unfor- 
given — or  whether,  if  he  have  mistaken  something  else  for  baptism,  and 
thus  substituted  a  human  tradition  in  its  stead,  he  must  die  condemned 
and  be  lost.  In  a  word,  the  question  is,  whether  a  penitent  believer  is, 
under  all  circumstances,  or  under  any  circumstances,  unpardoned, 
until  he  is  baptized?  To  this  question,  Mr.  C.  would  give  an  affirmative 
answer.  He  maintains,  that  the  sins  of  a  penitent  believer  are  forgiven, 
not  before  baptism,  but  in  the  very  act  of  being  baptized.  That  I  may 
be  certain  of  representing  his  views  correctly,  I  wdll  read  from  his  Christ- 
ian Baptist,  pp.  416,  417  : 

"  In  the  third  place,  I  proceed  to  show  tliat  we  have  the  most  explicit 
proof  that  God  forgives  sins  for  the  name's  sake  of  his  Son,  or  when  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  named  upon  us  in  immersion  : — that  in,  and  by,  the 
act  of  immersion,  so  soon  as  our  bodies  are  put  tinder  water,  at  that  very  in- 
stant oxir  former ,  or  '  otd  sins,^  are  atl  washed  away;  provided  only,  thai 
we  are  true  believers.  This  was  the  view  and  the  expectation  of  every  ont; 
who  was  immersed  in  the  apostolic  age  :  and  it  was  a  consciousness  of 
having  received  this  blessing  that  caused  them  to  rejoice  in  the  Lord,  and, 
like  the  eunuch,  to  'go  on  their  way  rejoicing.'  When  Jesus  commanded 
reformation  and  forgivcnetjs  of  sins  to  be  announced  in  his  name  to  all  na- 
tions, he  commanded  men  to  receive  immersion  to  the  confirmation  of  this 
promise.  Thus  we  find  that  when  the  gospel  was  announced  on  Pentecost, 
and  when  Peter  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Jews,  he  commanded 
them  to  be  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  is  quite  sufficient,  if 
we  had  not  another  word  on  the  subject.  I  say,  it  is  quite  suihcient  to 
shew  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  christian  immersion  were,  in  their 
first  proclamation  by  the  holy  apostles,  inseparably  connected  together.  Pe- 
ter, to  whom  was  committed  the  keys,  opened  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven  in 
this  manner;  and  made  repentance,  or  reformation,  and  immersion,  equally 
necessary  to  forgiveness.  *  *  =f=  I  am  bold,  therefore,  to  affirm,  that 
every  one  of  them  who,  in  tlie  belief  of  what  the  apostle  spoke,  was  im- 
mersed, did,  in  the  very  instant  in  wliicJi,  lie  ivas  put  under  water,  receive  the 
forgiveness  of  Ids  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  holy  Spirit.  If  so,  then,  who 
will  not  concur  with  me  in  saying,  that  christian  immersion  is  the  gospel 
in  water  1" — Editor. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  my  friend.  I  will  now  read  a  passage  or  two 
from  liis  Christianity  Restored,  in  which  he  avows  the  same  doctrine.  I 
read  on  pages  196,  197: 

"  A  thousand  analogies  might  be  adduced,  to  shew  that  though  a  change 
of  state  often,  nay,  generally  results  from  a  change  of  feelings,  and  this 


444  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

from  a  change  of  views  ;  yet  a  change  of  state  does  not  necessarily  follow, 
and  is  something  quite  ditferent  from,  and  cannot  be  identified  with,  a 
change  of  heart.  80  in  religion,  a  man  may  change  his  views  of  Jesus, 
and  his  heart  may  also  be  changed  towards  him  ;  but  unless  a  change  of  state 
ensues,  he  is  still  unpardoned,  unjustijied,  unsanclificd,  unreconciled,  unadopt- 
ed, and  lost  to  all  christian  life  and  enjoyment.  For  it  has  been  proved  that 
these  terms  represent  states  and  not  feelings,  condition  and  not  character : 
and  that  a  change  of  views,  or  of  heart,  is  not  a  change  of  state.  To 
change  a  state  is  to  pass  into  a  new  relation,  and  relation  is  not  sentiment, 
nor  feeling.  Some  act,  then,  conslitulional,  by  slipulalion  proposed,  sensible, 
and  manifest,  must  be  performed  by  one  or  both  the  parlies  before  such  a 
change  can  be  accomplished. 

Again  ;  whatever  the  act  of  faith  may  be,  it  necessarily  oecoraes  the  line 
of  discrimination  between  the  two  states  before  described.  On  this  side  or  on 
that,  mankind  are  in  quite  different  stales.  On  the  one  side,  they  are  pardon- 
ed, justified,  sanctifed,  reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved:  On  the  other,  they  are 
in  a  state  of  condemnation.  This  act  is  sumetimes  called  immersion,  regener- 
ation, conversion,"  6,c. 

Here,  then,  you  have  distinctly  stated  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  against 
which  I  protest.  He  maintains,  that  the  sins  of  penitent  believers  are 
remitted  in  the  act  of  ijmner-non — never  before  ;  that  all  who  have  not 
been  immersed,  however  pious  and  holy,  are  still  unpardoned ;  and  living 
and  dying  without  immersion,  they  live  and  die  unforgiven  and  are  lost. 
Here  I  join  issue  with  him. 

So  far  as  his  remarks  bear  upon  the  question  before  us,  I  shall  no- 
tice them  as  I  pass.  He  has  said  some  things  that  are  true,  and  others 
that,  as  I  suppose,  are  not  true;  but  as  they  have  no  immediate  bearing 
on  the  question  in  debate,  I  do  not  deem  it  proper  to  reply  to  them. 

Before  stating  my  objections  to  his  doctrine,  it  is  important  to  remark, 
that  the  Bible  is  consistent  with  itself.  This  the  gentleman  will  not 
deny.  If,  then,  his  interpretation  of  Peter's  sermon  be  found  directly  to 
contradict  other  portions  of  the  Scriptures ;  it  will  appear,  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  all,  that  it  is  entirely  erroneous,  and  that  we  must  look  for  a  dif- 
ferent exposition.  I,  then,  offer  the  following  objections  to  his  doctrine 
and  to  his  interpretation  of  Peter's  sermon : 

First :  It  flatly  contradicts  the  express  declarations  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles.  I  refer  you  to  John  iii.  18 — the  very  chapter  in  which  we 
find  the  new  birth,  on  which  Mr.  C.  has  so  largely  commented  in  his  wri- 
tings. Let  us  hear  John  speak  ;  or  rather,  let  us  hear  our  Lord  speak  in 
language  so  perfectly  clear,  that  no  difficulty  can  be  felt  in  ascertaining 
his  meaning,  and  no  criticism  can  evade  it :  "  He  that  believeth  on  him 
is  not  condemned."  The  meaning  of  this  declaration  evidently  is,  that 
every  believer  in  Christ  is  pardoned  ;  for  to  say  he  is  not  condemned,  is 
the  same  as  to  say  he  is  pardoned — his  sins  are  remitted.  But  my  friend 
says,  he  that  believes  and  is  immersed,  is  not  condemned ;  if  not  im- 
mersed, he  is  condemned  !  Here  is  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  Savior ; 
for  he  says  as  plainly  as  language  can  express  it,  concerning  every  be- 
liever, he  is  not  condemned.  Again,  verse  36,  "  He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life."  The  Savior  does  not  say,  he  that  be- 
lieveth may  or  shall  have  life,  if  he  will  be  immersed ;  but  he  hath 
everlasting  life — he  has  it  now  in  actual  possession.  Look  now  at  the 
predicament  in  which  Mr.  Campbell  is  placed.  He  asserts,  that,  until 
immersed,  the  believer  is  condemned,  and,  of  course,  has  7iot  everlasting 
life.  What  says  our  Lord  ?  "  He  that  believeth,  hath  everlasting  life." 
My  friend  will  not  immerse  an  individual  till  he  professes  to  believe.    He 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  445 

asks  him  the  question,  do  you  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God  ?  He  answers  in  the  affirmative.  Now  if  he  has  told  the  truth,  he 
has  everlasting  life,  and  his  sins  are  remitted.  My  friend  cannot,  on  his 
hypothesis,  get  him  to  the  water  until  his  sins  are  forgiven,  and  he  is  in 
the  actual  possession  of  life  everlasting.  The  passage  calls  for  no  criti- 
cism— it  is  perfectly  plain. 

Again,  I  read,  chap.  vi.  29,  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them.  This 
is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent."  This 
is  the  work.  Every  thing  else  follows,  when  faith  is  exercised.  Faith 
produces  good  works  ;  and  he  who  has  the  princple  in  him,  will  be  found 
walking  in  obedience  to  the  commandments  of  God. 

Again,  verses  35,  40 :  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread 
of  life:  he  that  cometh  to  me,  shall  never  hunger;  and  he  that  believeth 
on  me,  shall  never  thirst.  *  *  *  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may 
have  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  Could 
language  be  more  perfectly  unambiguous  ?  Is  it  possible  to  express  more 
clearly  and  strongly  the  truth,  that  every  true  believer  is  pardoned  and 
accepted  of  God?  He  that  believes,  shall  never  thirst — he  shall  ever 
drink  of  the  water  of  life.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  he  have  everlasting 
life  ;  and  Christ  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  Nay,  he  is  now  in  the 
actual  possession  of  eternal  life.  Then  are  not  the  sins  of  all  such  persons 
pardoned  ? 

It  w^ill  not  be  denied  that  there  have  lived  multitudes  of  believers  who 
were  never  immersed ;  and  yet,  according  to  the  teaching  of  our  Lord, 
they  are  in  possession  of  eternal  life.  I  read  once  more,  verse  47  : 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  believeth  on  me,  hath  everlasting 
life" — is  in  the  actual  possession  of  it,  baptized  or  not,  immersed  or  not. 
It  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  go  to  critics,  to  interpret  language  as  clear  as 
the  light  of  the  sun. 

I  will  now  turn  to  the  third  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  Here 
we  find  the  doctrine  of  justijication  very  fully  exhibited.  The  apostle's 
object  was,  to  teach  men  how  they  might  certainly  obtain  the  remission  of 
their  sins  and  acceptance  with  God  :  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  bap- 
tism is  not  mentioned,  nor  even  alluded  to,  in  the  whole  connection. 
"  Therefore,  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his 
sight:  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  But  now  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  without  the  law,  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets :  even  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ,  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe :  for  there  is  no  dif- 
ference. For  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God ;  being 
justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  *  *  *  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith, 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law." — Verses  20 — 24,  28.  In  this  and  the 
two  following  chapters,  we  have  an  argument  clear  and  complete,  designed 
to  explain  the  doctrine  of  justification,  to  teach  men  how  their  sins  may  be 
remitted  ;  and  yet  baptism  is  not  mentioned,  till  the  apostle  reaches  the 
sixth  chapter,  and  then  only  by  way  of  answering  a  Jewish  objection  to 
the  doctrine  he  was  teaching.  But  while  he  is  explaining  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  he  does  not  even  allude  to  baptism.  He  teaches,  that  the 
righteousness  of  God  by  faith  is  laifo  and  xipon  all  them  that  believe; 
and  again,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith.  He  does  not  say,  as  Mr. 
Campbell  does,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  and  baptism.     No — bap- 

2P 


446  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

tism  is  not  even  alluded  to.  If,  then,  his  doctrine  is  true,  Paul  must 
have  practiced  an  avi'ful  deception  upon  those  whom  he  professed  to  teach 
the  way  of  life  !  It  is,  then,  most  evident,  that  baptism  does  not  secure 
the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  that  it  is  not  a  pre-requisite  to  pardon. 

Secondly.  My  second  objection  to  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  is  de- 
rived from  the  fad,  that  all  persons  ivho  are  begotten  of  God,  do  enjoy 
remission  of  sins.  He,  let  it  be  understood,  maintains  that  all  believers 
are  begotten  of  God,  whether  they  have  been  immersed  or  not;  though, 
until  immersed,  he  would  say,  they  are  not  born  again.  Now,  I  assert 
it  as  a  fact,  which  I  will  prove  by  the  plainest  declarations  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  every  one  who  is  begotten  of  God,  is  a  child  of  God,  and,  con- 
sequently, enjoys  the  remission  of  sins.  In  the  Bible,  none  but  true  chris- 
tians are  ever  said  to  be  begotten  of  God.  This  is  proved  by  the  follow- 
ing passages,  1  Pet.  i.  3  :  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  which  according  to  his  abundant  mercy  hath  begotten  us 
again  into  a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead,  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,"  &c.  Observe,  those  here  spoken 
of  were  begotten  unto  a  lively  hope;  and  the  object  of  that  hope  is  "  an 
inheritance  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in 
heaven  for  them."  They  were  true  christians.  Again,  James  i.  18:  "  Of 
his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind 
of  first  fruits  of  his  creatures." 

Indeed,  the  word  begotten  is  the  word  usually  employed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, where  reference  is  made  to  the  father  of  children.  Thus  in  Gen- 
esis we  read,  that  sucb  a  man  lived  so  long,  and  begat  sons  and  daughters. 
And  our  Savior  is  called  "  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father."  The  word 
is  ordinarily  used  to  express  the  idea,  that  in  some  sense  the  child  derives 
its  nature  and  its  life  from  its  father. 

In  the  following  passages  I  shall  use  the  word  begotten,  instead  of 
born,  not  because  I  consider  it  more  correct,  but  because  Mr.  C.  prefers 
it.     J  intend  to  disprove  his  doctrine  by  his  oivn  translation. 

I  read,  1  John  iii.  9,  "  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doth  not  com- 
mit sin;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him  :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is 
begotten  of  God."  But  if  a  man  cannot  commit  sin,  he  is  a  holy  man; 
and  I  will  leave  my  friend  to  prove,  that  holy  men  may  be  condemned 
and  eternally  lost!  Again,  {verse  10)  "In  this  the  children  of  God  are 
manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil :  whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness 
is  not  of  God,  neither  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother."  Here  observe, 
they  who  are,  in  the  9th  verse,  said  to  be  begotten  of  God,  and  are, 
therefore,  holy,  are,  in  the  10th,  called  the  children  of  God;  and  they 
are  distinguished  by  their  righteousness  from  the  children  of  the  devil. 
If  a  man  is  a  child  of  God,  are  not  his  sins  remitted?  John  found  but 
two  classes  among  men — the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the 
devil.  Surely  Mr.  C.  will  not  venture  to  say  that  they  who  are  begotten, 
of  God,  can  be  the  children  of  the  devil!  John  most  clearly  teaches  us, 
that  all  who  are  begotten  of  God,  are  his  children  ;  and  "  if  children, 
then  heirs,"  says  Paul,  "  heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Jesus  Christ," 
Rom.  viii.  17. 

Let  us  read  again,  1  John  iv.  7,  "Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another; 
for  love  is  of  God ;  and  every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  God,  and 
knoweth  God.''^  Compare  this  with  the  gospel  by  John,  chap.  xvii.  3, 
♦'  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."     Now  observe,  every  one  who 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  447 

loves,  IS  begotten  of  God  ;  every  one  vi'ho  is  begotten  of  God,  knows 
God  ;  and  to  know  God  is  to  possess  eternal  life.  And  who  are  they 
that  on  the  day  of  judgment  will  be  condemned?  Paul  the  aposUe 
answers  the  question — "  The  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven 
with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
KNOW  NOT  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
2  Thess.  i.  7,  8.  They  who  know  God,  obey  the  Gospel,  and  have 
eternal  life.  They  cannot  be  condemned.  Since,  then,  all  who  are  be- 
gotten of  God,  do  know  God  ;  is  it  not  clear  that  their  sins  are  remitted  ? 

We  will  now  notice  what  is  said  in  the  5th  chapter  of  this  epistle, 
concerning  those  who  are  begotten  of  God.  "  Whosoever  believetli  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  begotten  of  God  :  and  every  one  that  loveth  hira' 
that  begat,  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  him.  By  this  we  know 
that  we  love  the  children  of  God,"  Sic,  The  obvious  meaning  of  which 
is,  that  every  believer  is  a  child  of  God,  and  loves  all  God's  children. 
Again,  "  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  overcometh  the  world."  Now 
what  has  our  Savior  promised  those  who  overcome  the  world  ?  "  He 
that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches  :  to 
him  that  overcometli,  will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  paradise  of  God,"  Rev.  ii.  7.  Again,  (verse  11)  "  He 
that  overcometh,  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second  death."  Again,  (verse  17) 
"  To  him  that  overcometh,  will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  hidden  manna,  and 
will  give  him  a  white  stone,  and  in  the  stone  a  new  name  written,  which 
no  man  knoweth,  save  he  that  receiveth  it."  Now  mark  the  fact :  every 
one  that  is  begotten  of  God,  overcometh  the  world  ;  and  to  every  one 
that  overcometh,  our  Lord  has  promised  that  he  shall  eat  of  the  tree  of 
life  in  the  paradise  of  God  ;  that  lie  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second  death  ; 
in  a  word,  that  he  shall  possess  eternal  happiness  in  heaven.  Are  not 
the  sins  of  such  remitted  ? 

I  am  not  quite  through  with  this  argument.  In  the  18th  verse  of  the 
same  chapter,  John  says,  "  We  know  that  whosoever  is  begotten  of  God 
sinneth  not,  but  he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself,  and  that 
wicked  one  toucheth  him  not."  Every  one  who  is  begotten  of  God, 
ceases  to  sin,  and  keeps  himself,  so  that  the  devil  does  not  touch  him. 
Are  such  persons  condemned  ?  All  must  say,  they  are  not — their  sins 
are  remitted.  * 

Now  you  see  the  insuperable  difficulty  in  which  Mr.  Campbell's  doc- 
trine involves  him.  He  will  baptize  none  but  believers  ;  and  all  believers, 
he  admits,  are  begotten  of  God — "  Whosoever  believetli  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  is  begotten  of  God."  They  are  begotten  before  he  can  baptize 
them  by  pouring,  sprinkling  or  dipping.  And  if  begotten,  they  are  God's 
children,  have  ceased  to  sin,  have  overcome  the  world,  and,  therefore, 
have  the  promise  of  eternal  blessedness  in  heaven.  He  admits,  that  they 
are  begotten  before  they  are  to  be  baptized;  and  these  scriptures  abun- 
dantly prove,  that  they  are  God's  children  and  heirs  of  eternal  glory,  and, 
consequendy,  that  they  do,  before  baptism,  enjoy  remission  of  sins.  His 
doctrine,  therefore,  does  most  manifesdy  contradict  a  large  number  of  the 
plainest  declarations  of  our  Savior  and  his  apostles. 

Thirdly.  My  third  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr,  Campbell  is 
founded  on  ihefact,  that  those  ivho  are  born  of  God,  enjoy  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  the  new  birth  is  not  con- 
nected with  baptism,  but  many  are  born  again  before  being  baptized. 
The  new  birth  is  first  mentioned  by  the  aposde  John,  ch.  i.  11 — 13,  "  He 


448  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.  But  as  many  as  re 
ceived  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believed  on  his  name  :  which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  It  is  impor- 
tant here  to  notice  the  difference  between  birth  and  adoption-  By  our 
birth  we  derive  from  our  parents  our  life  and  human  nature — we  are  like 
them,  ^y  adoption,  privileges  are  secured,  to  which  the  adopted  person 
was  not  before  entitled.  Birth  has  relation  to  life  and  nature :  adoption 
to  privileges.  Now  observe,  John  says,  that  all  who  received  Christ,  or 
believed  on  him,  were  born  of  God,  not  might  be  born.  They  were  born 
of  God,  had  their  hearts  renewed,  had  the  disposition  of  children ;  and, 
therefore,  they  received  Christ.  And  to  all  who,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
disposition  or  spirit  of  children,  received  him,  he  gave  the  privileges  of 
children,  the  blessings  of  adoption. 

I  will  now  prove  by  a  number  of  facts,  that  persons  are  born  of  God, 
before  they  are  baptized,  or  independently  of  baptism — that  the  new  birth 
is  not  at  all  essentially  connected  with  baptism. 

1.  In  the  passage  in  the  gospel  by  .John,  just  now  read,  where  the  new 
birth  is  first  mentioned,  not  a  word  it  said  about  water,  or  about  baptism. 
It  is  simply  stated,  that  they  who  received  Christ,  were  born  of  God 
Now  if  the  water  of  baptism  had  been  essential  to  the  new  birth,  would 
it  not  have  been  mentioned,  when  first  the  birth  is  spoken  of? 

2.  It  is  a  fact,  admitted  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  where  the  conversation 
occurred  between  our  Savior  and  Nicodemus,  when  the  subject  is  again 
presented;  christian  baptism  was  not  in  existence,  (John  iii.  1 — 12.) 
The  first  remark  he  made  to  Nicodemus,  was,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  tlie  kingdom  of 
God."  Nicodemus  did  not  understand  his  meaning.  He  explained, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Now  the  question  is,  whether,  by  the  water,  the 
Savior  meant  christian  baptism.  It  is  an  admitted  fact,  that  at  this  time, 
christian  baptism  had  not  been  instituted.  Now  we  are  certainly  safe  in 
presuming,  that  the  Savior  intended  that  Nicodemus  should  understand 
him.  But  if  he  alluded  to  an  ordinance,  not  then  in  existence,  and  of 
which  Nicodemus  could  know  nothing,  how  was  it  possible  that  he 
could  understand  him  ?  and  how  could  he  consistently  reprove  him  for 
not  understanding  liim  ?     For, 

3.  It  is  a  fact,  that  our  Lord  did  reprove  Nicodemus  for  his  ignorance 
of  this  doctrine.  "Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him.  Art  thou  a  master 
Qeacher]  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  things  ?"  v.  10.  He  seems  to 
remark  it  as  a  strange  inconsistency,  that  Nicodemus  should  be  a  teacher, 
an  expounder  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  be  ignorant  of  this  doctrine. 
It  is,  then,  certain  that  the  doctrine  here  taught  by  the  Savior,  is  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Baptism,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  is  not 
found  there ;  but  the  necessity  and  nature  of  a  change  of  heart,  of  regen- 
eration, is.  Ezekiel  said,  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  w^ill  1  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh,"  &c.  ch.  xxxvi.  26. 
Again,  David  prayed,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a 
right  spirit  within  me,"  Ps.  li.  10.  It  is  evident  that  the  Savoir  did  not 
allude  to  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  which  is  not  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  that  he  spoke  of  the  renewing  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  here  taught. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  449 

4.  It  is  a  fact,  that  after  christian  baptism  was  instituted,  it  never  was 
by  the  inspired  writers  called  a  birth.  Not  an  example  of  the  kind  can  be 
found.  And  if  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  never  did  speak  of  it  as  a  birth, 
we  cannot  safely  so  denominate  it. 

5.  The  reason  assigned  by  tlie  Savior,  why  the  new  birth  is  necessary, 
proves  unanswerably,  that  it  is  simply  a  change  of  the  heart — a  change 
from  sinfulness  to  holiness.  It  is  this  :  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh 
is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  We  must  be 
born  again,  born  of  the  Spirit,  because  we  were  born  of  the  flesh.  What 
are  we  to  understand  by  the  woxA flesh,  in  this  passage?  The  answer  to 
this  question  is  found  in  Galatians  v.  19,  20,  21,  "  Now  the  works  of 
the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these :  adultery,  fornication,  unclean- 
ness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations, 
wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murder,  drunkenness,  revell- 
ings,  and  such  like."  Again,  Roman  viii.  8,  9,  "  So  then  they  that  are 
in  the  flesh,  cannot  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  The  wordflesh, 
when  used  with  reference  to  moral  character,  is  constantly  employed,  as 
these  and  other  scriptures  abundantly  prove,  in  the  sense  of  depravity, 
moral  corruption.  The  meaning  of  our  Savior's  language,  therefore,  is, 
that  they  who  are  born  of  corrupt  or  sinful  parents,  are  themselves  sinful ; 
and  they  who  are  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  holy.  By  the  natural 
birth,  we  are  like  our  parents,  sinful;  by  the  spiritual  birth,  we  are  like 
the  Spirit,  holy.  The  new  birth  is,  therefore,  a  change  of  heart  from 
sinfulness  to  holiness,  not  as  Mr.  C.  contends,  a  change  of  state,  affected 
by  baptism,  from  condemnation  to  justification.  The  fact  that  a  man  is 
condemned,  is  a  good  reason  why  his  state  or  condition  should  be 
changed ;  but  the  fact  that  he  is  sinful,  is  a  good  reason  why  his  heart, 
his  moral  nature,  should  be  changed.  The  fact  that  a  man  is  diseased, 
is  the  reason  why  he  needs  medicine;  and,  of  course,  the  medicine  is 
intended  to  heal  his  disease.  If  then,  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth,  as 
our  Lord  teaches,  arises  from  the  fact  of  our  being  depraved,  the  new 
birth  must  be  designed  to  remove  that  depravity.  It  is,  then,  simply 
a  change  of  heart,  from  sinfulness  to  holiness,  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  and, 
therefore,  it  is  not  essentially,  or  at  all,  connected  with  baptism. 

6.  The  mystery  connected  with  the  new  birth,  confirms  the  view  of 
it  which  I  have  just  presented  :  "The  wind  bloweih  where  it  listeth,  and 
thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and 
whither  it  goeth  :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit;"  vs.  8. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this  language  ?  The  Savior  had  presented  to 
Nicodemus  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth.  He  objects,  that  it  is  very 
mysterious.  The  Savior  admits  that  it  is  mysterious,  but  proves  that 
this  is  no  valid  objection  against  it;  for  the  works  of  nature  are  full  of 
mysteries.  We  know,  that  the  wind  blows,  for  we  can  see  and  feel  its 
effects;  but  how  it  blows,  "  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth,"  we 
do  not  know — it  is  mysterious.  So  the  fact,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  renews 
the  heart,  we  know,  for  we  experience  the  effects  of  the  change,  and  wit- 
ness them  in  others ;  but  how  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  mind  we  know 
not — it  is  mysterious. 

But  if  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell  is  true,  this  allusion  to  the  blow- 
ing of  the  wind,  as  mysterious,  was  altogether  out  of  place.    For,  if  God 
should  declare  his  purpose  to  remit  the  sins  of  every  one  who,  upon  evi- 
dence, would  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  his  son,  and  be  immersed,  there 
29  2  p  2 


460  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

would  be  nothing  mysterious  about  it.  It  would  be  one  of  the  simplest 
things  imaginable.  But  it'  the  views,  Avhich  I  have  presented,  be  true, 
the  allusion  to  the  blowing  of  the  wind  was  peculiarly  appropriate.  It 
was  a  complete  answer  to  the  objection  offered  by  Nicodemus.  The 
evidence  is  thus  strengthened,  that  the  new  birth  is  a  change  of  heart. 

7.  That  our  Savior  had  no  allusion  to  christian  baptism  as  essential  to 
the  new  birth,  is  further  evident  from  the  fact,  that  water  is  mentioned 
but  once,  and  then  dropped.  The  inspired  writers  were  constantly  in 
the  habit,  in  speaking  of  spiritual  things,  of  connecting  the  emblem  and 
the  thing  signified,  or  of  substituting  the  former  for  the  latter,  as  illus- 
trating its  nature.  Thus  Ezekiel,  in  the  passage  repeatedly  quoted — 
"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean : 
from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you,"  <kc., 
chap,  xxxvi,  25,  26.  Isaiah,  when  he  would  express  the  idea,  that 
Christ  would  purify  many  nations  from  sin,  says,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle 
many  nations  ;"  chap.  lii.  15.  So  Paul,  writing  to  the  Hebrews — "  Hav- 
ing our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water  ;"chap  x.  22.  In  each  of  these  cases  we  find  water,  the 
emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing,  connected  with  the  thing  signified.  Our 
Savior  was  conversing  with  a  Jew.  He  did  not  understand  his  doctrine. 
How  could  he  better  make  his  meaning  clear  to  a  Jew,  than  by  connect- 
ing water,  the  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing,  with  the  Spirit.  By  the 
word  birth,  Nicodemus  would  understand  him  to  speak  of  a  change 
which  would  constitute  men  the  children  of  God ;  and  by  the  tvater  he- 
would,  if  not  amazingly  blind,  understand,  that  the  change  Avas  spiritual 
purification. 

Accordingly,  so  soon  as  water  is  once  employed  as  an  illustration  of  the 
nature  of  the  new  birth,  it  is  dropped,  whilst  the  birth  itself  is  still  the  subject 
of  discourse.  Thus,  in  verse  6th — "  For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  He  does  not  say, 
that  which  is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit ;  yet  if  water  were 
as  essential  to  the  birth  as  the  Spirit,  he  must  have  retained  it.  Again, 
*'  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  &c. — so  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit,"  not  of  tvater  and  the  Spirit.  It  is,  then,  evident,  that  the 
birth  of  the  spirit  is  the  great  subject  of  our  Savior's  remarks;  and  that 
he  spoke  of  water  just  as  did  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  and  Paul,  as  illustrating 
the  nature  of  the  change. 

8.  I  find  yet  further  confirmation  of  these  views  in  the  scriptural  evi- 
dences of  the  new  birth.  By  the  natural  birth  men  are  sinful;  by  the 
spiritual  birth  they  are  holy.  How,  then,  is  an  individual  to  know  thaf 
he  is  a  child  of  God?  By  the  fact  that  he  has  been  immersed?  By  no 
means.  Paul  says,  "  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  the  sons  of  God."  And  again,  "  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirits,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God;"  Rom.  viii.  14,  16. 
That  is,  when  the  heart  is  changed  from  the  love  and  practice  of  sin  to 
the  love  and  practice  of  holiness ;  when  our  feelings  and  our  lives  corres- 
pond with  the  teachings  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  when  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  dwells  in  us,  then  we  have  scriptural  evidence  that  we, 
are  born  of  God.  They  who  love  God,  and  delight  in  his  service,  are 
children  of  God;  and,  "if  children,  then  heirs — heirs  of  God,  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ." 

These  lacls  prove  unanswerably,  that  the   new  birth  is,  in  no  sense. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  45 1 

connected  essentially  with  baptism,  and,  consequently,  that  we  may  be. 
and  that  many  are,  children  of  God,  and  enjoy  the  remission  of  sins,  be- 
fore being  baptized.  It  is,  therefore,  clear,  that  Mr,  Campbell's  exposi- 
tion of  Peter's  sermon  is  false  :  because  it  flatly  contradicts  many  plain 
declarations  of  the  Scriptures.  And  if  a  man  attempt  to  establish  a  tenet 
by  giving  a  passage  of  Scripture  a  particular  interpretation,  I  have  most 
completely  refuted  it,  when  I  have  proved  his  interpretation  contradictory 
to  other  plain  and  unambiguous  passages,  unless  he  is  prepared  to  say,  the 
Bible  contradicts  itself. 

I  purpose,  however,  to  reply  particularly  to  the  gentleman's  speech ; 
to  analyze  the  passages  on  which  he  chiefly  relies;  and  to  prove  that  his 
interpretation  of  them  is  not  sustained  by  correct  principles  of  language. 
He  has,  indeed,  read  us  a  pretty  speech,  but  his  doctrine  is,  nevertheless, 
direcdy  contradictory  of  the  repeated  and  various  declarations  of  inspired 
writers.  [Here  Mr.  Rice  inquired  how  much  time  he  had,  and  was  in- 
formed that  he  had  15  minutes.]  I  will  then  proceed  to  answer  some  of 
the  arguments  of  my  friend. 

To  prove  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  secure  the  remission  of  sins,  he 
appeals  to  Peter's  discourse  on  the  day  of  Pentecost:  "Then  Peter  said 
unto  them,  repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins ;"  or,  as  Mr.  C.  incorrectly  trans- 
lates the  passage,  "  reform  and  he  imniersed.''^  The  word  translated  re- 
pent, is  metanoco,  which  signifies,  literally,  to  change  the  mind.  Refor- 
mation, as  the  word  is  commonly  used,  expresses  the  effect  or  conse- 
quence of  metanoia,  the  change  of  mind.  The  former  expresses  an 
operation  of  the  mind ;  the  latter  the  conduct  consequent  upon  it.  His 
translation  is  here,  I  think,  as  in  many  other  places,  incorrect.  This, 
however,  by  the  way. 

That  Mr.  C.'s  exposition  of  the  passage  is  incorrect,  is  clear,  as  already 
shown,  from  the  fact,  that  it  contradicts  many  other  passages,  the  mean- 
ing of  which  is  perfectly  clear.  But  let  us  examine  Peter's  language : 
"Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  (eis)  for,  (or,  as  Mr.  C.  understands  it,  in  order  that  you  may 
secure)  the  remission  of  sins."  We  will  compare  with  this.  Matt.  iii. 
11,  the  language  of  which,  in  the  original,  is  precisely  similar;  "I,  in- 
deed, baptize  you  with  water  (cis)  unto  repentance,"  &c.  The  prepo- 
sition eis  is  employed  in  both  passages,  precisely  in  the  same  manner. 
Peter  said,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  (eis)  for  the  remission  of  sins ;"  and 
John  said,  "I  baptize  you  (eis)  for  or  unto  repentance."  Will  my  friend 
maintain,  that  John  baptized  the  Jews,  in  order  that  they  might  repent — 
to  cause  them  to  repent  of  their  sins!  If  he  will  not,  how  can  he  main- 
tain that  Peter  commanded  baptism,  ?*?i  order  to  the  remission  of  sins? 
The  mode  of  expression  in  both  cases  is  precisely  the  same.  The  Jews 
came  to  John,  confessing  their  sins  and  professing  repentance ;  and  into 
that  profession  John  did  baptize  them.  But  if  the  gentleman  will  explain 
to  us  the  meaning  of  John's  language,  I  will  then  be  prepared  to  explain 
that  of  Peter's.  If  he  cannot  maintain  that  John  baptized  the  Jews,  in 
order  to  repentance,  he  cannot  prove  that  Peter  baptized  those  on  the  day 
of  pentecost,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

He  informed  us,  that  John  preached  the  doctrine  of  baptism  for  tht 
remission  of  sins.  This,  however,  is  not  precisely  correct.  John  preach- 
ed "  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  Mark  i.  4. 
Repentance  secured  the  remission  of  sins;  and  on  profession  of  repent-  * 


452  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

ance  the  Jews  were  baptized.  This  is,  I  suppose,  the  meaning  of  the 
passage. 

But  if  we  were  to  admit,  that  the  phrase  in  Peter's  discourse  eis 
aphesin  amartion,  means  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins ;  the  question 
would  be,  whether  repentance  or  baptism  secured  remission,  or  whether, 
as  Mr.  C.  contends,  both  were  equally  necessary.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  it  was  very  common  with  the  inspired  writers  to  connect  the  exter- 
nal ordinance  with  the  inward  grace,  or  with  the  blessings  of  which  it 
was  the  sign  and  pledge.  Ezekiel  said,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  j^ou  shall  be  clean ;  from  all  your  filthiness  and 
from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  By  taking  this  passage  out  of 
its  connection,  I  can  prove,  that  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  upon  per- 
sons will  purify  them  from  idolatry,  and  from  all  sin ;  a  doctrine  which 
none  of  us  believe.  Just  so  Ananias  said  to  Paul,  "be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  The  water  was  the  external  sign  and  pledge  of  deliv- 
erance from  sin. 

That  repentance  without  baptism  secures  remission  of  sins,  I  can  prove 
by  several  passages  of  Scripture  ;  particularly  by  Peter's  second  discourse, 
recorded  in  Acts  iii.  19:  "  Repent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  when  the  times  of  refreshing  shall  come 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord."  In  this  instance,  you  observe,  Peter, 
though  directing  inquirers  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved,  omitted  bap- 
tism. This  he  certainly  would  not  have  done,  if  he  had  regarded  it  as 
necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins.  But  he  said,  "  Repent  and  be  con- 
vertedy  Did  he  preach  contradictory  doctrines?  By  no  means.  Re- 
pentance and  conversion  are  both  necessary  to  remission,  but  the  former 
necessarily  implies  the  latter.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man  should  repent, 
and  not  be  converted.  Repentance  is  a  change  of  mind,  a  change  of 
views  and  feelings;  and  can  a  man  have  new  views,  and  new  feelings 
and  affections,  and  not  be  converted — turned  from  his  former  course  to  a 
new  one  ?  It  is  equally  impossible  that  a  man  should  be  converted  with- 
out repenting.  Conversion  is  turning  from  one  course  lO  another ;  but 
no  one  radically  changes  his  course  of  conduct,  unless  his  mind  is  first 
changed.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  repentance  and  conversion  mutually 
imply  each  other,  as  cause  and  effect,  Peter  might  mention  one  or  both, 
as  he  chose.  So  in  his  first  discourse  he  mentioned  repentance,  which 
implies  conversion ;  and  in  the  second  he  mentions  both  repentance  and 
conversion. 

But  can  it  be  said,  with  truth,  that  baptism  (and  especially  immersion) 
is  necessarily  implied  in  repentance,  or  in  repentance  and  conversion? 
Certainly  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  multitudes  do  repent  and  turn  to  God, 
and  live  lives  of  exemplary  pietv,  who  never  receive  what  Mr.  C.  calls 
baptism.  If,  then,  baptism  had  been  as  necessary  to  remission  of  sins  as 
repentance,  surely  Peter  could  not  have  omitted  so  to  state  the  matter  to 
those  inquirers. 

The  argument  is  confirmed  by  the  preaching  of  Paul  to  the  jailor.  Acts 
xvi.  He  came,  trembling,  and  asked,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?" 
The  answer  was,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  Here,  neither  repentance,  conversion,  nor  baptism  is  mention- 
ed, and  yet  Paul  preached  the  same  doctrine  that  had  been  preached  by 
Peter ;  for  faith  necessarily  implies  conversion.  I  need  not  delay  to 
prove,  that  every  one  who  repents  does  also  believe ;  and  every  one  who 
•repents  and   believes,  is  converted.     These  thing  mutually  imply  each 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  453 

Other,  and  are  never  found  separated.  Hence  it  is,  that  remission  of  sins, 
and  salvation,  are  promised  to  those  who  repent;  for  wherever  we  find 
repentance,  we  find  also  faith  and  conversion.  But  does  repentance,  con- 
version, or  faith,  or  all  of  them,  necessarily  imply  baptism  or  immersion. 
Do  not  many  repent,  believe,  and  turn  to  God,  who  never  can  be  bap- 
tized, or  never  will  be  immersed  ?  How  do  you  imagine  the  gentleman 
endeavors  to  escape  from  these  difficulties  ?  Why,  he  tells  us,  that  the 
word  convert  means  immerse!  that  the  Jews,  soon  after  Pentecost,  knew 
that  the  disciples  called  the  immersed  '■converted ;''  and  that  the  time  in- 
tervening between  Peter's  first  and  second  discourses  was  long  enough 
to  familiarize  tliis  style  in  the  metropolis,  so  tiiat  when  a  christian 
used  the  word  convert,  every  Jew  knew  he  meant  immerse!  The 
unbelieving  Jews  must  have  been  very  apt  learners,  to  have  become,  in 
a  few  days,  so  familiar  with  the  entirely  new  meanings  of  words  in  the 
christian  dialect!  But  that  the  gentleman's  conjecture  is  a  wide  mistake, 
is  evident  from  one  or  two  considerations : 

1st.  No  two  words  in  any  language  are  more  radically  different  in  their 
etymological  meaning,  than  baptize  and  convert.  No  lexicon  can  be 
found,  that  assigns  to  them  the  same,  or  even  similar  meanings. 

2nd.  In  their  usage  they  are  as  different  as  in  their  original  meanings. 
The  word  convert  had  been  long  in  use  amongst  the  Jevv's,  before  the 
New  Testament  was  written;  and  its  meaning  was  well  understood.  A 
few  passages,  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  will  show  what  is  its 
meaning  in  the  Scriptures.  Psalm  li.  13,  "Then  will  I  teach  transgres- 
sors thy  ways;  and  sinners  shall  be  converted  unio  thee."  Isaiah  vi.  10, 
"Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  &c.,  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes, 
and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand  with  their  heart,  and  convert, 
and  be  healed."  Matt,  xviii.  3,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be 
converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  In  these  passages,  the  meaning  of  the  word  convert 
cannot  be  misunderstood.  It  certainly  expresses  a  radical  moral  change 
in  the  heart  and  in  the  life — a  change  of  disposiuon  to  child-like  simpli- 
city and  humility.  It  is  uised  in  the  same  sense  in  Acts  xxvi.  18,  where 
Christ  sends  Paul  to  the  gentiles,  "  to  open  their  eyes,  snd  to  turn  [con- 
vert~\  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God."  Or,  as  I  suppose  my  friend  would  read  it,  to  immerse  them  from 
darkness  to  light!  The  truth  is,  there  is  not  an  example  in  the  whole 
Bible,  where  the  words  conversion  and  baptism  are  used  synonymously. 
The  former  is  uniformly  used  to  express  a  change  of  heart,  and  a  corres- 
ponding change  of  conduct,  particularly  the  latter.  In  this  sense  it  was 
employed,  with  regard  to  those  who  had  previously  been  baptized.  Thus 
James  says,  "  Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do  err  from  the  truth,  and  one  con- 
vert him,  let  him  know  that  he  which  converteth  the  sinner  from  the 
error  of  his  way,  shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  hide  a  multitude 
of  sins,"  chap.  v.  19,  20. 

Nc  two  words,  as  these  and  other  passages  abundandy  prove,  are  more 
radically  different  in  meaning,  than  the  words  baptism  and  conversion — 
the  one  denoting  a  moral  change ;  the  other,  an  external  ordinance.  The 
gentleman,  however,  is  forced  to  the  glaring  error  of  making  them  synon- 
ymous, in  order  to  sustain  his  unscriptural  doctrine,  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  the  remission  of  sins.  It  is  clear,  that  Peter,  in  his  second  dis- 
course, omitted  to  mention  baptism,  as  a  condition  of  remission  of  sins, 
because  he  did  not  regard  it  in  that  light. 


454  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

This  is  not  all.  Peter  also  preached  the  gospel  to  Cornelius  and  his 
family.  He  was  directed  by  revelation  from  God  to  go  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  this  gentile  family;  and  when  he  had  heard  from  Cornelius  hovr 
God  had  sent  an  angel  and  directed  him  to  send  for  him,  he  "opened  his 
mouth,  and  said,  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons: 
but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  ac- 
cepted witli  him,"  Acts  x.  34,  35.  Every  one  that  fears  God  and  works 
righteousness  is  accepted,  whether  he  have  been  previously  baptized  or 
not.  Cornelius  had  the  best  possible  evidence  of  his  acceptance;  for  his 
prayers  had  been  heard,  and  his  alms  remembered.  Did  God  hear  the 
prayers  of  an  unpardoned  man,  and  send  an  angel  to  visit  him,  whilst  yet  he 
granted  him  not  the  burden  of  his  heart's  desire — the  remission  of  his  sins  ? 

But  Peter  was  sent  to  tell  Cornelius  words  by  which  he  and  his  family 
might  be  saved.  He  was,  of  course,  to  preach  the  gospel  fully — to  pre- 
sent very  clearly  the  conditions  of  pardon  and  salvation.  Did  he  preach 
to  them  baptism  in  order  that  their  sins  might  be  remitted  ?  Cornelius 
was  acquainted  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  was  truly  a  pious  man — a 
faithful  servant  of  God ;  but  he  was  not  saved,  in  the  full  sense  of  this 
word.  He  needed  all  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel  to  aid  him 
in  preparation  for  a  holy  heaven.  But,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell's  doc- 
trine, here  was  one  of  the  most  godly  men — a  man  who  loved  God  and 
served  him,  a  man  who  had  received  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  who  was  yet  in  a  state  of  condemnation!  For,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, the  Spirit  descended  upon  him  and  his  family  before  they  were 
baptized. 

I  ask  again — did  Peter  tell  Cornelius,  that  he  must  be  baptised  in  order 
to  secure  the  remission  of  sins?  He  certainly  did  not;  if  Luke  has 
faithfully  recorded  what  he  said.  And  let  it  be  remarked,  it  was  particu- 
larly important  that  this  doctrine,  if  true,  should  have  been  preached  on 
this  occasion  ;  for  the  gospel  was  now,  for  the  first  time,  preached  to  the 
gentiles  ;  and  they  had  not  heard  of  his  discourses  at  Jerusalem.  But 
Peter  did  not  inform  Cornelius,  that  though  his  prayers  had  been  answer- 
ed, his  alms  remembered,  an  angel  sent  to  visit  him,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
poured  out  on  him,  his  sins  could  not  be  forgiven,  except  in  the  act  of  re- 
ceiving baptism  !  The  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  that  baptism  is  not 
necessary  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

The  correctness  of  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  answer  given  by 
Paul  to  the  trembling  jailor,  already  mentioned — "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shah  be  saved."  The  apostle  seems  to  have  said 
not  a  word  about  baptism  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  Doubtless  he 
commanded  him  to  be  baptized  and  to  do  many  other  things  ;  but  he  cer- 
tainly did  not  tell  him,  as  Mr.  C.  tells  those  who  ask  him  the  same  ques- 
tion, that  his  sins  could  be  pardoned  only  in  the  act  of  receiving  baptism. 
On  the  contrary,  the  language  of  Paul  conveys  the  idea  most  distinctly, 
that  so  soon  as  he  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  his  sins  would  be 
remitted,  and  his  soul  would  be  in  safety.  Salvation  was  offered  to  him 
on  the  single  condition  of  faitli ;  and,  of  course,  all  that  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  is  implied  in  faith. 

But  it  is  not  difficult  to  prove,  that  repentance  does  secure  remission  of 
sins.  Indeed,  repentance  and  remission  are  constantly  associated  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  as  well  as  in  the  language  of  our  Savior.  A 
proof  of  this  is  found  in  Luke  xxiv.  46,  47,  "Thus  it  is  written,  and 
thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day  t 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  IIAPTISM.  455 

and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preaelied  in  his 
name,  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  Did  not  our  Savior 
connect  together  repentance  and  remission  ?  He  did  not  say — that  re- 
pentance, baptism  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached.  Here  the 
gentleman's  doctrine  labors.  He  is  obliged  to  make  remission  mean  im- 
mersion !  Really,  I  am  apprehensive,  that  he  will  convert  the  whole  gos- 
pel into  water.  Conversion,  we  are  told,  means  immersion  ;  and  remis- 
sion means  immersion  !  It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  sustain  his  doctrine, 
to  make  almost  every  thing  mean  immersion.  Most  evident  it  is,  how- 
ever, that  our  Savior  taught,  that  true  repentance  secures  the  remission  of 
sins.  Every  true  penitent  is  also  a  believer;  and  every  penitent  believer 
is  truly  converted.  Consequently,  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  remis- 
sion of  sins  promised  sometimes  to  repentance,  sometimes  to  conversion, 
and  sometimes  to  faith. — [_Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  23 — 12  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[]mr.  Campbell's  second  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  certainly  have  a  very  singnlar  opponent — one  of 
his  own  class.  He  presumes  not  to  respond  to  a  single  argument  that  I 
ofTer,  in  any  of  the  usual  forms  of  debate.  There  is  nothing  more  gen- 
erally established  in  the  literary  world  than  that,  in  all  discussions  in  the 
form  of  debate,  there  should  be  a  proposition,  parties,  an  atiirmant  and  a 
respondent;  and  that  there  are  duties  which  devolve  upon  these  parties 
as  they  severally  stand,  to  the  thesis  to  be  discussed.  In  all  schools,  not 
merely  in  ordinary  debating  schools,  but  in  all  the  higli  schools  and  col- 
leges, one  law  obtains  :  the  proof  lies  upon  the  affirmant,  and  the  dis- 
proof upon  the  negative.  Whatever  arguments,  therefore,  are  adduced  by 
the  affirmant,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  negative  to  respond  to  them  in  some 
way  or  other.  If  they  are  weak,  irrelevant,  or  inconclusive,  he  should 
expose  them  and  refute  them.  If  they  are  good,  and  relevant,  and  con- 
clusive, he  should  acknowledge  it  and  yield  to  them;  but  not  to  notice 
them  at  all,  is  at  once  to  confess  inability. 

I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  debates  :  but  not  in  the  person  of 
Romanist,  Protestant  or  infidel,  have  I  found  one  who,  after  presenting  to 
his  special  attention  some  seven  arguments  arranged  in  numerical  order, 
in  proof  of  a  specific  proposition,  would  then  take  up  neither  the  first  nor 
the  last,  nor  any  one  of  them  ;  but  immediately  put  out  to  sea,  anc)  talk  of 
every  thing  else  but  the  proposition  or  its  proof.  Such  seems  to  be,  in 
general  terms,  and  in  general  practice,  the  peculiar  accomplishments  of 
my  friend,  Mr.  Rice.  He  has  again  made  a  circuit  through  the  Bible, 
and  finally  made  up  a  new  and  a  false  issue.  He  has  said  many  things 
that  are  true — things  that  every  one  admits  ;  some  that  are  not  true ; 
and  some  that,  whether  true  or  false,  have  no  more  point  or  bearing  than 
the  first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Chronicles,  which,  if 
I  remember  right,  reads,  "Adam,  Seth,  Enosh."  He  might  have  spoken 
in  such  style  seven  hours  or  seventy,  and  no  one  could  know  the  proper 
issue.  The  issue  is  not  about  being  begotten  or  born,  not  about  believe, 
noi'  repent,  nor  reform,  nor  about  baptism  in  general  terms  ;  but,  is  bap- 
tism for  the  remission  of  sins,  or  is  it  not?  I  have  adduced  seven  argu- 
ments in  proof  of  the  affirmative.  Not  one  of  them  has  been  answered. 
I  shall  therefore  consider  them  unanswerable  by  Mr.  Rice,  and  proceed  to 
consider  what  he  has  advanced  in  the  light  of  objections — or  of  casual 
remarks  and  declamations. 


436  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

God  had  raised  the  crucified  Messiah  to  the  throne  of  the  universe.  He 
commanded  them  to  repent,  and  be  baptized,  in  tlie  name  of  the  Lord, 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  single  passage,  when  duly  estimated,  is, 
of  itself,  enough  to  establish  the  affirmation  I  have  made  of  the  design  of 
baptism.  I  am  sustained  by  the  identical  words  of  holy  writ.  True,  I 
have  inserted  one  word,  and  but  one,  among  the  words  that  Peter  spake  ; 
but  that  word  was  not  inserted  to  obviate  a  mistake.  Some  have  af- 
firmed, that,  like  John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  Presbyterianism,  we  preached 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  future  sins,  as  well  as  for  the  remission  of 
past  sins.  That  I  might  not,  then,  be  regarded  as  a  genuine  Presbyter- 
ian, of  the  pure,  primitive,  Calvinistic  school,  I  inserted  the  word  past. 
My  learned  Calvinian  opponent  has  taken  the  negative  in  some  sense  ; 
or,  perhaps,  he  only  means  to  advocate  pure,  ancient,  uncorrupted  Calvin- 
ism, by  denying  that  the  virtue  of  baptism  is  only  retrospective — he  affirm- 
ing that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  all  sins,  past,  present,  and  future. 

He  [Mr.  Rice]  can,  as  a  christian  man,  only  demur  at  the  word  past ; 
for,  if  that  Avord  were  expunged,  my  proposition  is  then  expressed  in  the 
identical  words  of  the  king's  own  version — a  version  completed  by  forty- 
seven  good,  learned,  pious,  Episcopalians.  We  command  inquiring  pen- 
itents, in  the  very  words  of  Peter,  "  Be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins :"  in  doing  which,  we 
exactly  conform  to  the  very  words  of  inspiration.  Our  proposition,  then, 
is  incontrovertibly  true ;  provided  only,  Peter  knew  what  he  said,  and 
said  what  he  meant. 

My  second  argument  is  deduced  from  Mark's  version  of  the  commis- 
sion— "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved" — taken  in 
connection  with  Peter's  response  to  the  thousands  in  Jerusalem.  These 
passages  mutually  explain  each  other.  Here  is  given  to  baptism  a  most 
imposing  character.  Along  with  faith,  and  as  the  adjunct  of  faith,  it 
saves  penitents.  That  it  has  power  to  save  one  from  any  thing  else  than 
sins,  is  not  to  be  imagined :  inasmuch  as  we  have  three  distinct  salvations 
expressed  in  the  Bible — the  first,  a  salvation  of  the  body  from  the  ills 
and  evils,  the  accidents  and  dangers  of  this  life ;  the  second,  a  salvation 
of  the  soul,  from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin  ;  the  third,  a  salvation  of 
both  body  and  soul — of  the  whole  man  in  heaven  forever. 

Now,  the  salvation  of  the  soul  being  distinguished  from  the  salvation 
of  the  body,  and  from  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  whole  man,  must  simply 
indicate  the  remission  of  sin,  its  guilt  and  its  pollution.  And  so  it  would 
seem  that  Peter  and  Mark  must  have  been  guided  by  the  same  spirit,  in 
expressing  the  mind  of  Christ  under  the  remedial  economy  :  the  latter, 
by  connecting  it  with  salvation,  and  the  otlier,  with  remission  of  sins 
This  harmonizing  of  the  two  witnesses,  teaches  the  true  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, to  wit :  that  a  saved  man  is  one  whose  sins  are  pardoned.  To 
say,  then,  that  a  sinner  is  saved,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  is  par- 
doned. He  that  is  pardoned,  is  saved ;  and  he  that  is  saved,  is  pardoned. 
But,  whether  the  saved  person  shall  hold  fast  his  begun  confidence  un- 
shaken to  the  end,  and  finally  obtain  the  salvation  to  be  revealed  when 
the  Lord  comes,  depends  not  upon  faith,  repentance,  or  baptism,  but  upon 
''  yielding  the  fruits  of  holiness,  and  thus  having  the  end  everlasting  life." 
Luke  so  used  the  woi'd  saved,  when  closing  the  narration  of  the  christian 
Pentecost.  "And,"  says  he,  "the  Lord  added  daily  the  saved  to  the 
congregated."  The  saved  were  those  who  had  confessed  their  sins,  had 
repented,  and  were  baptized. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  437 

My  third  argument  is  derived  from  the  fact,  that  the  baptism  of  John, 
as  well  as  that  of  the  Messiah,  was  connected  with  the  remission  of  sins. 
So  reads  the  divine  testimony — "  In  these  days  came  John  the  Baptist — 
preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Nor  is 
this  the  peculiar  style  of  John  Mark.  Luke,  also,  speaks  of  the  design 
of  John's  baptism  in  almost  identical  words.  He  says,  "  And  he  came 
into  the  country  bordering  on  the  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance foi  the  remission  of  sins,"  (iii.  3.)  Again  ;  that  John's  baptism  had 
special  reference  to  remission,  appears  from  the  fact  recorded  by  Matthew, 
"All  Judea  and  Jerusalem  were  baptized  by  him,  confessing  their 
sinsJ'''  The  confession  of  sins  amongst  the  Jews  was  necessary  to  remis- 
sion ;  and  generally  enjoined  with  special  reference  to  it.  When  the  ad- 
ministrator baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  subject  received 
baptism  confessing  his  sins,  have  we  not  reason  to  believe  that  sins  were 
pardoned  in  the  act  of  baptism  ? 

A  certain  prediction  concerning  this  extraordinary  minister,  uttered  by 
his  father  about  the  time  of  his  circumcision,  is,  of  itself,  suflicient  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion,  that  the  ministry  of  John  had  peculiar  reference  to 
some  new  doctrine  of  remission.  What  could  be  more  pointedly  said  to 
communicate  that  impression,  than  the  following  words?  "And  thou, 
child,  shalt  be  called  the  Prophet  of  the  Highest;  for  thou  shalt  go  before 
ihe  Lord  to  prepare  his  way — to  give  knowledge  of  salvation  to  his  peo- 
ple in  the  remission  of  their  sins."  Literally,  it  reads — the  knowledge  of 
salvation  in  the  remission  of  their  sins.  That  this  refers  to  baptism  is  not 
only  evident  to  my  mind,  from  my  own  reasoning,  but  it  is  the  judgment 
of  our  most  profound  critics  and  authors,  of  marginal  readings  and  refer- 
ences. Mill  and  Wetsten  on  these  words  refer  to  Mark  i.  4;  and  to 
Luke  iii.  3,  which  we  have  belbre  quoted.  So  do  various  versions  hav- 
ing references. 

In  this  way  John's  baptism  prepared  the  way  for  that  of  the  Messiah. 
Again;  this  is  the  peculiar  distinction  between  the  new  salvation,  and  the 
ancient  salvations,  most  usual  among  the  sons  of  Abraham.  Their  deliv- 
erance was  from  temporal  grievances,  and  from  the  tyranny  of  oppressive 
enemies;  but  the  new  salvation  of  tlie  gospel  is  a  salvation  consisting  pri- 
marily of  the  actual,  real,  and  personal  remission  of  sins.  Hence,  John's 
baptism  was  for  the  remission  of  sins.  That  there  should  be  a  more  sen- 
sible, evident,  and  satisfactory  remission  of  sins  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, and  that  baptism  is  an  ordinance  especially  designed  for  that  pur- 
pose, will  appear  still  farther  evident  from  other  declarations  found  in  the 
first  discourses  on  the  opening  of  the  new  reign  of  grace.  From  the  ex- 
position of  the  transactions  which  occurred  in  heaven  immediately  after 
the  ascension,  we  therefore  deduce 

Onv fourth  argument. — On  entering  the  heavens,  Jesus  was  constituted 
Lord  and  Christ.  This  was  the  last  act  in  the  sublime  drama  of  man's  de- 
liverance; so  far  as  the  means  of  his  redemption  from  sin  and  death  are 
contemplated.  Hence,  this  same  Peter,  when  opening  and  announcing 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  repeatedly  alludes  to  this  glorious  consummation 
of  the  gospel  facts.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  he  said,  "  Let  all  the  house 
of  Israel  know,  that  God  has  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  you  crucified, 
both  Lord  and  Christ."  Again  :  in  his  second  sermon,  reported  in  the 
next  chapter,  he  says  to  the  believing  thousands,  "  Repent  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  so  that  seasons  of  refreshment 
may  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  he  will  send  Jesus  Christ, 

2o2 


458  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

ductory  speech  is  not  now  being  discussed.  No  point  made  in  it  is  logi- 
cally, or  formally,  or  in  any  way  directly  assailed. 

I  will  state  what  the  true  and  proper  issue  is,  in  another  form.  It  is 
this  ;  He  contends  that  baptism  is  a  purification  or  washing ;  that  he  has 
elaborated  at  great  length.  He  says  it  is  a  purification  of  some  sort — it 
is  a  purification  from  sin.  He  told  you,  that  he  goes  for  washing,  cleans- 
ing, purifying.  He  has  baptismal  purification,  baptismal  cleansing,  bap- 
tismal washing,  &c.  He  says  I  agree  with  him  so  far.  But  what  is  the 
issue  ?  I  go  for  baptismal  purification  through  faith :  he  goes  for  it 
without  faith.  I  will  stand  to  it  before  the  world,  that  this,  according  to 
him,  is  the  real  issue.  He  will  have  infants,  without  faith,  purified  by 
water,  the  baptismal  purifier — whether  it  be  applied  by  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, or  dipping.  According  to  my  friend,  every  infant  that  is  baptized, 
no  matter  how  the  ceremony  is  performed,  is  baptismally  purified ;  and, 
consequently,  without  faith ;  and,  therefore,  his  purification  is  without 
faith.  I  believe  that  this  baptismal  purification  comes  through  faith  only. 
Hence  faith  is  the  vital  principle,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God.  According  to  my  views,  a  person  believes,  repents,  and  is  bap- 
tized, in  order  to  purification.  According  to  his  views,  he  is  purified, 
sanctified,  adopted,  if  an  adult,  by  faith  alone ;  but  if  an  infant,  by  sprink- 
ling alone,  without  faith  or  intelligence.  An  adult,  with  him,  if  he  have 
faith  he  has  every  thing — pardon,  justification,  sancdfication ;  he  is  a 
child  of  God,  he  is  begotten  of  God,  he  is  born  of  God,  has  every  thing. 
There  is  no  use  for  baptism  or  the  Lord's  supper ;  all  means  and  ordi- 
nances, according  to  his  position,  are  mere  superfluities,  so  far  as  these 
benefits  are  implied.  But  we  plead  for  faith,  because  without  it  we  can- 
not please  God  ;  but  not  for  faith  alone. 

But,  my  fellow-citizens,  to  excite  the  antipathies  of  religious  parties 
against  us,  if  not  to  make  us  most  odiously  uncharitable,  in  the  current 
style  of  the  present  century  it  has  been  often  said,  and  said  during  this 
discussion,  that  with  us  it  is — no  baptism,  no  pardon,  no  salvation.  INow, 
tliere  is,  in  one  point  of  view,  nothing  in  this  peculiar  to  us.  All  professors 
of  Christianity,  I  mean  all  parties,  make  baptism,  under  certain  conditions, 
essential  to  salvation.  Roman  Cadiolics  believe  so.  Protestants  say, 
that  any  one  who  knows  that  it  is  a  christian  ordinance,  and  wilfully  dis- 
dains or  neglects  it,  cannot  be  saved.  I  have  never  written  or  spoken  any 
thing  stronger  than  that.  And  yet,  how  often  have  the  pulpits  and  the 
presses  proclaimed  that  we,  in  all  cases,  make  baptism  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  salvation — that  we  suspend  the  eternal  destiny  of  mankind  upon  the 
presence  of  a  certain  quantity  of  water.  Nay,  we  have  been  gravely 
asked  the  question,  a  hundred  times,  should  a  person  die  on  his  way  to 
the  water,  would  he  be  lost  forever,  because  he  failed  in  getting  into  it ! 
This,  I  have  always  said,  is  a  non  sequitur ;  a  consequence  that  follows 
not  from  any  tenet  or  saying  of  ours.  Indeed,  both  in  old  England  and 
in  New  England,  this  was  once  the  current  and  standing  abuse  of  the 
Baptists — of  all  immersionists.  But  they  have  survived  it.  So  will  we. 
I  have  said  that  such  views  are  not  a  fair  consequence  of  any  thing  we 
have  either  said  or  written  on  this  subject.  Still  the  question,  whether 
the  Lord  would  suspend,  in  any  way,  the  salvation  of  any  human  being 
upon  the  contingency  of  the  presence  of  water,  savors  much  more  of 
ignorance  and  scepticism  on  the  part  of  the  propounders,  than  of  error  on 
the  part  of  him  to  whom  such  a  question  is  propounded.  Suppose  we 
ask,   for  illustration,  what  portion  of  the  world  enjoys  the    Bible  ?     I 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  459 

am  told,  not  one-half.  Now,  I  presume  Mr.  Rice  makes  the  possession 
of  the  Bible  essential  to  salvation.  And  what  is  the  material  of  which 
the  Bible  is  composed  ?  In  one  point  of  view,  maj'  we  not  say,  it  is  com- 
posed of  rags,  oil,  and  lamp-black?  It  might,  then,  in  one  point  of  view, 
be  said,  that  the  salvation  of  the  world  depends  upon  the  contingency 
of  a  certain  quantity  of  rags,  oil,  and  lamp-black?  and  that  we  must  make 
such  a  contingency  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  world  ?  If,  then,  as 
one  may  say,  the  destiny  of  half  the  world  be  suspended  upon  such  a  con- 
tingency, ought  he,  on  his  own  principles,  to  demur  at  the  state  of  the 
case  which  he  himself  presents  ?  There  is  neither  wit  nor  reason  in  the 
objection,  abstractly  considered ;  nor  is  there  any  pertinency  whatever  in 
its  relevancy  tons.  We  do  not  hold  faith,  repentance,  or  baptism  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  in  all  cases.  And  yet,  if  water  were  to  be  made  the 
most  essential  of  them  all,  it  would,  on  the  principle  of  the  caviler  him- 
self, seem  most  of  all  consistent,  inasmuch  as  water  is  infinitely  more 
common  than  either  faith  or  repentance — three-fourths  of  the  terraqueous 
globe  being  covered  with  it.  In  responding  to  this  oft-repeated  calumny, 
I  have  answered  many  of  his  arguments  and  objections,  both  on  the  former 
propositions  and  in  the  speech  which  we  have  just  now  heard.  For,  in- 
deed, this  has  been  incorporated  with  many  of  them,  or  rather  the  spirit 
that  has  animated  a  majority  of  them. 

Instead  of  discussing  the  argument  founded  on  Peter's  response  to  the 
three  thousand,  Mr.  Rice  would  make  it  a  matter  of  importance,  that  Pe- 
ter should  always  have  used  the  very  same  words  on  every  occasion,  and 
given,  identically,  the  same  answer  to  every  querist — as  if  our  Lord,  or 
any  of  the  apostles,  had  always  used  the  same  words,  speaking  of  faith, 
repentance,  or  any  thing  else  !  !  If  Peter  had  never  spoken  these  identi- 
cal words  a  second  time,  "Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  after  having,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven  with  them,  the  other 
aposdes  speaking  them  in  all  languages  at  the  same  time — the  Holy  Spi- 
rit manifestly  present,  dictating  and  authenticating  them — methinks  it  is 
enough  forever.  To  have  used  the  same  words  as  z  formula,  on  all  oc- 
casions, would  have  been  supremely  eccentric.  To  have  told  us  on  every 
occasion,  that  every  new  convert  believed,  repented,  and  was  baptized, 
before  he  entered  the  church,  would  not  have  been  more  ridiculous,  than 
to  have  answered  every  human  being  in  the  same  number  and  arrange- 
ment of  words.  We  are,  but  once  told,  "  that  they  who  gladly  received 
the  word  were  baptized" — but  never  are  those  identical  words  used  on 
any  other  occasion.  Then  we  must  infer,  that  no  other  persons  ever 
gladly  received  the  word — if  we  must  conclude  that  Peter  never  again 
used  exacdy  the  same  words!!  It  is  said,  "the  Lord  added  daily  the 
saved  to  the  church,"  but  it  is  not  said  that  they  believed,  or  repented,  or 
were  baptized  !  Must  we  then  infer  they  were  not  ?  Yet  such  is  the 
learned  logic  of  Mr.  Rice. 

Yet  in  the  very  next  discourse  of  Peter,  at  which  an  immense  multi- 
tude were  converted,  in  Solomon's  portico,  we  find  a  similar,  if  not  an 
identical  address.  His  words  are,  "  Repent  and  be  converted,  every  one 
of  you,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Now,  '■'■the  blotting  out  of 
sins,"  according  to  Mr.  Rice,  is  an  innovation.  It  ought  to  have  been, 
"for  the  remission  of  sins."  So  is  the  imperative  "6e  converted,''^  in- 
stead of  "  be  baptized.''''  Now,  as  "  be  baptized,''''  on  the  former  occa- 
sion, meant  "be  converted,"  so  "  6e  converted,^''  on  the  present  occasion 


460  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

means  "  be  baptized,"  inasmuch  as  it  just  occupies  the  same  portion  in 
both  sermons.  It  stands  between  "repent,"  and  "for  the  remission 
of  sins,"  in  the  former;  and  between  "repent,"  and  "that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out,"  in  the  latter.  In  commenting  on  these  words,  Mr. 
Rice  represents  me  as  using  emersion,  and  baptism,  as  synonymous.  I 
have  not  said  so.  It  would  be  a  sophism,  of  which  I  am  not  guilty,  to 
say,  that  words  that  represent  the  same  thing  are  synonymous.  Circum- 
stances do  make  words  represent  the  same  thing  that  do  not  mean  the 
same  thing.  Different  persons  frequently  report  the  result  of  a  certain 
meeting  in  different  terms.  For  example :  A  says,  "  ten  persons  were 
baptized  yesterday  at  such  a  meeting."  B,  however,  says,  "  ten  persons 
were  converted  at  the  meeting  yesterday  ;"  and  C  says,  "  ten  joined  yes- 
terday." Now,  what  philologist  will  say,  that  the  three  words,  baptiz- 
ed, converted,  joined,  are  synonymous — because  circumstances  have 
made  them  all  represent  the  same  thing  !  Yet  such  is  the  discrimination 
of  my  respondent. 

Such  special  pleading  is  as  inconsistent  with  sound  logic,  as  it  is  with 
christian  candor.  My  views  of  Christianity  constrain  me  to  place  such 
an  estimate  on  the  latter  as  is  favorable  to  the  proper  exercise  of  the  for- 
mer, and  protects  me  from  the  necessity  of  having  to  sustain  any  point 
by  a  course  of  special  reasonings.  Mr.  Rice  has  sought  to  make  you 
smile  at  his  ingenuity  in  sporting  with  the  word  reformation,  as  a  substitute 
for  repentance.  He  did  not  succeed,  however,  very  well.  Dr.  Campbell's 
preference  for  reformation,  rather  than  repentance,  is  sustained,  not  only 
by  the  mere  philologists,  but  by  the  most  distinguished  biblical  scholars. 
But  now  let  us  look  again  at  the  phrase — I  baptize  you  into  reformation. 
Persons  are  always  immersed  into  something,  as  well  as  in  something ; 
and  they  are  baptizedybr  that  into  which  they  are  baptized,  and  not  for 
that  in  which  they  are  baptized.  Now  John  preached  not  repentance, 
but  reformation  ;  for  the  last  word  includes  the  former,  while  the  former 
does  not  include  the  latter.  Many  repent  who  do  not  reform,  but  no  one 
can  reform  who  does  not  repent.  John  calls  for  fruits  worthy  of  a  pro- 
fessed repentance,  fruits  indicative  of  repentance.  He,  therefore,  im- 
mersed men  on  profession  of  penitence,  or  while  confessing  their  sins, 
that  they  might  reform.  Hence  he  baptized  men  in  order  to,  or  for  the 
sake  of,  reformation.  I  baptize  you  in  water  that  you  may  reform,  said  the 
Baptist — hence  his  was  the  baptism  of  reformation  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
Better  the  gentleman  had  discoursed  upon  some  one  of  the  arguments  ad- 
duced, than  to  have  occupied  his  time  on  such  frivolous  matters.  Having 
now  noticed  every  thing  that  seems  to  demand  my  attention — as  well  as 
some  matters  which  I  sincerely  think  do  not  merit  it — I  will  proceed  to 
some  further  documentary  proof  of  the  proposition  before  us. 

I  must  introduce  the  great  reformer  himself,  and  let  the  immortal 
Luther  declare  what  his  views  of  the  design  of  this  institution  are.  His 
Commentary  on  the  Galalians,  it  is  believed,  was  his  master  performance, 
so  far  as  its  power  in  establishing  justification  in  opposition  to  Roman 
penances  and  works  of  merit  is  regarded.  (Luther  on  Galatians  :  Philad. 
1801,  8vo.  p.  302.) 

"  This  is  not  done  by  changing  of  a  garment,  or  by  any  laws  or  works, 
but  by  a  new  birth,  and  by  the  renewing  of  the  inward  man,  which  is  done 
in  baptism,  as  Paul  saith,  '  All  ye  that  are  baptized  have  put  on  Christ.' 
Also,  '  According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Tit.  iii.  5.     For  besides  that  they  who 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  461 

are  baptized,  are  regenerated  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  a  heavenly 
righteousness,  and  to  eternal  life,  there  riseth  in  them  also  a  new  light  and 
a  new  flame  ;  there  riseth  in  them  new  and  holy  affections,  as  the  fear  of 
God,  true  faith,  and  assured  hopes,  &c.  There  beginneth  in  them  also  a 
new  will.     And  this  is  to  put  on  Christ  truly  and  according  to  the  gospel. 

Therefore  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  or  of  our  own  works,  is  not  given 
unto  us  in  baptism  ;  but  Christ  himself  is  our  garment.  Now  Christ  is 
no  law,  no  law-giver,  no  works,  but  a  divine  and  an  inestimable  gift, 
whom  God  hath  given  unto  us,  that  he  might  be  our  justifier,  our  Savior, 
and  oar  Redeemer.  Wherefore  to  be  appareled  with  Christ  according  to 
the  gospel,  is  not  to  be  appareled  with  the  law  or  witli  works,  but  with  an 
incomparable  gift;  that  is,  with  remission  of  sins,  righteousness,  peace, 
consolation,  joy  of  spirit,  salvation,  life,  and  Christ  himself. 

This  is  diligently  to  be  noted,  because  of  the  fond  and  fantastical  spirits, 
who  go  about  to  deface  the  majesty  of  baptism,  and  speak  wickedly  of  it 
Paul  contrariwise  commendeth  and  setteth  it  forth  with  honorable  titles, 
calling  it  '  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
Tit.  iii.  5.  And  here  also  he  saith,  that  all  they  who  are  baptized,  have 
put  on  Christ.  As  if  he  said,  ye  are  carried  out  of  the  law  into  a  new  birth, 
which  is  wrought  in  baptism.  Therefore  ye  are  not  now  any  longer  under 
the  law,  but  ye  are  clothed  with  a  new  garment;  viz.  with  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  Wherefore  it  is  a  thing  of  great  force  and  efficacy.  Now, 
when  we  are  appareled  with  Christ,  as  with  the  robe  of  righteousness  and 
salvation,  then  we  must  put  on  Christ  also  as  the  apparel  of  imitation  and 
example.  These  things  I  have  handled  more  largely  in  anotlier  place, 
therefore  I  here  briefly  pass  them  over." 

To  this  I  will  add  two  extracts  from  the  Westminster  Confession,  indi- 
cative of  remarkable  harmony  with  the  master  spirit  of  protestantism. 
(Page  337.) 

"  Q.  165.  What  is  baptism? 

A.  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  wherem  Christ  hath 
ordained  the  washing  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be  a  sign  and  seal  of  ingrafting  into  himself;  of 
remission  of  sins  by  his  blood,  and  regeneration  by  his  Spirit ;  of  adoption, 
and  resurrection  unto  everlasting  life  :  and  whereby  the  parties  baptized 
are  solemnly  admitted  into  the  visible  church,  and  enter  into  an  open  and 
professed  engagement  to  be  wholly  and  only  the  Lord's." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Confession  is  more  fully  declared  in  chap,  28.  sec. 
1 ; — to  wliich  we  invite  attention.     It  is  in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 

"  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the 
visible  church  ;  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins, 
and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God,  through  .Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in  newness 
of  life:  which  sacrament  is,  by  Christ's  own  appointment,  to  be  continued 
in  his  church  until  the  end  of  the  world." 

A  SIGN  AND  SEAL,  THEN,  IT  IS,  OF  REMISSION  OF  SINS  !       PaSt  Or  futurC  ? 

Of  past  sins  !  Then  the  confession  of  faitli  clearly  and  amply  proves  my 
proposition.  In  every  important  point  it  is  with  me  and  against  Mr,  Rice. 
It  makes  baptism  for  admission  into  the  church ;  Mr.  Rice  is  for  baptism 
to  them  in  the  church,  and  it  is  for  making  it  .a  sacrament  of  the  New 
Testament.  I  desire  no  more  ample  proof  of  my  views  on  this  subject, 
than  the  confession  of  faith  and  the  proof-texts  at  the  foot  of  the  page.  I 
am,  then,  in  this  particular,  certainly  more  conformed  to  the  confession 
of  faith  than  Mr.  Rice. 

Fellow-citizens,  1  know  of  no  respectable  ecclesiastic  writer,  who  has 
not  taken  this  view  of  the  subject,  if  he  have  gravely  considered  the  mat- 

2ci2 


462  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

ter  at  all.  But  the  grand  reason  why  so  many  cannot  comprehend  the 
meaning  of  this  institution  is,  they  have  got  inl'ant  church  membership  so 
much  in  their  heads;  and,  as  inlants  cannot  be  justified  by  faith,  and  as 
they  cannot  obtain  remission  of  sins  in  baptism,  being  only  implicated  in 
one  sin,  of  one  Adam,  they  cannot  understand  what  the  Bible,  the  creed, 
or  the  catechism  mean,  when  they  talk  of  baptism  being  "  a  sign  and  a 
seal  of  the  remission  of  sins."  They  have  to  say,  these  articles,  'n  the 
confession,  speak  of  believers'  baptism.  This  is  generally  the  way  of 
escape.  Where  then  shall  we  find  an  account  of  unbelievers'  baptism  ? 
The  Pedo-baplist  party,  through  the  bewildering  influence  of  two  bap- 
tisms, one  for  babes  and  one  for  believing  persons,  are  now,  and  forever 
will  be,  while  they  retain  these  two  baptisms,  unable  to  comprehend 
the  subject,  and  to  reconcile  to  themselves,  or  to  one  another,  the  pro- 
phets and  the  apostles  of  the  Messiah. — [_Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  23—12^  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  had  not  the  most  distant  expectation,  when  I  agreed 
to  conduct  this  discussion,  that  I  should  please  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell, 
either  as  an  affirmant,  or  as  a  respondent.  If  I  had  expected  to  please 
him,  I  should  not  have  become  his  opponent.  He  would,  doubtless,  be 
extremely  happy,  could  he  imkice  me  to  pursue  such  a  course,  so  lo  fol- 
low him  in  his  meanderings,  as  to  give  him  a  triumph;  but  I  am  not 
disposed  to  gratify  him.  He  informs  the  audience,  that  I  never  directly 
answer  his  arguments.  It  is  necessary  that  he  should  give  them  this 
information,  or  they,  in  their  simplicity,  will  not  discern  it!  He  must 
repeat  the  declaration  that  I  have  not  answered  him,  every  time  he  rises 
to  speak,  or  the  audience  will  be  sure  to  believe  the  contrary  !  Indeed, 
I  very  much  question,  whether  his  assertions  will  prevent  them  from  be- 
lieving that  his  arguments  have  been  fully  exposed. 

How  any  man,  so  much  accustomed  to  public  debate  as  he,  can  affirm, 
that  the  respondent  is  bound  to  follow  precisely  in  the  track  of  the  affirm- 
ant, I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand.  I  profess  also  to  have  had  some  little 
experience  in  such  discussions,  and  I  do  not  admit  the  existence  of  any 
sucfi  rule.  When  a  man  sets  forth  a  doctrine,  founded  on  a  particular 
interpretation  of  certain  texts  of  Scripture,  1  have  the  right  to  answer 
him  in  either  of  two  ways  :  I  may  take  up  those  passages,  and  prove,  by 
the  admitted  principles  of  language,  that  his  interpretation  is  incorrect ;  or 
I  may  prove  that  it  contradicts  other  i)lain,  and  unambiguous  declarations 
of  Scripture,  and,  therefore,  is  incorrect.  In  either  case,  I  have  fairly  an- 
swered him  ;  for  we  both  maintain,  that  the  Bible  does  not  contradict  itself. 
When,  therefore,  I  have  proved,  that  the  interpretation  of  certain  passages 
of  Scripture,  upon  which  the  gentleman's  doctrine  is  based,  is  contradic- 
tory of  the  clear  and  repeated  declarations  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  I 
have  triumphandy  refuted  his  doctrine.  He  may  tell  you  five  hundred 
times,  that  my  arguments  are  irrelevant;  but  in  so  doing  he  only  showa 
how  much  his  cause  requires  him  to  act  the  part  of  a  cunning  lawyer, 
who  is  obliged,  without  evidence,  to  plead  against  evidence.  He  will 
gave  himself  much  trouble  and  exposure,  if  only  he  can  induce  the 
nudience  to  believe,  that  the  arguments  against  his  views,  are  all  irre- 
levant. It  will,  however,  be  found  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  convince  reflecting  persons,  that  an  interpretation,  which  contradict* 
Christ,  can  be  correct.     The  contradictions  I  have  pointed  out,  are  so 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  463 

perfectly  clear  and  palpable,  they  must  satisfy  every  unprejudiced  mind, 
that  his  doctrine  is  untrue.  It  contradicts  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
that  is  enough. 

But  the  gentleman,  who  is  quite  anxious  to  appear  familiar  with  Pres- 
byterianism,  charges  me  with  having  departed  from  the  confession  of 
faith.  After  all,  however,  he  seems  to  have  a  very  imperfect  knowledge 
of  the  system.     Of  this  he  has  already  given  us  repeated  evidences. 

Does  our  confession  say,  that  the  passage  in  John  iii.  5,  means  chris- 
tian baptism  ?  It  does  not.  I  subscribe  most  cordially  to  the  doctrine  of 
that  book,  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  It  teaches,  that  it  is  a 
sacrament  appointed  by  Christ,  to  be  a  sign  and  seal  of  our  engrafting 
into  Christ,  of  remission  of  sins,  &c.  It  is  true,  the  confession,  in 
tlie  chapter  on  baptism,  refers  to  John  iii.  5,  as  an  example  of  the  use  of 
water,  as  an  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing  ;  but  it  also  refers  to  circum- 
cision, as  the  gentleman  will  see  (I  have  not  the  book  at  this  moment)  by 
turning  to  it.  So  he  would  prove,  that  according  to  our  confession,  cir- 
cumcision is  baptism  !  But  he  certainly  ought  to  know,  that  in  adopting 
the  confession  of  faith,  we  do  not  affirm  that  every  reference  to  Scrip- 
ture is  appropriate;  so  that  if  it  were  even  true,  as  it  may  be,  that  those 
who  made  the  reference  in  question,  believed  the  passage  to  refer  to  bap- 
tism, I  might  deny  it,  without  being  charged  with  heresy.  The  refer- 
ence, nevertheless,  is  perfectly  proper,  because,  as  water  was  the  emblem 
of  purification  under  the  old  dispensation,  so  it  is  under  the  new.  As 
the  ablution  of  the  Jews  pointed  to  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  the 
guilt  and  pollution  of  sin,  so  does  baptism  now.  I  go  for  the  confession 
of  faith  ;  and  I  think  I  understand  it. 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  he  has  not  entered  into  this  discussion  for  a 
temporary  triumph.  I  am  quite  willing  that  he  shall  gain  a  triumph  if 
he  can.  I  hope  he  will  bring  all  his  powers  to  bear.  I  call  for  no 
quarters. 

His  last  speech  has  taught  me  something  new.  He  has  informed  us, 
that  when  the  Savior  said,  •'  He  that  believelh  on  the  Son,  hath  everlast- 
ing life;"  he  did  not  mean  just  what  he  said,  but  only  that  he  has  life  at 
his  offer — he  may  have  it!  Onr  Savior,  the  gentleman  would  have  u> 
believe,  did  not  mean  what  he  said  ;  but  Peter  meant  precisely  what  he 
said!  True,  words  may  be  understood  in  a  figurative  sense,  when  the 
connection  requires  it;  but  when  Christ  says,  he  that  believeth,  hath 
everlasting  life,  the  language  is  perfectly  plain,  and  the  meaning  mos- 
obvious.  I  must,  therefore,  believe  it.  To  say,  that  a  man  has  a  thou- 
sand dollars,  and  that  to  say  that  he  may  get  a  thousand  dollars,  are  very 
different  propositions. 

One  of  his  illustrations  of  this  new  meaning  of  the  word  hath,  was 
particularly  unfortunate.  It  was  this  :  a  man,  when  naturalized,  has  the 
rights  and  immunities  of  a  citizen  ;  but  whether  he  will  improve  them, 
depends  on  himself.  Very  well.  So  when  a  man  believes,  he  is  natural- 
ized, and  has  all  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom,  of  which  one  of  the 
most  important  is  remission  of  sins  ;  but  still  he  must  persevere  unto 
death.  This,  I  should  consider  a  very  unhappy  illustration  of  his  doc- 
trine, that  a  man  is  not  naturalized  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  enjoye 
none  of  its  blessings,  until  he  is  baptized.  But  Mr.  C.  used  another 
illustration,  which  I  think  is  no  better  than  the  one  just  noticed.  He 
quoted  the  passage,  "  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have 
nests  ;  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head."     How  this 


464  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

passage  proves,  that  the  word  hath  means  may  have,  I  am  unable  to  see. 
The  foxes  have  holes.  Does  this  mean,  they  may  have  holes  ? — there 
are  holes  into  which  they  may  run  ?  The  birds  of  the  air  have  nests — 
that  is,  according  to  the  genUeman's  logic,  they  may  have  nests — there 
are  nests  into  which  they  inay  go  ?!  The  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to 
lay  his  head  ;  that  is,  he  may  not  have  where  to  lay  his  head  !  The 
passage  confirms  all  tliat  I  have  said.  The  birds  have — are  in  possession 
of,  nests.  So  he  that  believeth,  hath — is  in  possession  of,  eternal  life. 
The  expressions  are  precisely  similar. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  argument  does  not  depend  on  this  single  ex- 
pression, though  it  is  perfectly  clear.  The  Savior  stated  the  same  truth 
in  another  form  ;  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  is  not  condemned,'''' 
John  iii.  18.  But  Mr.  C.  says,  he  that  believeth  is  condemned,  unless 
he  have  been  immersed  ! — a  flat  contradiction.  For  he  does  not  deny, 
that  a  great  many  have  believed  on  the  Son,  who  never  were  immersed ; 
and  all  such,  according  to  his  faith,  are  condemned.  I  cannot  see  how 
he  could  more  directly  contradict  our  Lord.  I  hope  he  will  consider  this 
an  answer  to  his  argument,  sufficiently  direct. 

I  was  gratified  to  hear  him  admit,  that  the  word  translated  begotten, 
is  the  same  which  is  translated  born.  I  used  the  former  word,  because 
he  had  done  so  in  his  translation  ;  and  I  intended,  as  I  said,  to  disprove 
his  doctrine  by  his  own  translation,  I  will  now,  in  view  of  his  admission, 
put  the  word  born  instead  of  begotten,  1  John  v.  1,  "  Whosoever  be- 
lieveth that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  Now,  my  friend  will 
not  immerse  a  man,  till  he  professes  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ; 
and  John  the  aposile  says,  he  that  believeth  is  born  of  God.  He  is  born 
— is  a  child  of  God,  before  he  can  get  him  to  the  water  ;  and  if  he  is  born 
of  God — if  he  is  a  child,  then  he  is  an  heir  of  God,  (Rom.  viii.  17)  and 
his  sins  are,  of  course,  remitted.  I  am  quite  pleased,  that  my  friend  has 
admitted  so  much  of  the  truth.  I  will,  however,  take  either  translation, 
begotten  or  born,  and  prove,  that  his  doctrine  of  baptism  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  sins,  directly  contradicts  the  Savior  and  the  apostles. 

But  the  gentleman,  who  would  have  us  believe  that  he  never  makes 
false  issues,  has  told  us,  that  the  issue  is  .this  :  that  /believe  in  baptismal 
purification  without  i-i\\\\;  and  he  believes  in  baptismal  purification  byia\i\\\ 
I  have  said  not  a  word  about  baptismal  purification.  What  is  the  propo- 
sition before  us  ?  The  question  is,  whether  baptism  is  necessary  in  order 
to  secure  the  remission  of  sins.  I  discover,  he  is  disposed  to  divert  our 
attention  from  the  subject  in  hand,  to  something  as  distant  from  it  as  the 
poles  from  each  other. 

He  is  evidently  anxious  to  say  something  more  on  infant  baptism.  I 
know,  he  is  not  well  satisfied  with  his  defence  of  his  views  on  that 
subject;  or  he  would  not  injure  himself  by  thrusting  it  into  the  discussion 
of  a  different  subject.  He  feels  that  he  is  involved  in  serious  difficulties. 
Well,  if  he  is  not  satisfied,  I  cannot  help  it. 

According  to  my  doctrine,  he  says,  faith  secures  to  us  every  thing; 
and  there  is  no  need  of  prayer,  baptism,  or  any  thing  else.  He  is  quite 
mistaken.  I  hold,  that  by  faith  alone  we  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
as  our  "  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctifieation  and  redemption  ;"  and  as 
soon  as  we  receive  him,  our  sins  are  pardoned,  and  we  are  accepted  of 
God.  But  we  are  not  yet  perfectly  holy.  The  good  work  is  commenced, 
but  not  completed.  We  still  need  to  pray,  as  did  David,  "  Create  in  me 
a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."     Thus,  Paul 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  465 

prayed  for  the  Ephesian  christians,  whose  sins  had  certainly  been  for- 
given, that  God  would  grant  them  "  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory, 
to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man,"  ch.  iii.  16. 
And  he  prayed  for  the  Philippians,  because  he  was  confident  "  that  He 
which  had  begun  a  good  work  in  them,  would  perform  it  until  the  day  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  ch.  i.  6.  The  believer,  though  his  sins  are  remitted,  needs 
baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  and  all  the  appointed  means  of  grace,  as 
helps  to  him  in  his  weakness,  as  means  in  the  use  of  which  God  has 
promised  to  bless  him. 

True  faith,  moreover,  always  produces  good  works.  That  faith  which 
results  not  in  good  works,  as  James  teaches,  is  dead,  being  alone  :  it 
cannot  secure  the  remission  of  sins.  The  faith  of  the  gospel  answers 
two  important  purposes  in  the  plan  of  salvation.  It  receives  Christ  as 
the  Savior,  through  whose  righteousness  only  men  can  be  juslilied;  and 
it  overcomes  the  world.  "  For  whatsoever  is  born  of  God,  overcometh 
the  world;  and  this  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the  world,  even  our 
faith,''''  1  John  v.  4.  Such  is  the  faith  for  which  we  plead — a  faith  that 
receives  Christ,  and,  through  him,  immediate  remission  of  sins,  and  pre- 
sents before  the  mind  all  the  motives  which  God  offers  to  enable  us  to 
rise  above  the  temptations  of  earth.  Infant  baptism,  as  well  as  that  of 
adults,  becomes  a  means  of  grace;  for  when  they  who  are  baptized  in 
infancy  arrive  at  years  of  discretion,  they,  under  the  influence  of  divine 
grace,  acknowledge  the  obligations  assumed  by  their  believing  parents 
in  connection  with  their  baptism,  and  seek  the  blessings  sealed  by  ihat 
ordinance. 

We,  then,  do  not  plead  for  faith  alone,  but  for  faith,  repentance,  and 
conversion,  which  are  inseparably  connected — for  faith,  and  the  good 
works  to  which  it  prompts. 

My  friend  said  something  about  the  difficulty  under  which  his  doc- 
trine labors,  from  the  fact,  that  it  sends  to  hell  many  who,  though  entirely 
disposed  to  obey  God,  had  not  the  opportunity  to  be  baptized ;  and  he 
expressed  the  opinion,  that  under  certain  circumstances,  unbaplized  per- 
sons may  get  to  heaven.  But  if  his  opinion  is  true,  his  doctrine  is  false; 
and  if  his  doctrine  is  true,  his  opinion  is  false.  His  doctrine  is,  that 
baptism  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

The  pagans,  he  seems  to  think,  are  sent  to  hell  for  a  very  small  mat- 
ter; only  because  they  have  not  rags,  oil,  and  lamp-black!  I  had  sup- 
posed, that  they  were  pretty  well  furnished  with  rags,  and  perhaps  with 
oil  and  lamp-black,  I  have  never  heard  any  complaint  on  that  score.  [A 
laugh. J  But  if  the  gentleman  says  they  have  not,  I  have  nothing  to  say. 
[[Continued  laughter.]  If  he  chooses  to  represent  the  Bible  as  only  rags, 
lamp-black,  and  oil,  let  him  do  so.  The  pagans,  however,  are  responsi- 
ble only  for  the  light  they  have. 

He  attaches  considerable  importance  to  the  expression,  baptizing  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  I  have  no  particular  objection  to  that  trans- 
lation of  the  word  eis.  It  does  not,  however,  seem  to  me  to  have  any 
direct  bearing  on  the  question  before  us.  Faith  unites  us  spiritually  to 
Christ,  and  gives  us  an  interest  in  the  plan  of  salvation  ;  baptism  is  the 
external  ordinance  by  which  we  become  visibly  united  to  him,  and  bound 
to  devote  ourselves  to  his  service.  Baptism  is  the  external  sign,  faith  is 
the  internal  grace.  The  latter  unites  us  to  Christ  really,  the  former  con- 
nects with  him  formally  ;  but  the  piety  of  the  heart  is,  in  the  Word  of 
Crod,  always  represented  as  the  great  matter. 
30 


466  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

In  reply  to  the  fact  stated  by  me,  that  in  Peter's  second  discourse  baptism 
was  not  mentioned  as  a  condition  of  pardon ;  Air.  Campbell  says,  Peter's 
having  taught  a  doctrine  once,  is  sufficient — it  is  not  necessarry  that  he 
shall  i-epeat  it  in  everv  discourse.  Yes — if  he  will  prove,  that  in  one 
instance  Peter  taught  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins, 
we  will  give  up  the  question.  But  1  have  proved,  that  his  interpretation 
of  Peter's  language  contradicts  many  other  declarations  of  Scripture ;  and 
therefore  Peter  could  not  liave  said,  that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the 
remission  of  sins.  He  said,  repent  and  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ;  and  in  other  portions  of  Scripture,  we  learn  that  repentance  does 
secure  the  blessing,  of  which  baptism  is  the  outward  sign  and  seal- 
The  difficulty,  therefore,  is  not  that  we  claim  a  repetition  of  Peter's 
teaching  before  we  will  believe  it,  but  that  the  gentleman  makes  Peter 
contradict  the  Savior  and  the  other  apostles  ;  whilst  the  exposition  for 
which  we  contend,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  uniform  teaching  of 
the  Scriptures. 

True,  as  he  says,  it  is  not  necessary  to  preach  the  same  tnith  in  every 
discourse.  But  if  I  to-day  preach  to  a  company  of  ignorant  persons  in 
answer  to  the  question,  what  must  we  do  to  be  saved  1  I  am  bound  to 
tell  them  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  done  that  they  may  be  saved.  Then 
if,  on  to-morrow,  I  preach  to  another  company  twenty  miles  distant,  in 
answer  to  the  same  inquiry,  I  am  obliged  to  teach  them  precisely  the 
same  truths.  But  suppose  I  should,  in  directing  these  last  inquirers,  omit 
one  of  the  most  important  conditions  of  pardon;  and  when  inquired  of 
concerning  the  matter,  should  justify  myself  by  saying,  I  mentioned  that 
to  the  people  in  Lexington,  and  it  is  unnecessary  always  to  say  the  same 
thing  ;  would  anv  one  regard  me  as  a  faithful  minister  ?  A  company  of 
emigrants  come  to  our  country  from  Europe,  and  inquire  what  course  they 
must  pursue  in  order  to  be  naturalized.  You  give  them  all  necessary  infor- 
mation. Another  company  comes  and  ask  the  same  question.  You  omit, 
in  your  reply,  one  of  the  things  absolutely  necessary  to  be  done ;  and 
excuse  yourself,  because  you  gave  full  information  to  the  preceding  com- 
pany !     I  profess  not  to  see  the  consistency  of  the  gentleman's  reasoning. 

The  truth  is,  the  apostles,  whenever  they  stated  to  inquiring  minds 
tlie  conditions  of  salvation,  told  them  all  that  was  really  necessary  ;  and 
inasmuch  as  Peter  did  not  mention  baptism  as  a  condition  of  remission, 
either  in  his  second  discourse,  or  in  his  third  at  the  house  of  Cornelius ; 
and  as  Paul,  in  answering  the  same  momentous  inquiry  made  by  the 
jailor,  omitted  to  do  it ;  it  is  clear  that  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  is  not  tiue. 

I  was  truly  surprised  to  hear  the  gentleman  assert,  that  he  had  never 
said,  that  conversion  and  baptism,  as  used  by  the  aposdes,  mean  the  same 
tiling.  I  have  read  his  writings  with  some  care  ;  and,  if  I  do  not  greatly 
err,  he  has  so  said.  I  will  read  from  his  Clirislianity  Restored,  (pp.  201, 
202,)  where  he  is  laboring  to  prove  that  Peter,  in  his  second  discourse, 
(Acts  iii.)  preached  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  as  in  the  first.  He 
gays  : — 

"  The  unbelieving  Jews,  soon  after  Pentecost,  knew  that  the  disciples 
called  the  immersed  '  converted  ;'  and  immersion  being  the  act  of  faith, 
which  drew  the  line  of  demarcation  between  Christians  and  Jews,  nothing 
could  be  more  natural  than  to  call  the  act  of  immersion  the  converting  of  a 
Jew.  The  time  intervening  between  these  discourses  was  long  enough  to 
introduce  and  familiarize  this  style  in  the  metropolis  ;  so  that  when  a 
Christian  said,  '  Be  converted,'  or,  '  Turn  to  God,'  every  Jew  knew  the  act 
of  putting  on  the  Messiah  to  be  that  intended.     After  the  immersion  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  467 

some  gentiles  into  the  faith,  in  the  house  and  neigrhborhood  of  Corncrms,  jt 
reported  that  the  gentiles  were  converted  to  God.  'J'hus  tiie  apostles,  in 
passing  through  the  country,  gave  great  joy  to  the  disciples  from  among 
the  Jews,  '  telling  them  of  the  conversion,^  or  immersion  of  the  gentiles." 

Again : 

"  One  reason  why  we  would  arrest  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  suh- 
stitution  of  the  terms  convert  and  conversion  for  immerse  and  immer- 
sion, in  tile  apostolic  discourses,  and  in  the  sacred  writings,  is  not  so  much 
for  the  purpose  of  proving,"  &c. 

Now,  I  ask,  does  he  not  make  these  two  words  mean  the  same  thing  ? 
Does  he  not  assert  that  convert  and  conversion  were,  by  the  inspired 
writers,  substituted  for  immerse  and  immersion?  When  Peter  said, 
"  Repent  and  be  converted,"  he  meant,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell,  re- 
form and  be  immersed .'  And  yet  there  are  not  two  words  in  the  Bible 
more  widely  diflerent  in  their  meaning. 

In  translating  the  word  metanoia  reformation,  instead  of  repentance, 
he  says  he  is  sustained  by  the  most  learned  men  now  living,  or  that  have 
ever  lived.  This  I  am  disposed  to  dispute.  We  want  the  proof.  It  is 
truly  remarkable,  that  in  starting  a  new  reformation,  which  makes  war 
upon  all  the  christian  world,  the  gentleman  has,  on  almost  every  point,  all 
the  most  learned  men  with  him  !!!  All  are  wrong  ;  yet  all  are  with  him  ! 
I  am  not  disposed  to  take  his  broad  assertions,  without  proof.  The  literal 
meaning  of  the  word  metcmoia,  as  he  has  admitted,  is  a  change  of  mind  : 
and  such  being  its  meaning,  how  can  it  be  correctly  translated  reforma- 
tion— a  word  which,  in  common  use,  refers  more  immediately  to  the  ex- 
ternal conduct  ? 

The  expressions  used  in  Peter's  first  discourse  and  in  Matt,  iii,  11,  are, 
as  I  have  remarked,  precisely  similar ;  and  I  asked  Mr.  C,  whether,  as  he 
made  Peter  say,  be  baptized  (eis)  in  order  to  obtain  remission  of  sins,  he 
also  understood  John  to  say,  I  baptize  you  (eis)  in  order  that  you  may 
repent.  He  says,  John  baptized  the  Jews,  in  order  to  reformation. 
But  there  are  very  serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  rendering  ;  for 
Peter  required  reformation  (if  this  be  a  correct  translation)  in  order  to 
baptism;  and  John  baptized  in  order  to  reformation  !  How  is  it  that 
he  makes  these  inspired  teachers  thus  contradict  each  other  ?  He  must 
be  in  error  ;  for  they  did  not  thus  cross  each  other's  path. 

But  there  is  another  difficulty  in  his  way.  John,  he  says,  baptized  in 
order  to  reformation.  Now  let  us  turn  to  Peter's  second  discourse,  Acl« 
iii.  19  :  "  Reform  ye,  therefore,  [I  give  Mr.  C.'s  translation,]  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,"  Sic.  Reform  and  be  converted. 
Will  he  please  to  tell  us  the  difference  between  reformation  and  conver- 
sion? To  be  converted,  is  to  turn  from  sin  to  holiness — from  the  service 
of  Satan  to  the  service  of  God  ;  and  to  reform  is  precisely  the  same  thing. 
So  that  he  makes  Peter  say  to  those  whom  he  addressed,  reform  and 
reform!  or,  convert  and  be  converted!  The  common  translation  labors 
under  no  such  difficulty  ;  neither  does  our  doctrine.  Repentance  is  a 
change  of  mind — a  change  of  views  and  feelings  ;  and  conversion  is  tlie 
effect  or  consequence  of  that  change.  The  former  has  direct  reference 
to  a  change  of  mind  ;  the  other  to  a  change  of  life.  But  the  gendeman's 
doctrine  forces  him  into  these  absurdities.  The  Bible  contains  no  such 
contradictions,  and  no  such  tautology. 

You  see  the  inextricable  difficulty  in  which  tlie  doctrine  of  my  friend 
is  involved.  To  sustain  his  interpretation  of  Peter's  language,  lie  must 
«ither  make  John  baptize  the  Jews  in  order  to  make  them  rcnent,  or  in 


468  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

order  that  they  might  reform.  In  either  case  he  makes  John  contradict 
Peter,  who  required  repentance  or  reformation  in  order  to  baptism  ! 

He  quotes  Luther  as  favoring  his  views  of  this  doctrine.  It  may  be 
possible  that  Luther  attached  an  undue  importance  and  efficacy  to  bap- 
tism. In  regard  to  the  Lord's  supper  he  differed  from  the  other  reform- 
ers, rejecting  /m??substantiation,  but  holding  the  almost  equally  unreason- 
able doctrine  of  co'isubstantiation.  It  would  not  be  surprising,  if  a  man 
so  much  in  error  in  regard  to  one  of  the  sacraments,  should  attach  an  un- 
scriptural  efficacy  to  the  other.  The  Protestant  world  have  rejected  Lu- 
ther's dogma  of  consubstantiation.  I  have  not  particularly  examined  his 
views  concerning  the  doctrine  now  under  discussion;  and,  therefore,  shall 
for  the  present  pass  them. 

The  gentleman  seeks  to  obtain  from  the  Confession  of  Faith — a  book  1 
love  to  defend — some  countenance  for  his  doctrine.  Where  it  teaches 
that  baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  he  makes  it 
mean,  that  none  are  in  Christ,  until  baptized.  I  have  repeatedly  told 
you,  that  he  does  not  understand  Presbyterianism.  Baptism,  according 
to  the  confession,  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  our  ingrafting  into  Christ.  la  the 
sign  of  a  thing  the  thing  itself?  Is  the  sign  necessary  to  the  thing? 
The  seal  fixed  to  a  document — is  it  not  designed  to  give  it  notoriety  ?  It 
is  first  written  and  confirmed ;  then  sealed.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  the  sign  and  seal  of  regeneration,  and  regeneration  itself;  and  be- 
tween the  sign  and  seal  of  remission,  and  remission  itself.  The  believer 
is  first  pardoned,  and  then  receives  the  sign  and  seal.  Baptism  is  a 
pledge,  so  to  speak,  that  God  will  forgive  the  sins  of  those  who  comply 
with  the  conditions  set  forth  in  his  Word.  But  the  sign  or  seal  is  not  the 
thing  or  document,  nor  essential  to  it. — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  23 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[iMR.  Campbell's  third  address.^ 
Mr.  President — It  is  always  an  unpleasant  task  to  expose  any  thing 
which  is  incompatible  with  the  genius  and  character  of  honorable  discus- 
sion, and  especially  in  matters  of  religion  ;  for  if  there  be  any  subject 
under  the  canopy  of  heaven,  which  men  ought  to  discuss  with  superlative 
candor,  and  witli  supreme  regard  to  the  principles  of  truth  and  honor,  it 
is  the  subject  of  religion.  It  is,  therefore,  with  no  pleasure,  but  with 
much  pain,  that  I  am  constrained  to  notice  tlie  very  unfair  and  ungener- 
ous conduct  of  my  reverend  respondent.  There  is  not  a  soul  in  this 
house,  who  did  not  understand  me  to  say,  that  the  Bible,  as  to  the  mate- 
rials of  which  the  book  is  made,  and  in  that  point  of  view  alone,  consists 
of  rags,  lamp-black,  and  oil.  I  ask,  then,  how  Mr.  Rice,  a  professed 
christian  minister,  could,  in  your  presence,  represent  the  Bible,  with  spe- 
cial reference  to  my  remarks,  as  nothing  but  rags,  lamp-black,  and  oil! 
What,  sir,  are  we  to  expect  from  other  men,  in  the  private  walks  of  life,  if, 
on  this  stage,  and  in  the  presence  of  this  great  assembly,  when  I  brought 
up  his  own  argument,  what  signifies  water?  what  avails  any  material 
thing,  or  any  ordinance  consisting  of  sensible  materials,  in  order  to  remis- 
sion of  sins,  or  any  spiritual  blessings?  I  said  he  might  also  speak  of  the 
Bible,  the  word  ot'  life,  in  the  same  style,  and  thus  depreciate  its  indis- 
pensable importance.  I  record  this,  as  an  exhibit  of  the  manner  of  spirit 
with  whom  I  have  to  contend  for  the  ordinances  of  Christ.  He  repre- 
sents me  as  saying  the  Bible  was  mere  rags  !  and  disdainfully  asks  if  the 
pagans  have  no  rags,  oil,  or  lamp-black  ?  If,  in  representing  even  a  portion 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  469 

of  a  community,  so  respectable  as  the  Presbyterian  church,  such  morality 
and  logic,  meet  its  conscicniious  approbation,  and  obtain  its  admiration, 
I  must  say  I  am  greatly  mistaken.  I  dislike  to  waste  my  time  in  ad- 
verting to  matters  so  unwortliy  of  the  occasion,  and  so  utterly  incompati- 
ble with  the  subject  and  the  argument  before  us.  If  I  do  not  again  allude 
to  matters  of  this  sort,  it  will  not  be  because  I  do  not  observe  them,  but 
because  my  time  is  too  precious  to  be  thus  squandered  away  on  an  occa- 
sion so   solemn  and  important. 

In  looking  over  my  notes,  the  next  thing  that  occurs  is  another  false 
issue.  I  said  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  apostles  to  preach  the  same 
sermon,  in  the  same  words,  on  all  occasions.  My  special  friend  then 
makes  out  a  special  case — a  new  ship-load  of  immigrants  arrives  in  a 
new  country — and  now  I  am  represented  as  forbidding  the  same  identical 
words  to  be  uttered  to  them  !  Nay,  worse  than  that ;  I  am  made  to  argue 
that  the  same  gospel  which  was  preached  to  the  first  ship-load,  should 
not  be  preached  to  the  second.  Then,  to  meet  his  views,  one  sermon 
should  have  been  cast  in  the  same  identical  words,  and  but  one  gospel 
sermon  ever  preached  ! !  I  have  preached  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism, 
times  innumerable;  and  I  am  sure  that  I  have  never  made  two  sermons 
on  the  subject  that  were  not  more  dissimilar  than  that  recorded  in  Acts  ii., 
and  that  pronounced  in  Acts  iii.  I  presume  many  of  us  here  could  tell  the 
same  story,  and  yet  we  all  preach  the  proposition  which  I  now  defend  ! 
But  such  is  the  gendeman's  way  of  responding  to  my  arguments. 

But  I  am  setting  one  apostle  against  another,  and  ihe  same  apostle 
against  himself,  because  of  my  remark  on  the  phrase,  "  He  that  believeth, 
hath  eternal  life,"  &c.  My  remarks  on  "Aa//j"  and  "is,"  on  '■'■Jiath  eter- 
nal life,"  and  "is  not  condemned,"  &Lc.  have  called  forth  a  reiteration  of 
the  former  assertions.  But  without  at  all  impairing  the  force  of  the  cri- 
tique offered,  I  need  only  exemplify  the  principle  a  little  farther;  the  ar- 
gument, it  appears,  cannot  be  weakened.  The  position  is,  that  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  even  in  common  style,  we  often  hear  persons  speaking  of  them- 
selves, or  spoken  of,  as  having  what  they  have  not  in  actual  possession, 
but  in  promise,  in  expectation,  in  grant,  or  in  hope.  Hence,  persons  are 
said,  at  one  time,  to  have  that  which  they  are  seeking  for  at  another. 
Take  an  example:  Jesus,  as  already  quoted,  said,  "  He  that  believeth  on 
Him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life — is  passed  from  death  to  life." 
Again  he  says,  "  Whosoever  believeth  on  him  liath  eternal  life,"  &;c. 
Now  these  same  believers  are,  in  other  portions  of  Scripture,  represented 
as  not  yet  having  it;  but  seeking  and  looking  for  it,  and  as  about  here- 
after to  have  it.  Paul,  Rom.  ii.  says,  "  To  them,  who  by  a  patient  con- 
tinuance in  well-doing,  are  seeking  for  glory,  honor,  and  immortality,  he 
will  bestow  eternal  life  !"  Now  had  these  persons,  in  grant,  or  in  pos- 
session, eternal  life  ? 

Again,  he  says  to  Titus,  we  are  made  heirs  "  according  to  the  hope  of 
eternal  life."  What  a  man  hafh,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  for!  We  are 
said  to  be  "  looking  for  eternal  life."  What  a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he 
yet  look  for !     I  shall  henceforth  regard  this  point  as  settled. 

I  have  another  remark  to  make  on  such  passages  as  these :  "  He  that 
believeth  in  him,  is  justified,"  (fee.  In  all  these  instances  the  Savior, 
who  spoke  before  the  new  institution  was  set  up,  as  well  as  the  apostles 
afterwards,  speak  of  a  true,  real,  active  faith,  which  would  always  lead  to 
obedience.     These  are  actual  believers,  who  will  do  what  they  are  bid. 

I  did  not  say  that  the  whole  learned  world  agree  with  me.     I  wish  the 

2R 


470  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

gentleman  would  reply  to  what  I  do  say,  and  not  spend  our  time  so  much 
in  replying  to  what  I  do  not  say.  But  I  do  say,  snd  the  gentleman  knows 
I  can  prove  it,  that  I  have  not  only  such  men  as  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and 
Witsius,  hut  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  for  the  first  four  centu- 
ries, concurring  with  me  in  my  views  of  John  iii.  5.,  and  Titus  iii.  5.,  as 
well  as  the  Westminster  Assembly ;  and,  besides,  a  mighty  host  of  the 
reformers,  in  their  individual  capacity,  avowing  the  proposition  which  I 
am  now  sustaining.  Here  is  a  volume  from  one  of  the  most  learned  men 
(of  Oxford,  in  England,)  in  the  world,  in  the  primitive  fathers'  Greek  and 
Latin,  wlio  is,  now,  an  overmatch  for  any  other  individual  man  in  Great 
Britain,  on  this  question,  for  whose  opinions  I  by  no  means  endorse,  but 
for  whose  immense  researclies  and  exact  knowledge  I  do — Dr.  Pusey  is 
his  name.  And  here  is  one  volume  of  the  Oxford  tracts,  giving  the  views 
of  the  design  of  baptism,  held  by  the  whole  ancient  church  ;  and,  although 
T  am  very  far  from  being  a  Puseyite,  nevertheless  I  must  respect  the  ac- 
cumulated testimony  collected  here,  a  considerable  portion  of  which  I 
have  used  for  years,  and  so  has  this  same  Dr.  Wall,  but  all  of  which  I 
have  never  seen  before  collected  together.  And  what  is  the  sum  of  it? 
That  in  this  one  thing  of  the  action  of  baptism  and  the  design  of  it,  there 
was  but  one  opinion,  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  down  to  St.  Athanasius — 
down  to  the  fifth  century.  But  we  must  hear  Calvin,  the  great  reformer. 
Mr.  Rice  says,  that  Luther  believed  in  consubstantiation.  I  will  let  you 
hear  Calvin,  chap.  xv.     I  will  read  the  context  : 

"  BaptisDfi  is  a  sign  of  initiation  by  wliich  we  are  admitted  into  the  soci- 
ety of  the  church,  in  order  that  being  incorporated  into  Christ,  we  may  be 
numbered  among  the  children  of  God.  Now  it  has  been  given  to  us  by  God, 
for  these  ends,  which  I  have  shewn  to  be  common  to  all  sacraments;  first, 
to  promote  our  faith  towards  him  ;  secondly,  to  testify  our  confession  before 
men.     We  shall  treat  of  both  tliese  ends  of  its  institution  in  order. 

To  begin  with  the  first: — From  baptism  our  faitli  derives  three  advan- 
tages, which  require  to  be  distinctly  considered.  The  first  is,  that  it  is 
proposed  to  us  by  the  Lord,  as  a  symbol  and  token  of  our  purification ;  or  to 
express  my  meaning  more  fully,  it  resembles  a  legal  instrument  properly 
attested,  by  which  he  assures  us  that  all  our  sins  are  cancelled,  effaced,  and 
obliterated,  so  that  they  will  never  appear  in  his  sight,  or  come  into  his 
remembrance,  or  be  imputed  to  us.  For  he  commands  all  who  believe  to  be 
baptized  fur  the  remission  of  their  sins.  Therefore  those  who  have  imagin- 
ed that  baptism  is  nothing  more  than  a  mark  or  sign  by  which  we  profess 
our  religion  before  men,  as  soldiers  wear  the  insignia  of  their  sovereign  as 
a  mark  of  their  protession,  have  not  considered  that  which  was  the  princi- 
pal thing  in  baptism  ;  which  is,  that  we  ought  to  receive  it  with  this  pro- 
mise, '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,'  Mark  xvi.  16. 

2d.  In  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  what  is  said  by  Paul,  that  Christ 
sanctifieth  and  cleanseth  the  church  '  with  the  washing  of  the  water  by  the 
woi-d,'  Ephes.  v.  2Q  ;  and  in  anotiier  place,  that  '  according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us,  by  tlie  wasliing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
Tit.  iii.  5;  and  by  Peter,  that  '  baptism  doth  save  us,'  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  For 
it  was  not  the  intention  of  Paul  to  signify  that  our  ablution  and  salvation 
are  completed  by  the  water,  or  that  water  contains  in  itself  the  virtue  to 
purify,  regenerate  and  renew  ;  nor  did  Peter  mean  that  it  was  the  cause  of 
salvation,  but  only  that  the  knowledge  and  assurance  of  it  is  received  in 
this  sacrament:  wliich  is  sutRciently  evident  from  the  words  they  have 
used.  For  Paul  connects  together  the  '  word  of  life'  and  '  the  baptism  of 
water ;'  as  if  he  had  said,  that  our  ablution  and  sanctification  are  announced 
to  us  by  the  gospel,  and  by  baptism  this  message  is  confirmed.  And  Peter, 
after  having  said  that  '  baptism  doth  save  us,'  immediately  adds,  that  it  is 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  471 

*  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God,'  which  proceeds  from  faith.  But  on  the  contrary, 
baptism  promises  us  no  other  purification  than  by  the  sprinkling  of  tlie 
blood  of  Christ;  which  is  emblematically  represented  by  water,  on  account 
of  its  resemblance  to  washing  and  cleansing.  Who,  then,  can  pretend  that 
we  are  cleansed  by  that  water,  which  clearly  testifies  the  blood  of  Christ  to 
be  our  true  and  only  ablution?  So  that,  to  refer  the  error  of  those  who  refer 
all  to  the  virtue  of  the  water,  no  better  argument  could  be  found,  than  in 
the  signification  of  baptism  itself,  which  abstracts  us,  as  well  from  that  vis- 
ible element,  which  is  placed  before  our  eyes,  as  from  all  other  means  of 
salvation,  that  it  may  fix  our  minds  on  Christ  alone. 

3d.  Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  baptism  is  administered  only  for  the 
time  past,  so  that  for  sins  into  which  we  fall  after  baptism,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  seek  other  new  remedies  of  expiation  in  I  know  not  what  other 
sacraments,  as  if  the  virtue  of  baptism  were  become  obsolete.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  error,  it  happened  in  former  ages,  that  some  persons  would 
not  be  baptized  except  at  tiie  close  of  their  life,  and  almost  in  the  moment 
of  their  death,  so  that  tiiey  might  obtain  pardon  for  their  whole  life  ;  a  pre- 
posterous caution,  whicli  is  frequently  censured  in  the  writings  of  the  an- 
cient bishops.  But  we  ought  to  conclude,  that  at  whatever  time  we  are 
baptized,  we  are  washed  and  purified  for  the  whole  of  life.  Whenever  we 
have  fallen,  tiierefore,  we  must  recur  to  the  remembrance  of  baptism,  and 
arm  our  minds  with  the  consideration  of  it,  that  we  may  be  always  certified 
and  assured  of  the  remission  of  our  sins.  For  though,  when  it  has  been 
once  administered,  it  appears  to  be  past,  yet  it  is  not  abolished  by  subse- 
quent sins.  For  the  purity  of  Christ  is  otfered  to  us  in  it ;  and  that  always 
retains  its  virtue,  is  never  overcome  by  any  blemishes,  but  purifies  and  ob- 
literates all  our  defilements." 

I  am  in  good  company  in  the  use  of  the  woi'd  preposterous,  notwith- 
standing Mr.  Rice's  objections  to  the  word.  1  am  more  of  a  Calvinian 
than  he  is.  I  certainly  am  in  good  company  when  I  liave  Luther  on  my 
right  hand  and  Calvin  on  my  left,  on  the  design  of  baptism. 

I  liave  not  yet  done  witli  the  confession  of  faith,  it  does  not  refer  to 
circumcision,  either  in  the  first,  second,  or  third  sections.  But  observe, 
the  confession  of  faith  says,  "  It  is  a  confirmauve  mark  of  regeneration — 
of  remission  of  sins,  a  mark  confirmative."  Can  any  language  be  more 
conclusive  ?  The  confession  of  faith  represents  baptism  as  a  confirmative 
mark,  a  confirmative,  too,  of  our  pardon  and  admission  into  the  family  of 
God.  I  have  never  spoken  more  clearly,  or  more  forcibly,  on  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  than  did  the  great  founder  of  Presbyterianisrn. 
I  have  the  two  greatest  names  in  Protestant  Christendom  atHrming  my 
proposition. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that,  in  addition  to  the  arguments  offered 
from  the  Scriptures,  we  have  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  williout  one 
exception,  the  two  great  founders  of  Protestantism,  tlie  Westminster 
divines,  and  the  Scotch  Confession  of  Faith,  down  to  the  present  century. 
The  present  century  is  really  retrograding  in  the  understanding  and  ven- 
eration of  the  ordinances,  both  of  the  communion  and  of  the  rite  of  ini- 
tiation. America  is  beliind  the  age,  beliind  Christendom  on  this  subject. 
The  reason  is.  Baptist  views  are  so  prevailing  here,  that  Pedo-bapUsts 
are  always  seeking  to  defend  themselves,  and  not  candidly  and  persever- 
ingly  searching  the  Scriptures. 

Dr.  Chalmers,  of  Scotland,  is  a  century  ahead  of  American  Presbyter- 
ians. The  English  and  tlie  Germans  are  leaving  us  behind.  The  great- 
est ecclesiastic  historian  living,  Neander,  and  the  most  eminent  philolo- 
gists in  Germany,  are  greatly  in  advance  of  any  American   Pedo-baptisi 


472  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

theologians,  philologists,  historians,  and  critics,  both  on  the  nature  and 
design  of  baptism. 

If  we  go  back  to  the  old  creeds,  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian,  they  put 
us  to  shame.  The  Nicene  was  a  symbol  and  exponent  of  the  faith  of  the 
whole  world  at  the  beginning  of  the  Ibiirth  century.  It  says  :  "We  believe 
in  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins."  The  Athanasian,  on  which  the 
Roman  and  English  hierarchy  rested  for  so  long  a  time,  says  :  "  We 
confess  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  'J'he  church  of  England 
still  has  in  her  Common  Prayer  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  ;  while 
her  American  daughter,  more  rationally  has  expunged  the  Athanasian, 
because  of  a  more  doubtful  ancestry.  But,  Mr.  President,  not  any  of 
these  authorities,  nor  all  of  them  combined,  led  me  to  the  belief  of  the  true 
meaning  and  design  of  baptism. 

I  studied  under  greater  masters  than  any  of  these.  Some  twenty 
years  ago,  when  preparing  for  a  debate  with  Mr.  McCalla,  I  put  myself 
under  the  special  instruction  of  four  Evangelists,  and  one  Paul,  of  dis- 
tinguished apostolic  rank  and  dignity.  I  had  for  some  time  before  that 
discussion,  been  often  impressed  with  such  passages  as  Acts  ii.  38 ;  and 
that  providential  call  to  discuss  the  subject  with  Mr.  McCalla,  compelled 
me  to  decide  the  matter  to  my  entire  satisfaction.  Believe  me,  sir,  then 
I  had  forgotten  my  earlier  readings  upon  the  subject;  and  upon  the  sim- 
ple testimony  of  the  Book  itself,  I  came  to  a  conclusion  alledged  in  thait 
debate,  and  proved  only  by  the  Bible,  which  now  appears,  from  a  thou- 
sand sources,  to  have  been  the  catholic  and  truly  ancient  and  primitive 
faith  of  the  whole  church.  It  was  in  this  commonwealth  that  this  doc- 
trine was  first  publicly  promulged  in  modern  times  :  and,  sir,  it  has  now 
spread  over  this  continent,  and  with  singular  success,  is  now  returning  to 
Europe,  and  the  land  of  our  fathers.  My  faith  in  it,  sir,  rests,  however, 
neitlier  upon  the  traditions  of  the  church,  nor  upon  any  merely  inferential 
reasonings  of  my  own,  nor  those  of  any  other  man  ;  but  upon  the  explicit 
and  often  repeated  declarations  and  explanations  of  the  prophets  and  the 
apostles. 

In  maintaining  this  all-important  position,  however,  I  build  neither 
upon  the  ancients  nor  the  moderns  ;  neither  upon  creeds,  synods,  councils* 
nor  fathers.  If  it  be  not  found  within  the  limits  of  the  Book,  let  it  perish 
from  our  memory  and  from  our  hearts.  With  pleasure.  I  can  place  hu- 
man authority  against  human  authority,  writer  against  writer,  and  coun- 
cil against  council.  They  neutralize,  correct  or  annihilate  one  another. 
But  wo  stand  on  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  notliing  but  the  Bible, 
in  our  foith  and  in  the  evidences  that  support  it.  Here,  sir,  we  have  the 
blood-sealed  charter  of  immortality  to  man.  "  He  that  believetli  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved.  The  young,  the  old,  the  middle  aged — the 
young  athletic  sinner,  and  the  hoary  chief  in  the  ranks  of  infidelity — 
have  felt  the  heart-stirring,  soul-subduing,  transporting  efficacy  and  at- 
tractiveness of  this  message  of  philanthropy  to  a  bewildered,  lost,  and 
ruined  world,  and  have  gladly  and  humbly  bowed  to  Prince  Messiah,  and 
gone  down  into  the  mystic  waters  of  holy  baptism  for  remission,  and  have 
risen  to  lead  a  new,  an  elevated,  a  heaven-directed  life  of  purity  and  hu- 
manity. Thousands,  sir,  tens  of  thousands  have  been  brought  into  the 
fold  of  God,  through  the  insirumentalitv  of  this  glorious  development  of 
ancient  Christianity.  Many  are  our  fellow-laborers  and  helpers  and  fel- 
low soldiers  in  this  great  work,  and  wide-extended  field  of  labor.  Around 
me  are  a  host  of  men,  fired  with  the  ancient  enthusiasm  of  converting  my- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  473 

riads  by  the  pure,  original  gospel  of  the  apostolic  ministry.  Our  success, 
in  comparison  with  any  other  experiment  in  the  memory  of  living  men, 
is  truly  wonderful  and  animating. 

Here  is  ilie  Presbyterian  church  with  its  eighty  ministers,  its  eight 
thousand  and  less  members,  after  the  labors  of  more  than  half  a  century. 
In  one  third  of  that  lime  the  cause  we  plead,  notwithstanding  our  feeble- 
ness, and  all  the  errors  and  accidents  incident  to  a  new  commencement, 
and  without  colleges  and  schools  of  learning,  without  the  aids  of  hoary 
veterans  in  policy,  prudence  and  sage  experience — by  the  force  of  this 
simple  story  of  God's  Messiah,  and  his  love,  depicted  in  this  mighty  Pen- 
tecostan  gospel,  and  under  the  star  of  Jacob;  led,  guided,  aided  and  bless- 
ed, from  nothing  have,  in  less  than  twenty  years,  outnumbered  this  old, 
learned,  and  well-disciplined  host,  some  five  to  one.  And  what  is  the 
cause  ?  It  is  not  talent,  learning,  and  an  efficient  general  organization. 
It  is  truth,  sir,  God's  mighty  truth,  that  has  gone  forth  like  a  river  and 
overflowed  this  land  like  a  wave  from  the  ocean!  What  argues  all  this, 
fellow-citizens  !  That  its  destiny  is  to  go  forward  in  its  glorious  career, 
building  on  Divine  facts,  precepts,  and  promises — appealing  to  reason, 
conscience,  the  affections,  and  conquering  myriads  by  its  rich,  full,  free, 
efficacious  grace.  The  doctrine  works  well.  It  is  wisdom,  righteous- 
ness, holiness,  and  redemption  to  all  that  believe  it.  Those  wlio  plead 
this  cause  in  ancient  times,  I  call,  a  sacrameiUal  host.  And  may  those 
who  now  plead  it,  guided,  strengthened,  animated  by  tlie  strength  of  Ja- 
cob, the  Lord  of  hosts,  go  on  conquering  and  to  conquer ! 

But  what  is  baptism?  The  Westminsters  say — It  is  a  sacrament,  a 
sign  of  regeneration,  a  seal  of  engrafting  into  Christ — the  covenant  of 
grace,  of  remission  of  sins — an  engagement  to  be  the  Lord's.  What  a 
rich  cluster  of  blessings  are  hanging  upon  baptism,  then,  according  to  the 
creed!  Is  this  true  of  all,  of  any  infant  subject?  Are  these  blessings 
all  sealed  to  them  by  it?  Then  let  them  have  it  by  all  means.  But  first 
be  assured  that  this  is  the  fact,  else  you  delude  and  ruin  them,  and  plant 
in  your  own  bosoms  an  everlasting  agony.  If  its  design  is  thus  to  signify 
and  seal  their  engrafting  into  Christ,  the  Living  Vine,  what  a  blessing! 
But  that  it  is  not  so,  fathers,  mothers,  sons,  and  daughters,  I  appeal  ti> 
your  own  experience — I  address  myself  to  your  common  sense,  your  own 
observations.     Surely  you  will  say  it  is  not  so  ! 

Do  you  teach  this  catechism  to  your  children  ?  Teach  them  the  Scrip- 
tures— the  book  that  God  has  written.  Let  their  minds  be  early  and 
deeply  imbued  with  these  holy  lessons.  They  came  from  God's  love, 
and  they  open  and  sanctify  the  heart.  Your  children  cannot  digest  such 
crude,  indigestible  and  unhealthy  viands ;  the  stale,  metaphisical  abstru- 
sities of  old  quaint  divinity.  Give  them  God's  own  Book.  Let  them 
learn  the  lesson  there,  tiiat  God  is  love — and  when  they  understand  it, 
and  believe  it,  then  put  his  holy  name  upon  them,  and  let  them  feel  that 
they,  and  not  you,  believe  for  themselves,  the  gospel  of  salvation. 

This  book  so  read,  so  learned,  and  so  believed,  will  accomplish  for 
them  a  glorious  disenthralment  from  evil  passions.  They  will  feel  that  it 
is  a  soul-illuminating,  reviving,  redeeming,  and  exhilarating  volume,  full  of 
grace  and  full  of  truth.  By  it  they  will  be  prepared  for  all  earth's  for- 
tunes, good  or  bad,  prosperous  or  adverse.  They  will  rise  above  vulgar 
prejudices  and  errors,  and  will  pant  after  the  fruition  of  the  sweet  and  holy 
communion  of  heaven's  purest,  holiest,  happiest,  and  most  exalted  intelli- 
gences,    A  deep,  heartfelt  conviction  that  such  are  its  tendencies,  is  one 

2r2 


474  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  our  most  urgent  reasons  for  contending,  with  so  much  zeal,  for  its  or- 
dinances, its  precepts,  and  its  promises  as  God  gave  them  ;  believing  that 
it  is  able  to  make  us  all  wise  unto  salvation — useful,  honorable,  and  happy 
on  earth,  and  prepared  for  the  seraphic  intimacies  and  friendships,  among 
the  favored  circles  of  heaven. — \jrime  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  23— U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  third  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  will  not  violate  the  rules  by  which  we  hare  bound 
ourselves  to  be  governed  in  this  discussion,  by  speaking  of  the  gentle- 
man's "obliquities,"  as  he  has  so  repeatedly  done.  If  he  choose  to  dis- 
regard the  rules  of  decorum,  I  will  not  imitate  his  example.  He  tells 
you,  I  have  greatly  misrepresented  him  in  the  matter  of  the  rags,  oil  and 
lamp-black.  The  Bible,  he  now  says,  is,  in  one  view  of  the  subject,  only 
oil,  rags,  <fcc.  So  his  meaning  w^ould  be,  that  pagans  are  ruined  because  in 
one  view  of  the  subject,  they  cannot  get  those  ai'ticles  !  My  reply  was, 
I  think,  just  such  as  his  illustration  merited. 

It  is  not  necessary,  he  repeats,  that  Peter  and  Paul  should  continue 
saying  over  and  over  the  same  thing.  But  the  difficulty  is  this — Peter, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  taught  a  number  of  anxious  inquirers  what  they 
must  do  to  be  saved;  and  he  said,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Now 
if,  as  Mr.  C.  contends,  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  remission  of  sins, 
Peter  must,  of  course,  so  present  it  when  he  preached  to  another  com- 
pany of  inquirers.  The  fact,  however,  is,  that  in  his  second  discourse, 
in  which  he  certainly  did  give  correctly  and  fully  the  conditions  of  remis- 
sion, he  did  not  mention  baptism.  It  is,  moreover,  a  fact,  that  when  he 
preached  to  Cornelius  and  his  family,  who  were  gentiles,  he  did  not  di- 
rect them  to  be  baptized  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  These  facts 
aiTord  evidence  conclusive,  that  Peter  did  not  regard  baptism  as  necessary 
to  secure  remission.  If  Mr.  Campbell's  interpretation  of  Peter's  first 
discourse  be  correct,  he  did  not  always  preach  the  same  doctrine ;  but  if 
ours  be  the  correct  exposition,  he  was  perfectly  consistent,  presenting  in 
each  discourse  the  same  conditions  of  pardon.  Repentance  necessarily 
implies  conversion,  and  repentance  and  conversion  necessarily  imply 
faith.  So  that  in  each  of  his  discourses  he  presented  to  the  minds  of  his 
hearers,  directly  or  impliedly,  all  that  was  necessary  to  secure  remission 
of  sins.  But,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  views,  he  omitted,  in  two  of  them, 
what  was  as  important  as  repentance  or  faith,  viz.  baptism.  This,  then, 
is  the  difference  between  Mr.  C.  and  myself.  He  makes  Peter  incon- 
sistent and  unfaithful ;  I  make  him  a  consistent  and  faithful  minister  of 
Christ. 

He  labors  in  vain  to  evade  the  force  of  the  perl'ectly  clear  and  unequiv- 
ocal language  of  Christ — "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting 
life."  He  says,  the  christian  is  represented  as  looking  for  eternal  life. 
Let  us  have  chapter  and  verse,  and  I  will  attend  to  it.  It  is  admitted, 
that  believers  are  looking  and  hoping  for  eternal  happiness ;  and  so  long 
as  there  is  an  eternity  before  us,  we  shall  continue  to  look  forward.  But 
does  this  prove,  that  w'e  may  not  here  have  the  commencement  of  that 
life  ?  When  our  Savior  says  the  believer  hath  eternal  life,  Mr.  C.  un- 
derstands him  to  mean,  that  although  he  is  yet  condemned,  eternal  life  is 
offered  to  him.  There  is  no  principle  of  criticism  that  will  allow  such 
liberties  to  be  taken  with  Scripture  language.     Nothing  short  of  a  cause 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  475 

most  indefensible,  could  induce  a  man  of  the  clear  intellect  possessed  by 
my  friend,  to  maintain  that  hath  means  may  have;  and  that  when  our 
Savior  says,  all  believers  have  eternal  life,  they  may  nevertheless  be  in  a 
state  of  condemnation. 

But  to  the  other  declaration — "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  is  not 
condem)ied,^^  he  attempted  no  reply,  for  he  saw  that  it  left  no  room 
for  evasion.  This  single  passage  is  sufficient  to  overturn  his  whole  the- 
ory of  baptism  in  order  to  remission.  It  can  mean  nothing  less  than  that 
every  believer  is  actually  pardoned. 

But,  says  Mr.  Campbell,  Christ  contemplated  a  believer  as  one  who 
would  do  his  whole  duty.  To  this  I  reply :  Isl.  A  believer  cannot  bap- 
tize himself,  and  persons  are  often  placed  in  circumstances  in  which  they 
cannot  be  baptized  by  others.  Even  in  Georgetown,  where  water  is  very 
plentiful,  there  was,  as  I  learn  from  the  Harbinger,  a  delay  for  several 
days  of  the  baptism  of  some  persons  who,  it  was  said,  had  made  the 
good  confession.  It  not  unfrequently  happens,  that  believers,  who  are 
disposed  to  do  their  whole  duty,  find  it  impossible  to  receive  baptism  foT 
days,  weeks,  or  even  months.  Are  such  persons  still  in  a  state  of  con- 
demnation ?  For  example — I  am  to-day  a  believer,  but  I  am  a  hundred 
or  a  thousand  miles  distant  from  any  one  who  is  authorized  to  baptize 
me.  Am  I  still  condemned  because  a  duty  is  required,  which  I  have  it 
not  in  my  power  to  perform  ?  2d.  I  maintain,  that  God  did  not  make 
my  salvation  depend  upon  an  act  which,  however  inclined,  I  cannot  per- 
form for  myself,  and  which  I  may  not  be  able  to  have  performed  by  oth- 
ers. There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Bible  that  intimates,  that  any  true  be- 
liever is  condemned  and  exposed  to  eternal  ruin,  because  he  cannot  re- 
ceive an  external  ordinance.  The  Bible  doctrine  is,  that  every  one  who 
truly  believes  on  Jesus  Christ,  is  immediately  pardoned  and  has  everlast- 
ing life.  But  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell,  none  are  par- 
doned who  have  not  been  immersed — no  matter  why.  3d.  But  many 
persons  who  are  disposed  to  obey  every  command  of  Christ,  do  err  as  to 
what  baptism  is — so  says  Mr.  Campbell.  He  admits  that  some,  at  least, 
sincerely  believe  in  baptism  by  sprinkling,  which,  he  says,  is  not  bap- 
tism. He  admits,  moreover,  that  theirs  is  an  error  of  the  head,  not  of  the 
heart.  Yet  this  error  of  the  head,  in  regard  to  an  external  ordinance, 
keeps  them  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  living  and  dying !  They^  love 
Christ  and  desire  to  obey  him  ;  but  they,  through  mistake,  suppose  them- 
selves to  be  baptized,  when  in  truth  they  have  not  submitted  to  the  ordi- 
nance. Now,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine,  such  persons  must 
be  lost;  for  he  maintains  that  repentance  and  immersion  are  *^  equally 
necessary  to  forgiveness .'" 

He  tells  us,  that  Calvin  agrees  with  him  on  this  subject;  and  he  read 
an  extract  from  liis  Institutes  to  prove  it.  But  he  has  evidendy  snatched 
up  hastily  a  few  words  which  seemed  to  favor  his  views,  without  exam- 
ining the  connection.  Calvin  not  only  does  not  sustain  him,  but  does  not 
even  approximate  his  ground.  I  will  read  from  his  Institutes,  book  iv. 
chap.  XV.  sec.  1  : 

"  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  initiation,  by  which  we  are  admitted  into  the  so- 
ciety of  the  church,  in  order  that  being  incorporated  into  Christ,  we  may 
be  numbered  among  the  children  of  God.  Now,  it  has  been  given  to  us  by 
God  for  these  ends,  which  I  have  shown  to  be  common  to  all  the  sacra- 
ments: first,  to  promote  our  faith  toward  him;  secondly,  to  testify  our 
confession  before  men.  We  shall  treat  of  both  these  ends  of  this  insti- 
tution in  order      To  begin  with  the  first: — from  baptism  our  faith  derives 


476  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

three  advantages,  which  require  to  he  distinctly  considered.  The  first  is, 
that  it  is  proposed  to  us  by  the  Lord,  as  a  symbol  and  token  of  our  purifica- 
tion ;  or,  to  express  my  meaning  more  fiilly,  it  resembles  a  legal  instrument 
properly  attested,  by  which  he  assures  us  that  all  our  sins  are  canceled, 
effaced,  and  obliterated,  so  that  they  will  never  appear  in  his  sight,  or  come 
into  his  remembrance,  or  be  imputed  to  us,"  &;c. 

Such  precisely  is  the  doctrine  of  our  confession  of  faith,  and  the  doc- 
trine for  which  I  contend.  But  I  will  read  another  passage  from  this 
same  chapter,  which  the  gentleman  seems  not  to  have  noticed,  and  which 
proves  conclusively  that  Calvin  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  for  which  he 
contends.     Sec.  14 : 

"  We  may  see  this  exemplified  in  Cornelius  the  centurion,  who,  after 

HAVING    RECEIVED    THE    REMISSION    OF    HIS    SINS    AND    THE    VISIBLE  GRACE  OP 

THE  Holy  Spirit,  was  baptized  ;  not  with  a  view  to  obtain  by  baptism  a 
more  ample  reminsion  of  sins,  but  a  stronger  exercise  oj"  faith,  and  an  in- 
crease of  confidence  from  that  fledge.'''' 

Now  the  audience  will  remark,  Calvin  says,  Cornelius,  after  having 
received  remission  of  sins,  was  baptized.  He  first  received  remission, 
then  the  sign  and  seal.  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  Mr.  C.  ?  If 
it  is,  we  may  shake  hands,  and  close  this  part  of  the  discussion.  We  can 
have  christian  tmimi  at  once  !  But  he  seems  not  to  have  read  Calvin's 
remarks  on  the  baptism  of  Cornelius.  Calvin  says,  just  what  we  say — 
first  remission,  of  sins,  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  then  the  sign  and  seal. 
So  teaches  our  confession  of  faith.  I  believe,  that  baptism  is  a  sign  and 
seal  of  our  engrafting  into  Christ,  of  remission  of  sins,  &.c. :  but  faith 
secures  remission,  and  the  sign  and  seal  are  added.  The  document  is 
first  written,  then  the  seal  is  applied.  Did  not  Abraham  receive  the 
righteousness,  or  justification  by  faith,  before  he  received  the  seal  of  cir- 
cumcision ?  Mr.  Campbell  maintains,  that  the  sins  of  believers  are  for- 
given in  baptism.  Calvin  maintained  that  they  are  forgiven  when  faith  is 
exercised  before  baptism.  Calvin  differed  from  his  views  still  more 
widely;  for  he  maintained,  that  baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  and  seal  of 
the  remission  of  past  sins,  but  that  it  is  equally  efficacious  through  life' — 
that  it  is  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  God,  securing  to  the  believing  penitent 
the  remission  of  sins  at  all  times,  and  encouraging  him  to  hope  in  God's 
mercy,  and  to  persevere  to  tiie  end. 

We  now  see  how  carefully  my  friend  reads  authors,  and  how  he  gets 
such  numbers  on  his  side  on  these  questions.  He  catches  up  some  ex- 
pressions, which,  taken  out  of  their  connection,  seem  to  favor  his  views, 
and  looks  no  further.  Thus  he  persuaded  himself  that  Calvin's  views 
accorded  with  his  ;  when,  if  he  had  read  the  chapter  through,  he  would 
have  found  him  directly  against  them.  I  will  admit,  if  he  pleases,  that 
the  whole  world  is  as  nearly  with  him,  as  he  is  with  Calvin;  that  is,  they 
are  precisely  against  him.  He  might,  with  some  more  plausibility,  claim 
Lullier,  with  his  notions  of  c.onsitbstantiation,  than  John  Calvin. 

The  gentleman  is  still  on  infant  baptism.  He  is  certainly  conscious 
of  having  failed  to  sustain  himself  on  that  subject.  If  not,  why  does  he 
return  to  it  so  repeatedly  ?  He  cannot  be  satisfied  with  his  previous 
efforts  on  this  subject.  But  if  he  will  show  us  the  propriety  of  circum- 
cising infants,  when  they  could  not  possibly  understand  the  design  of  the 
ordinance,  I  will  pledge  myself  to  show  the  propriety  of  baptizing  them. 
Circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal  of  God's  covenant;  and,  as  a  signifi- 
cant ordinance,  it  pointed  to  the  renewal  of  the  heart.  Infants  could  not 
understand  its  nature  and  design,  and  yet  God  commanded  that  it  should 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  477 

be  administered  to  them.  There  is  just  as  much  propriety  in  baptizing 
infants  now,  as  tliere  was  in  cirouaicising  them  then.  I  hope,  liowever, 
that  my  friend  will  now  acknowledge,  that  he  has  done  the  best  he  could 
against  infant  baptism,  and  leave  it. 

He  appeals  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  of  the  four  first  centuries,  as 
sustaining  his  doctrine  of  baptism,  in  order  to  remission.  Do  you  re- 
member how  he  abused  them  yesterday?  and  what  a  reproof  he  admin- 
istered to  me  for  calling  up  such  witnesses  as  they  ? ! !  I  knew  he  would 
need  their  autliority  to-day.  On  yesterday  they  were  grossly  ignorant, 
and  amazingly  superstitious,  great  dupes,  and  their  testimony  was  most 
worthless.  But  to-day  they  have  risen  surprisingly  in  his  estimation  ! 
They  are  quite  enlightened  !  ! ! 

Yet  every  unprejudiced  mind  can  see,  that  their  testimony  is  far  more 
conclusive  on  the  other  subject  than  on  this.  The  difference  is  this:  I 
brought  them  forward  as  witnesses  to  a  plain  matter  of  fact.  Any  one  can 
tell  whether,  in  the  church  where  he  worships,  children  are  baptized,  and 
whether  such  had  long  been  the  custom.  But  Mr.  C.  appeals  to  them 
for  their  opinions  concerning  the  nature  and  design  of  baptism.  This  is 
a  matter  in  regard  to  which  I  appeal  not  to  them ;  for  we  know,  they  en- 
tertained erroneous  opinions  on  this  and  many  other  subjects.  Still,  how- 
ever, I  do  not  admit,  that  the  christian  fathers  held  his  views  on  this  sub- 
ject. They  held  to  baptismal  regeneration;  but  they  did  not  mean  by 
regeneration  what  he  means  by  it.  They  seem  to  have  believed,  that  the 
heart  was  renewed  when  baptism  was  administered,  and,  therefore,  the 
sins  were  remitted  at  the  same  time ;  while  he  holds  to  no  such  inward 
change  in  connection  with  the  ordinance,  but  only  to  a  change  of  state, 
from  condemnation  to  justification.  But  he  is  welcome  to  appeal  to  them 
in  matters  of  opinion,  or  as  commentators  on  the  Scriptures.  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  receive  their  testimony  as  to  matters  of  fact,  but  not  as 
to  their  exposition  of  the  Bible.  As  commentators,  it  is  pretty  generally 
admitted,  that  they  were  not  very  skillful.  I  will  not  dispute  with  him 
about  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  creeds.  On  this  point  they  are  not 
testifying  to  facts,  but  expounding  scripture.  Their  authority,  therefore, 
is  not  very  considerable. 

Well,  if  the  gendeman  cannot  prove  his  doctrine  true,  he  can,  at  least, 
boast  of  the  increasing  numbers  in  his  church.  What  this  has  to  do  with 
the  subject  under  discussion,  I  am  not  able  to  see.  I  think,  he  would  as 
well  give  a  dissertation  upon  the  mountains  in  the  moon.  Or  does  he 
reason  thus:  Reformers  are  increasing  more  rapidly  than  Presbyterians; 
therefore,  sins  are  remitted  only  in  baptism !  His  views  on  this  subject 
are  of  a  very  accommodating  character.  In  noticing,  in  his  Harbinger, 
the  rapid  increase  of  Presliyterians  and  old  Baptists,  one  year,  he  con- 
soled himself  by  the  soothing  reflection,  that  error  runs  faster  than  truth ; 
but,  when  his  numbers  increase,  then  truth  outruns  error!  So  his  argu- 
ment will  always  prove,  that  truth  is  wiUi  him,  and  all  others  are  in 
error ! 

But  what  is  the  character  of  this  church  of  whose  increase  he  so  much 
boasts  ?  We  are  perfectly  willing  to  compare  churches  with  him ;  and 
he  siiall  give  the  character  of  his  own  church.  In  his  Harbinger  he  has 
informed  us,  that,  in  his  church,  all  sorts  of  doctrine  have  been  preached 
by  all  sorts  of  men ! ! !  He  tells  us,  moreover,  that  it  is  in  great  confu- 
sion ;  and  for  two  years  past  he  has  labored  faithfully  to  get  up  an  organ- 
ization, to  save  it  from  perfect  anarchy  ;  but,  alas  !  to  this  (lay,  he  ha« 


478  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

entirely  failed  to  accomplish  the  object.  And  I  venture  to  predict,  that 
he  will  never  secure  an  oroanization ;  ibr  the  moment  he  attempts  to  ex- 
clude his  ignorant  and  unwortliy  preachers,  and  to  fix  some  standard  of 
ministerial  qualification,  his  church  will  break  into  half  a  dozen  frag- 
ments. So  much  for  his  increase  of  numbers,  which,  however,  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  question  under  discussion. 

Let  us  now  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  state  of  the  argument.  The  gen- 
tleman undertook  to  prove,  that  baptism' is  necessary  in  order  to  secure 
the  remission  of  sins ;  that  the  sins  of  penitent  believers  are  remitted 
only  in  the  act  of  being  immersed.  But  1  have  proved,  that  this  doctrine 
contradicts  the  repeated  declarations  of  our  Savior — that  "  he  that  believ- 
eth  on  the  Son,  is  not  condemned — hath  everlasting  life."  I  have  proved, 
that  it  is  false,  from  the  fact,  that  all  who  are  begotten  of  God,  do  enjoy 
remission  of  sins;  and  Mr.  C,  himself,  admits  that  believers  are  begot- 
ten before  they  are  baptized.  All  such,  as  the  apostle  John  teaches,  cease 
from  sin,  live  a  holy  life,  overcome  the  world,  and  have  eternal  life.  I 
have  also  proved,  that  the  new  birth  is  not  dependent  on  baptism,  but  oc- 
curs often  before  it ;  and  that  all  who  are  born  of  God,  baptized  or  not, 
immersed  or  not,  enjoy  remission.  If  these  things  are  so,  (and  the  gen- 
tleman has  made  no  attempt  to  disprove  most  of  them,)  his  doctrine  i« 
false. 

I  have  examined  the  expression  in  Peter's  discourse,  on  which  he  re- 
lies chiefly  for  the  support  of  his  theory,  and  have  shown,  that  his  inter- 
pretation of  it  makes  Peter  contradict  John  the  Baptist,  and  act  incon- 
sistently. The  expression  in  Matt.  iii.  11,  as  I  have  proved,  is  precisely 
similar  to  that  employed  by  Peter ;  and,  if  John  did  not  baptize  the  Jews 
in  order  to  make  them  repent,  Peter  did  not  baptize  in  order  to  remission 
of  sins.  The  erroneousness  of  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  I  proved  fur- 
ther, by  the  fact,  that,  in  Peter's  second  discourse,  baptism  is  not  men- 
tioned as  a  condition  of  remission ;  bui  he  said,  "  Repent  and  be  con- 
verted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  It  is  certain,  that  persons 
may  repent  and  be  converted,  and  yet  not  be  immersed,  or  even  baptized 
in  any  way.  Conversion  is  turning  to  God ;  and,  it  will  not  be  denied, 
that  many  have  turned  to  God,  who  were  never  immersed.  But,  according 
to  Peter's  doctrine,  all  who  repented  and  turned  to  God,  were  pardoned. 
Peter's  second  discourse,  therefore,  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  my  friend. 

When  he  preached  tlie  gospel  to  CorueHus,  he  did  not  teach  him,  that 
his  sins  could  not  be  forgiven,  except  in  the  act  of  immersion.  But 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  had  descended  upon  him  and  his  family,  proving 
that  they  were  accepted  of  God,  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized,  but 
not  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  So  far  from  it,  he  preached  a  doctrine 
wholly  inconsistent  with  this.  I  will  read  a  passage  from  this  discourse 
of  Peter,  which,  I  observe,  was  triumphantly  urged  against  Mr.  Camp- 
bell by  our  friend  Dr.  Fishback.  For  although  these  gendemen  are  in 
the  same  church,  they  have  had  considerable  controversy  on  this  very 
subject.  By  this,  amongst  other  arguments,  the  doctor  proved  conclu- 
sively, that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  Mr. 
Campbell  has  not  been  able  to  answer  it  to  this  day.  The  passage  is, 
Acts  X.  4.3,  "  To  him  [Christ]  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through 
his  name,  whosoever  helieveth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 
Observe,  he  said,  ivhosoever  believeth,  shall  receive  remission.  Have 
not  multitud(!S  believed  on  Christ,  who  never  were  baptized,  according  to 
Mr.  C.'s  views  of  baptism  ?     The  gentleman  tried  to  find  immersion  ia 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  479 

the  expression  "  through  his  name."  If  he  will  show  the  least  authority 
for  such  a  sentiment,  I  will  surrender.  But  with  him  almost  every  thing 
means  immersion.  If  the  remission  of  his  sins  depended  on  answering 
Dr.  Fishback's  argument  from  this  passage  of  Scripture,  I  believe  they 
would  never  be  remitted,  [a  laugh.]  His  doctrine  is  truly  in  a  sad  pre- 
dicament ;  for  either  it  is  false,  or  we  must  conclude  that  Peter  did  not 
preach  the  whole  truth  to  Cornelius,  nor  Paul,  to  the  jailor. 

If  1  have  time,  I  will  present  another  argument  against  Mr.  C.'s  doc- 
trine, viz.  If  it  be  true,  midtifudes  of  the  most  pious,  godly  persons  do 
live  and  die  condemned,  and  go  to  perdition.  That  I  am  not  misrepre- 
senting his  views  will  appear  Irom  the  following  declarations  in  his  Chris- 
tianitij  Restored,  pp.  197.  199: 

"  Whatever  the  act  of  faith  may  be,  it  necessarily  becomes  the  line  of 
discrimination  between  the  two  states  before  described.  On  this  side,  and 
on  tliat,  mankind  are  in  quite  different  states.  On  tfie  one  side,  they  are  par- 
doned, justified,  sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved:  on  the  other,  they 
are  in  a  state  of  condemnation.  This  act  is  sometimes  called  immersion,  re- 
generation,  conversion;  and  that  this  may  appear  obvious  to  all,  we  shall 
be  at  some  pains  to  confirm  and  illustrate  it." 

Again  : 

"  The  apostle  Peter,  when  first  publishing  the  gospel  to  the  Jews,  taught 
them  that  they  were  not  forgiven  their  sins  by  faith  ;  but  by  an  act  of  faith, 
by  a  believing  immersion  into  the  Lord  Jesus.  That  this  may  appear  evi- 
dent to  all,  we  shall  examine  his  pentecostan  address,  and  his  pentecostan 
hearers.  Peter  now  holding  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus,  and  speaking 
under  the  commission  for  converting  the  world,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  guided,  inspired,  and  accompanied  by  the  Spirit — may  be  ex- 
pected to  speak  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  plainly  and  intelligibly,  to  his 
brethren  the  Jews.  He  had  that  day  declared  the  gospel  facts,  and  proved 
the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus  to  the  conviction  of  thousands. 
They  believed  and  repented — believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  had  died 
as  a  sin-offering,  was  risen  from  the  dead,  and  crowned  Lord  of  all.  Being 
full  of  this  faith,  they  inquired  of  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  what  they 
ought  to  do  to  obtain  remission.  They  were  informed,  that  though  they  now 
believed  and  repented,  they  were  not  pardoned ;  but  must  '  reform  and  be  im- 
mersed for  the  remission  of  sins.'  Immersion  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
was  the  command  addressed  to  these  believers,  to  these  penitents,  in  answer 
to  the  most  earnest  question;  and  by  one  of  the  most  sincere,  candid,  and 
honest  speakers  ever  heard.  This  act  of  faith  was  presented,  as  that  act 
by  which  a  change  in  their  state  could  be  effected  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
BY  WHICH  alone  they  could  be  pardoned.  They  who  '  gladly  received 
this  word  were  that  day  immersed  ;'  or,  in  other  words,  that  same  day  were 
converted,  or  regenerated,  or  obeyed  the  gospel.  These  expressions,  in  the 
apostles'  style,  when  applied  to  persons  coming  into  the  kingdom,  denote 
the  same  act ;  as  will  be  perceived  from  the  various  passages  in  the  wri- 
tings of  Luke  and  Paul." 

In  the  Christian  Baptist,  the  gentleman  speaks  of  three  salvations — 
{_Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fourth  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  cannot,  sir,  in  one  speech  tliis  morning,  review  tht 
various  positions  of  my  respondent's  replies,  delivered  yesterday,  not  yet 
noticed.  In  order,  therefore,  as  far  as  possible  to  preserve  a  connection 
in  the  arguments  by  me  submitted,  before  attempting  to  review,  I  will 
proceed  in  an  argumentative  way  to  add  a  few  more  evidences  to  thos* 
already  before  you. 


480  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

In  my  introductory  speech,  I  delivered  eight  consecutive  arguments; 
one,  indeed,  was  not  fully  developed,  the  object  of  which  was  to  shew, 
that  in  baptism  there  is  a  real  transition  from  one  state  to  another,  clearly 
indicated  by  the  phrase  ''into  the  name,"  &;c.  The  outward  transition 
of  the  body,  from  one  element  into  another,  indicates  an  inward  transi- 
tion of  the  mind,  from  one  state  into  another;  from  some  of  our  relations 
to  Adam,  the  first,  to  certain  new  relations  to  Adam,  the  second.  This 
is  consummated  by  the  words  "1  immerse  thee  into  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Words  so  solemn  and 
significant  as  these,  are  not  to  be  expressed  without  a  most  intelligent 
consideration,  and  proper  preparation  on  the  part  of  the  penitent. 

My  ninth  argument  is  based  on  John  iii.  5,  6.  This  passage  has 
already  become  very  familiar.  It  occupied  rather  a  prominent  place  in  the 
addresses  of  my  friend  on  Monday. 

The  great  topic  of  debate  between  the  Messiah  and  his  cotemporaries 
was  his  kingdom,  and  the  mistakes  concerning  himself,  his  person,  offi- 
ces, and  character  as  relating  to  it.  This  remarkable  development  of  his 
kingdom  to  Nicodemus,  and  of  the  way  into  it,  extorted  no  little  marvel 
from  this  distinguished  ruler  of  Israel,  and  called  forth  some  new  discov- 
eries, never  before  recorded  by  any  of  the  other  evangelists  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  debate  in  anticipation,  whether  our 
Lord's  discourse  respected  developments  to  be  made  hereafter,  or  then; 
whether  that  kingdom  was  hereafter  to  be  entered  into,  or  at  the  time  of 
this  colloquy  between  him  and  Nicodemus.  The  abstract  question  is, 
how  are  men  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  in  this  world,  in  its 
present,  temporal,  and  earthly  character  and  position? 

It  was  altogether  apposite  that  the  king  of  Israel  and  the  ruler  of  the 
Jews  should  freely  communicate  upon  matters  of  royalty  and  empire. 
The  time-serving  policy,  and  the  official  timidity  of  the  rabbi,  are  over- 
come by  the  curiosity  of  the  man,  to  inquire  into  these  matters  ;  yet  flesh 
and  blood  must  be  heard,  so  far  as  to  dictate  a  visit  by  night.  The  Mes- 
siah intuitively  perceived  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  his  heart;  and 
with  an  awful  and  divine  solemnity,  said,  "  Nicodemus,  you  must  be 
born  again,"  else  you  cannot  see,  or  understand,  this  kingdom  of  which  I 
speak.  Nay  ;  unless  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  you  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God.  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh; 
and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit." 

Observe,  the  Savior  is  speaking  of  his  own  kingdom  ;  not  of  the  eternal 
kingdom  of  God  in  the  world  to  come.  One  prolific  cause  of  error  on 
this  entire  subject,  has  been  a  notion  that  not  the  church,  but  the  ultimate 
kingdom  of  glory  was  spoken  of.  Hence  came  the  Romanist  notions  of  no 
infant  baptism,  no  salvation.  Protestants,  too,  have,  in  some  instances, 
adopted  that  notion  ;  hence,  the  haste,  the  shameful  precipitancy  with 
which,  in  many  instances,  babes  have  been  sprinkled  lest  they  should  die 
unbaptized.  No  baptism,  no  salvation,  became  for  a  time  a  proverb  in 
the  Pedo-baptist  church  of  Rome. 

They  made  it  necessary  to  take  away  original  sin.  Hence,  they  com- 
missioned all  persons,  men  and  women,  to  administer  baptism  in  extreme 
cases,  without  ttie  presence  of  a  priest.  The  discovery  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  here  indicated  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  relieved  many  from 
this  morbid  sensibility  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  immediately  after  birth. 
Amongst  most  Protestants  it  has  died  away. 

Since  we  began  to  plead  for  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  a  new  method  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  481 

evading  the  force  of  this  passage  has  been  discovered,  and  very  extensively- 
adopted.  It  is,  to  make  it  half  literal  and  half  spiritual.  Water,  say  they, 
means  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  means  the  Spirit.  But  might  not  any  one 
say,  if  water  means  Spirit,  Spirit  means  water — and  thus  make  it  all  wa- 
ter, and  no  Spirit.  Certainly  this  is  as  rational  as  to  make  water  mean 
Spirit,  and  thus  make  it  all  Spirit.  But  the  great  teacher  neither  said  the 
one  ncr  the  other.  He  did  not  say.  Ye  must  be  born  of  Spirit  and  of  the 
Spirit;  nor  did  he  say,  You  must  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  water — but 
of  water  and  Spirit. 

When  I  referred  to  all  antiquity,  I  did  not  mean  to  say,  that  I  had  read 
all  antiquity  for  four  thousand  years.  I  quoted  the  fathers  as  corrobora- 
tive evidence,  but  by  no  means  as  the  foundation  of  my  faith.  This  is 
aeither  an  interpretation  of  my  own,  nor  of  modern  times ;  but  if  ever 
there  was  a  catholic — not  Roman  catholic  or  Greek  catholic — but  if  ever 
there  was  a  catholic  interpretation,  it  is  the  interpretation  which  I  have 
given ;  for  all  agree  to  it,  both  ancient  and  modern. 

I  have  a  few  scraps  here,  giving  the  words  of  two  of  our  most  distin- 
guished theologians,  to  wit:  Timothy  Dwight,  president  of  Yale,  who 
said,  ♦»  To  be  born  of  water  here  means  baptism,  and  in  my  view  it  is  as 
necessary  to  our  admission  into  the  visible  church ;  as  to  be  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  to  our  admission  into  the  invisible  kingdom."  "  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  he  who  understands  the  authority  of  this  institution,  and  re- 
fuses to  obey  it,  will  never  enter  into  either  the  visible  or  the  invisible 
kingdom." 

1  have  been  blamed  for  being  uncharitable  in  my  views  of  the  import- 
ance of  this  institution ;  but  I  have  never  said  any  thing  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  intelligent,  is  more  uncharitable  than  the  above  language 
of  the  good  Presbyterian  doctor,  Timothy  Dwight.  I  have  said,  and  I 
am  sustained  by  one  greater  than  Dwight,  (and  Edwards  excepted,  there 
is  no  name  among  American  theologians  greater  than  that  of  president 
Dwight,)  that  no  man,  understanding  this  saying,  and  refusing  to  submit 
to  this  ordinance,  will  ever  enter  the  true  visible  church,  or  kingdom,  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

My  friend  has  called  up  Dr.  Scott.  I  believe  I  have  read  every  line 
of  Scott's  commentary  in  my  youth.  In  answer  to  another  question, 
not  so  precisely  to  this  point,  to  wit: 

"  '  Jile7i  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?'' — To  this  the  apostle  replied,  by 
exhorting  them  to  repent  of  all  their  sins,  and  openly  to  avow  their  firm 
belief  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Messiah,  by  being  baptized  in  his  name. 
In  thus  professing  their  faith  in  him,  all  who  truly  believed  would  receive  a 
full  remission  of  their  sins  for  his  sake,  as  well  as  a  participation  of  the 
sanctifying  and  comforting  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit." — Scott''s  Commentary 
on  Acts  ii.  38. 

I  have  not  only  this,  but  all  the  Catholic  authorities,  in  addition  to  the 
confessions  of  faith.  It  is,  then,  clearly  established,  that  the  Savior  said, 
in  substance.  Unless  ye  be  baptized,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  christian 
church.  A  man  may  get  into  some  other  church  without  baptism,  but 
into  Christ's  church  he  cannot  come. 

My  tetith  argument  shall  consist  of  an  induction  of  all  the  conversions 
reported  by  Luke,  in  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  It  will,  therefore,  be  a 
highly  important  argument.  It  will  be,  I  hope,  a  satisfactory  answer  to 
Mr.  R.'s  objection  on  yesterday,  viz.  that  we  have  the  solemn  precept, 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  only  once,  in  the 
same  identical  words.  We  have,  indeed,  shown,  that  if  this  precept 
31  2S 


482  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

never  had  been  repeated,  still  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  first 
spoken,  give  it  a  meaning  and  an  importance  paramount  to  a  thousand 
repetitions.  It  was  made  the  opening  speech  of  the  gospel  age  ;  sanc- 
tioned by  the  holy  twelve;  confirmed,  as  well  as  suggested  by  the  Holy 
Spirit;  most  solemnly  sealed  and  authenticated  by  the  conversion  of  3000 
men  in  one  day,  who  gladly  received  the  word,  and  were  that  same  day 
baptized.  That  fact,  in  justification  of  our  interpretation,  gives  the  pas- 
sage pre-eminent  weight  in  the  minds  of  all  conscientious  persons. 

My  opponent  said  that  it  was  a  solitary  passage ;  and  he  objected  ta 
it,  because  the  same  verbiage  is  not  preserved  in  other  places.  I  shall  go 
into  an  investigation  of  every  single  conversion.  I  shall,  hov/ever,  at- 
tempt it  with  great  rapidit)^  The  second  sermon  and  conversion,  report- 
ed in  Acts,  chap,  iii.,  says,  "Repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out;  and  that  seasons  of  refreshment  may  come  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord." 

Since  the  gentleman  has,  himself,  decided,  in  his  comments  on  the 
commission,  that  convert  means  to  baptize,  if  I  may,  without  any  offence, 
refer  to  the  discussion  of  infant  baptism,  even  as  a  matter  of  history,  (to 
which,  it  seems,  he  is  not  very  partial,)  I  can  quote  words,  but  you  doubt- 
less remember  them,  affirming  that  Jesus  commanded  persons  to  be  con- 
verted, or  discipled,  merely  by  the  act  of  baptizing  them.  Consequently, 
according  to  Mr.  Rice,  when  Peter  said  "  Repent  and  be  converted,  every 
one  of  you,"  he  said  just  what  he  had  said  on  Pentecost — "Repent  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  So  far 
as  infants  are  concerned,  Mr,  Rice  will  say  it  is  good  sound  criticism. 
Convert,  that  is,  baptize  them,  and  then  teach  them.  Baptizing,  says 
Mr.  Rice,  is  the  main  matter ;  but  the  act  of  baptizing,  in  his  system,  is 
equivalent  to  the  term  convert.  Therefore,  Peter  meant  in  the  temple, 
that  which  he  meant  on  Pentecost. 

But  the  conversion  was  accomplished  in  this  case,  as  in  the  former. 
They  heard  the  gospel,  believed  it,  and  were  baptized.  The  fact  is  the 
same,  whatever  the  phraseology  may  have  been.  The  gentleman  says, 
that  horn  is  not  the  word  here  used  by  Peter,  and  therefore  "  born  of 
water"  is  not  intended.  Again — he  says,  "be  baptized"  is  not  found  in 
the  second  sermon ;  consequently,  that  could  not  be  the  meaning.  Let 
us  try  his  logic  in  some  other  cases,  and  then  unfold  its  virtues.  It  is 
simply  this: — That  as  Peter,  in  his  second  sermon,  did  not  say,  "Je 
born  of  IV at er,''''  and  as  he  did  not  say  "  be  baptized,''^  but  "  6e  convert- 
ed.,''^ he  must  not  be  supposed  to  mean,  by  this  word  convert,  either  of  the 
other  two ;  and,  therefore,  there  was  neither  baptism,  nor  the  birth  of 
water,  connected  with  his  idea  of  salvation.  I  believe  I  have  fairly  stated 
his  logic.  Let  us  now  return  to  the  first  sermon,  and  reason  by  his  rules. 
In  the  first  sermon  Peter  said,  "be  baptized,"  but  did  not  once  use  the 
words  "be  converted,"  nor  did  he  use  the  words  "be  born  of  the  Spi- 
rit ;"  consequently,  he  did  not  mean  either  "  be  converted,''^  or  "  be  born 
of  the  Spirit,"  with  reference  to  the  remission  of  sins :  for,  according  to 
Mr.  Rice,  he  always  meant,  in  such  cases,  no  more  than  the  simple  im- 
port of  the  term  used.  Hence,  it  must  follow,  that  of  the  three  thousand 
converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  not  one  of  them  believed ;  not  one 
of  them  was  "  born  of  the  Spirit :"  not  one  of  them  was  "  converted  ;"  for 
the  plain  and  evident  reason,  that  Peter  did  not  use  one  of  these  words. 
So  much  for  the  profound  logic  of  my  worthy  friend. 

But  in  the  second  sermon  Peter  did  not  mention  faith  nor  the  Holy 


^Br^ 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  483 

Spirit — he  only  said,  Repent  and  be  converted.  Now,  unless  the  word 
conversion  mean  faith,  mean  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  stand  connected  with 
these  words,  then  there  was  neither  faith  nor  Holy  Spirit  in  Peter's  sec- 
ond sermon.  But  why  spend  time  in  the  exposition  of  assumptions  and 
positions  never  before  assumed  by  any  person  pretending  to  philological 
attainments!  I  will  dismiss  this  subject  by  observing,  that  when  conver- 
sion, or  faith,  or  repentance,  or  baptism,  is  once  interpreted,  it  is  always 
used  to  represent  one  and  the  same  thnig,  when  applied  to  the  same  subject. 

I  might,  indeed,  before  dismissing  the  objection  to  laying  much  empha- 
sis upon  a  single  occurrence,  ask  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  why  he  lays  so 
much  stress  upon  the  formula  of  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  ?  especially  as  we  never  read  that  it  was  so  done  in 
those  very  words  in  any  one  instance.  If,  then,  all  the  workl  build  their 
practice,  on  one  single  occurrence,  and  if  we  had  but  one  example,  which 
is  not  the  fact,  why  blame  us  for  so  adhering  to  Peter — Acts  ii. 

I  will  now  read  a  passage  from  Acts  viii.  12 ;  and  make  a  ie\Y  passing 
remarks  as  I  proceed,  to  show  how  the  same  rules  of  interpretation  apply 
in  all  cases  : 

"  When  the  Samaritans  believed  Philip,  preaching  concerning  the  king- 
dom of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women."  But  it  is  not  said  that  they  repented,  nor  that  they 
were  converted,  nor  that  they  were  born  of  water,  nor  of  the  Spirit, 
Shall  we  therein  infer  that  they  only  believed,  and  neither  repented,  nor 
were  converted,  nor  born  of  the  Spirit,  nor  of  water  1  The  Bible  would 
have  been  a  singular  volume,  if  every  time  it  related  a  conversion,  it 
must  tell  the  whole  story  over.  We  should  soon  have  been  as  wearied 
as  we  are  in  reading  the  preambles  to  the  acts  of  our  legislative  enact- 
ments. If  Luke  had  said,  the  Samaritans  heard  the  whole  gospel 
preached,  they  were  all  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  were  all 
penetrated  with  a  sense  of  sin,  they  all  believed,  they  all  repented,  they 
all  were  regenerated,  they  were  all  born  of  the  water,  they  were  all  born 
of  the  Spirit,  they  were  all  truly  converted,  they  were  all  baptized, 
they  were  all  justified,  sanctified,  saved,  and  they  were  all  added  to  the 
church.  This  being  told  over  a  hundred  times  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, would  become  very  interesting  !  !  What  a  singular  book  the  Bible 
would  have  been,  had  it  been  formed  after  the  taste  of  some  good  ortho- 
dox people  ! ! 

My  next  case  is  that  of  Cornelius.  The  gentleman  brought  up  this 
case  with  a  great  deal  of  emphasis :  I  design,  therefore,  to  pause  a  little 
longer  upon  it  than  upon  the  others.  We  find  a  summary  of  it  in  Acts 
xi.  45 :  "  But  Peter  rehearsed  the  matter  from  the  beginning,  and  expound- 
ed it  in  order  unto  them,  saying,  I  was  in  the  city  of  Joppa  praying :  and 
in  a  trance  I  saw  a  vision,  a  certain  vessel  descend,  as  it  had  been  a  great 
sheet,  let  down  from  heaven  by  four  corners  ;  and  it  came  even  to  me : 
upon  the  which,  when  I  had  fastened  mine  eyes,  I  considered,  and  saw 
four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and 
fowls  of  the  air.  And  I  heard  a  voice  saying  unto  me.  Arise,  Peter  ;  slay 
and  eat.  But  I  said.  Not  so,  Lord  :  for  nothing  common  or  unclean  hath 
at  any  time  entered  my  mouth.  But  the  voice  answered  me  again  from 
heaven.  What  God  hath  cleansed,  that  call  thou  not  common.  And  this 
was  done  three  times,  and  all  were  drawn  up  again  into  heaven.  And 
behold,  there  were  three  men  already  come  unto  the  house  where  I  was, 
sent  from  Cesarea  unto  me.     And  the  Spirit  bade  me  go  with  tliem,  no 


484  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

thing  doubting.  Moreover,  these  six  brethren  accompanied  me,  and  we 
entered  into  the  man's  house.  And  he  showed  us  how  he  had  seen  an 
angel  in  his  house,  which  stood  and  said  unto  him.  Send  men  to  Joppa, 
and  call  for  Simon,  whose  surname  is  Peter ;  who  shall  tell  thee  words 
whereby  thee  and  all  thy  house  shall  be  saved." 

This  good  Cornelius  gave  much  alms,  and  prayed  to  God  always.  He 
was  a  truly  excellent,  pious,  benevolent  man ;  much  better  than  one  half 
of  the  best  professors  in  Kentucky;  yet  he  was  not  a  christian,  nor  even 
a  Jew,  nor  a  Jewish  proselyte.  A  pure  gentile,  enlightened  by  portions 
of  the  law,  he  was  serving  God  instantly,  day  and  night ;  yet  he  was  not 
evangelically  saved.  But  some  men  will  say — had  this  good  man  died, 
would  he  have  gone  to  perdition  ?  would  he  have  been  forever  lost  ? — 
and  such  other  questions  as  grow  out  of  these.  To  which  we  are  bound 
to  give  no  answer.  All  we  know  is,  that  he  was  not  saved  in  this  world, 
whatever  he  might  have  been,  had  he  been  taken  out  of  it  by  God.  Re- 
collect, the  angel  said.  Send  for  Peter,  and  "  he  will  tell  thee  tvords  by 
which  thou  and  all  thy  house  shall  be  saved."  Of  course,  then,  these 
words  and  precepts  which  were  promised  him,  were  words  essential  to 
his  evangelical  salvation.  For  christian  salvation  is  a  range  much  higher 
than  Jewish,  patriarchal,  gentile,  proselyte,  and  even  sectarian  salvation. 
It  is  a  full,  perfect,  and  complete  salvation  from  sin.  Cornelius  is  a  very 
fine  specimen  of  the  high  excellences  to  which  a  person  might  attain, 
without  a  saving  knowledge  of  the  only  name,  given  under  heaven,  by 
which  any  man  can  be  saved.  His  excellences  may  have  been  one  rea- 
son why  the  Lord  chose  to  make  him  and  his  family  the  first  fruits  of 
the  gentile  world. 

I  need  not  further  detail  the  incidents  of  this  case.  Peter  was  sent  for 
to  Joppa — and  why  send  for  Peter?  Let  Peter  tell  the  story.  "The 
Lord,"  said  he,  "made  choice  among  us  apostles,  that  the  gentiles,  by  my 
mouth,  should  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  believe."  The  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  had  been  committed  to  Peter — this  same  kingdom  of 
God,  into  which  no  man  now-a-days  can  enter,  but  through  a  birth  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit.  Tliis  was  the  reason,  then,  that  Peter  must  be 
sent  for. 

Peter  had  a  reason,  too,  just  at  this  crisis.  He  saw  the  gentiles  in 
this  sheet  full  of  reptiles  sent  down  from  heaven.  He  was  slow  to  learn 
this  before  taught.  Finally,  however,  he  was  prepared  to  go  with  the 
three  pious  soldiers  that  were  sent  for  him.  Six  brethren  accompanied 
him  to  witness  the  glorious  scene.  He  arrived,  was  received  with  the 
honors  due  to  one  so  honored  by  the  Lord.  He  began  to  speak.  The 
hearers  were  already  well  prepared.  The  fallow-ground  had  been  broken 
up  by  these  providences.  They  drank  it  down  as  the  thirsty  ox  drink- 
eth  the  water.  While  the  porter,  Peter,  was  well  nigh  the  gate  of  heaven 
in  his  discourse,  the  Spirit  fell  from  heaven  directly  upon  them  all,  as  it 
had  done  on  the  believers  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and  like  them  they 
began  to  speak  with  tongues,  and  to  glorify  God. 

They  were  all  overwhelmed.  It  was  a  second  Pentecost,  and  the  only 
second  Pentecost  the  world  ever  saw.  After  it  became  evident  that  this 
was  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  foretold  and  promised  by  the  Mes 
siah  to  the  first  fruits  of  the  Jews,  Peter,  gathering  thence  that  the  gates 
of  the  city  should  be  opened,  said,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these 
persons,  welcomed  as  we  have  been  by  the  Holy  Spirit  should  not  be 
baptized? 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  485 

All  being  silent,  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized,  by  the  authority 
of  the  Lord. 

Concerning  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  bestowed  on  Pente- 
cost, there  is  a  very  popular  and  common  error  abroad.  It  is  supposed 
to  have  fallen  (on  Pentecost)  upon  the  audience — the  unbelieving  multi- 
tude. This  is  a  grand  mistake.  After  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  poured 
out  (on  Pentecost)  on  the  brethren,  not  to  produce  faith,  for  faith  they  had, 
the  apostles  addressed  them,  appealing  to  what  they  saw  and  heard,  not 
to  what  they  felt. 

So  in  the  present  case,  the  Spirit  fell  on  believing  gentiles,  to  welcome 
them  into  the  kingdom,  as  God  had  received  the  Jewish  converts.  He 
made  no  difference  between  the  first  fruits  of  the  gentiles  and  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Jews.  These  again  were  miraculous  gifts,  for  signs  and 
tokens,  and  not  the  ordinary  influences  of  that  divine  agent  which  chris- 
tians ordinarily  enjoy. 

Peter  feeling  himself  authorized  to  admit  them  into  the  kingdom,  as  we 
have  heard,  commanded  their  baptism,  and  thus  they  too  were  inducted 
into  the  family  of  God,  and  united  with  the  Jews  in  the  same  fold.  But 
we  are  not  told  that  they  believed,  that  they  repented,  that  they  were 
converted.  Nor  are  we  even  told  that  they  were  baptized.  We  only 
learn  that  Peter  commanded  them  to  be  baptized.  We  presume,  of 
course,  they  were.  The  whole  affair  is,  however,  afterwards  called 
"Me  conversion  of  the  gentiles."  Now  we  infer,  they  were  baptized, 
obtained  the  remission  of  sins,  and  received  the  consolations  and  joys 
that  make  up  the  christian  religion.  Cornelius  and  his  household  were 
now  saved. 

I  next  allude  to  the  case  of  Lydia.  We  are  told  that  a  certain  woman 
named  Lydia,  and  her  household,  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  attended 
to  Paul's  preachings,  and  was  baptized.  Now  there  is  not  one  word 
about  her  believing,  repenting,  or  being  converted,  nor  that  she  was  born 
of  the  Spirit,  pardoned,  or  added  to  the  church. 

The  same  also  is  true  of  the  jailor,  whose  conversion  is  reported  on 
the  next  page,  and  in  the  same  chapter.  Not  one  word  is  said  about  his 
believing  before  baptism,  or  his  repenting,  or  his  conversion,  or  his  hav- 
ing received  the  Spirit.  Does  not  this  show  that  neither  the  preacher 
thought  it  necessary  to  tell,  nor  the  historian  to  record,  in  any  ease  after 
the  commencement,  what  was  preached,  nor  what  the  effects  on  them 
that  heard  and  obeyed  ?  They  always  preached  the  same  things  substan- 
tially ;  they  commanded  all  men  every  where  to  do  the  same  things — to 
believe,  repent,  and  be  baptized  for  remission. 

Again,  Acts  xviii.  5.  In  the  case  of  Crispus  and  the  Corinthians. 
Crispus  believed,  and  all  his  house.  Hearing,  he  believed,  and  was  bap- 
tized, and  all  his  house.  Here,  we  are  not  told  that  they  repented,  or 
were  converted  :  and  why  not,  if  my  friend's  reasoning  be  correct  ? 

In  chapter  xix.,  we  read  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  not  one  word  is  said  of  the  conversion,  &c.,  of  the  indi- 
viduals. 

I  have  one  case  more.  It  is  the  ease  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  Ananias  was 
sent  to  him:  presenting  himself  to  him,  he  said,  "Arise,  brother  Saul, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord,"  Acts  XX.  16. 

In  this  last  instance,  there  is  a  reiteration  of  what  had  been  promised 
at  Pentecost.      The  case  of  Paul  was  a  remarkable  one.     Like  other 

2s2 


486  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Jews  in  that  day,  he  was  guilty  of  persecuting  the  christians.  Hia  con- 
version was  very  extraordinary.  The  Lord  appeared  to  him  on  the  way  : 
not  to  convert  him,  but  to  make  him  an  apostle,  that  he  might  say  to  the 
world,  he  had  seen  the  Messiah  and  heard  his  voice.  The  Spirit  sent 
Ananias  to  tell  this  man  what  he  ought  to  do  for  his  own  personal  con- 
version. He  says  to  him,  "  Arise,  brother  Saul,  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  Nothing,  'however,  is  reported  of  his  believing,  re- 
penting, or  being  converted. 

Thus,  in  nine  instances  given,  there  is  no  uniformity  in  representing 
this  matter.  Sometimes  faith,  or  repentance,  or  conversion,  is  mentioned 
— sometimes  none  of  them.  Sometimes  remission  of  sins,  blotting  out 
of  sins,  washing  away  of  sins,  is  spoken  of;  and  sometimes  not:  some- 
times baptism  itself  is  not  mentioned.  From  all  which,  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable,  that  when  any  one  of  the  adjuncts  of  conversation  or  salvation 
is  named,  all  the  rest  are  understood  to  have  accompanied. 

To  take  any  other  view  of  the  matter,  would  lead  to  the  most  absurd 
consequences. 

We  should  have  to  admit,  that  a  person  was  baptized  sometimes  with- 
out faith,  without  repentance,  without  conversion,  without  remission  of 
sins.  We  are,  then,  compelled  by  an  insuperable  logical  necessity,  to 
conclude  that  in  every  instance  the  same  adjuncts  and  accompaniments 
were  present.  Hence  the  doctrine  preached  on  Pentecost  was  always 
preached,  and  baptism  was  in  every  instance  ^'^for  remission  of  sins" 
[^Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—101  o'clock,  A.  M, 

I^MR.  rice's    fourth    REPLY.] 

Mr.  President — Inasmuch  as,  at  the  suggestion  of  my  friend,  we 
shall  continue  the  discussion  to-night,  a  couple  of  hours,  I  shall  proceed 
more  leisurely  in  following  him,  and  shall  answer  everything  of  any  im- 
portance that  he  may  offer.  I  have  a  remark  to  make  in  regard  to  the 
expression  baptize  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
This  expression,  Mr.  C.  says,  is  indicative  of  entering  into  a  new  spi- 
ritual relation.  Of  course,  the  person  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  has  no  such  connection  with  the  Trinity  before  that  event.  Now, 
it  happens  that  we  have  precisely  the  same  expression  in  Paul's  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  chap.  x.  2 :  '^'  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the 
cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea  ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  (Greek— 
into)  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  and  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink."  The  expression  in 
both  cases  is  the  same.  They  were  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea.  Now,  the  question  is  this :  What  new  relation  was  consti- 
tuted by  the  baptism  of  the  Jews  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea? 
Did  they  sustain  any  relation  to  Moses  afterwards,  which  had  not  existed 
previously  I  Was  he  not  their  leader  before  this  baptism  ?  Had  he  not 
led  them  out  from  Egyptian  bondage  ?  Was  there  any  new  relation  now 
constituted?  There  was  a  recognition  of  an  existing  relation,  and  a  con- 
firmation of  it.  Their  passing  through  the  sea,  and  being  baptized,  was 
a  public  recognition  of  Moses  as  their  leader,  and  an  expression  of  their 
determination  still  to  follow  him.  So,  in  being  baptized  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the  existing  relation,  formed  by 
faith  in  the  Trinity,  and  in  Christ  as  our  Savior,  is  recognized  and 
confirmed,  but  no  new  relation  to  God  is  constituted.     It  is  a  happy  cii- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM  497 

cumstance  that  we  have  the  same  expressions  in  these  two  passages,  that 
we  may  not  mistake  the  meaning  of  God's  word. 

I  have  a  remark  or  two  to  make  concerning  the  new  birth.  The  Sa- 
vior says — "Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God."  And  again,  when  Nicodemus  did  not  understand  his  meaning, 
he  said — "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Now,  my  I'riend  tells  us  the  meaning  of  this  language  is — Unless  a 
man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  church. 
I  presume  this  is  not  the  true  meaning.  It  cannot  be  so  ;  for  multitudes 
who  are  not  born  of  the  Spirit,  do  enter  into  tlie  church.  Observe,  the 
Savior  says,  that  they  must  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit.  Now,  the 
fact  is  undeniable,  that  many  enter  the  church  who  are  not  born  of  the 
Spirit,  as  their  conduct  afterwards  abundantly  proves.  The  expression 
'^'' Kingdom  of  God,''''  may,  perhaps,  sometimes  in  the  New  Testament 
mean  the  church  ;  but  such  is  not  its  most  common  signification.  It  is 
commonly  used,  more  particularly  with  reference  to  the  spiritual  kingdom 
established  in  the  hearts  of  God's  people,  which,  Paul  says,  "  is  not  meat 
and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Sometimes  it  has  reference  particularly  to  the  kingdom  of  glory.  The  idea 
which  the  Savior  intended  to  convey,  is,  that  a  man  must  be  born  again, 
or  he  cannot  possess  the  blessings,  present  and  future,  of  his  kingdom. 
He  cannot  enjoy  pardon,  salvation,  and  eternal  life,  unless  he  experience 
the  new  birth,  in  a  change  of  heart. 

But,  it  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  Mr.  Campbell  does  not  undertake  to 
answer  the  facts  and  arguments  by  which  I  proved  that  the  new  birth  is 
not  essentially  connected  with  baptism.  But  he  says,  he  will  produce 
the  great  Presbyterian,  Dr.  Dvvight,  to  sustain  his  views.  My  friend 
gets  his  authors  very  singularly  misplaced.  In  his  translation  of  the  New 
Testament,  he  published  Doddridge  as  a  Presbyterian  doctor,  though  he 
never  was  a  Presbyterian,  but  an  Independent.  And  now  he  calls  Dr. 
Dwight  a  Presbyterian ;  and  in  his  Harbinger  he  represents  him  as  the 
Rabbi  of  American  Presbyterianism,  though  he  was  a  Congregationalist, 
and  never  a  Presbyterian.  He  is  certainly  not  as  careful  as  he  might  be 
in  quoting  authorities.  But  I  will  agree  to  take  Dr.  Dwight — I  will  sub- 
scribe to  every  sentiment  he  expresses,  so  far  as  this  argument  is  con- 
cerned. For  he  says,  that,  in  order  to  enter  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
God — to  be  a  true  member,  we  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  he 
understands  the  renewal  of  the  heart.  But  Mr.  Campbell  regards  the  new 
birth,  not  as  a  change  of  heart,  but  a  change  of  state — a  passing  from  a 
state  ol'  condemnation  to  a  state  of  justification.  Dr.  Dwight  does  indeed 
say,  that,  in  order  to  enter  \\\e  visible  church,  a  man  must  be  baptized  ;  and 
I  never  heard  this  denied,  except  by  Quakers.  But,  we  are  not  speaking 
of  the  manner  of  entering  into  the  church ;  we  are  inquiring  how  sins  are 
to  be  remitted.  To  prove  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of 
sins,  Mr.  C.  appeals  to  a  man  who  says,  you  cannot  get  into  the  visible 
church  without  baptism.  He  might  as  well  quote  what  Dr.  Dwight  says 
about  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  But  Dwight,  he  tells  us,  says,  that  a  man 
cannot  be  saved  who  refuses  to  submit  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Did 
I  not  tell  you,  on  yesterday,  that  he  who  refuses  deliberately  to  obey  any 
command  of  God,  cannot  be  forgiven  ?  that  he  is  not  a  pious  man  ?  If  a 
man  should  say,  "  I  will  not  pray  ;"  he  would  prove  most  conclusively 
tliat  he  has  no  piety.     But  the  question  before  us  is  not  whether  a  man 


488  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

who  refuses  to  be  baptized,  or  Who  is  resolved  not  to  obey  any  one  of 
Christ's  commands,  can  be  saved  ;  but  whether  a  penitent  believer  is 
pardoned  before  he  is  baptized  ? 

My  friend  appeals  to  the  ancient  fathers.  But  I  will  not  receive  them 
as  judicious  expounders  of  God's  word ;  for  it  is  admitted,  that  they  en- 
tertained many  erroneous  opinions  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  greatly  perverted  their  meaning.  I  called  them  up  to  testify 
to  a  fact.  I  simply  asked  them,  whether  in  their  day,  and  as  far  back  as 
their  information  extended,  infant  baptism  was  universally  practiced  by 
the  church.  They  answered  in  the  affirmative.  But  now  my  friend 
calls  them  up  as  theologians.  I  will  not  admit  their  opj.niciiS  as  evi- 
dence. Yet  I  deny  that  the  old  fathers  held  the  views  for  which  he  con- 
tends. He  maintains,  that  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  is  designed  to  efiect  a  change  of  state,  to  secure  pardon  of 
sins ;  but  they  believed  that  there  was  connected  with  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  a  change  of  heart.  This  idea  they  made  very  prominent ;  and 
they  connected  it  with  the  remission  of  sins.  They  believed  that  regen- 
eration and  baptism  were  connected  ;  though  by  regeneration  they  under- 
stood not  what  Mr.  C.  understands  by  it.  But  I  will  agree,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  they  did  entertain  the  views  for  which  Mr.  Campbell 
contends ;  and  then  I  will  say,  as  he  has  said,  that  they  are  poor  theo- 
logians ! 

But  he  also  appeals  to  popish  authorities.  I  will  show  you,  before  I 
sit  down,  that  his  views  are  quite  in  accordance  with  those  of  the  pope ; 
that  his  language  is  almost  precisely  the  language  of  the  council  of  Trent. 
If  he  relies  on  the  authority  of  the  pope,  I  can  show  that  he  does  agree 
with  him  ;  but  I  do  not  consider  this  a  recommendation  of  his  doctrine. 

But  he  understands  the  Savior  to  say,  that,  if  we  are  not  baptized,  we 
cannot  become  members  of  his  church.  But  does  the  Savior  say,  we 
cannot  be  pardoned  I  Instead  of  proving,  by  the  language  of  Christ,  the 
doctrine  for  which  he  contends,  my  friend  is  diverting  you  from  the  sub- 
ject. 1  admit  that  we  cannot  get  into  the  visible  church  without  bap- 
tism ;  but  I  will  not  agree  that  we  cannot  be  pardoned  before  baptism. 

My  friend,  in  speaking  of  the  commission,  tells  you  that  I  agreed  that 
disciples  were  made  by  baptizing  and  teaching,  and  that  I  made  baptism 
the  principle  thing.  1  represented  it  only  as  an  ordinance  to  be  received 
before  individuals  can  be  recognized  as  disciples,  or  learners,  in  the  school 
of  Christ.  They  cannot  be  recognized  as  members,  nor  entitled  to  the 
privileges,  of  the  church,  till  they  receive  the  initiatory  rite.  But  I  did 
not  say,  that  the  mere  initiation  was  the  main  thing  in  making  disciples. 
It  is  important,  but  still  it  i5  not  the  great  thing ;  the  most  important  mat- 
ter is  the  teaching. 

I  will  follow  the  gentleman  in  his  argumoi.^s  ji\5iri  ihe  Ac<5  of  the 
Apostles.  I  did  so  yesterday,  but  I  will  do  so  again  to-day,  as  I  have 
abundance  of  time. 

With  reference  to  Peter's  discourse,  I  have  taken  this  position  : — 
When  he  said,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  he  did  not  mean  to  say  that 
repentance  and  baptism  were  equally  necessary.  The  language  of  John, 
as  I  have  remarked,  in  Matt.  iii.  11,  is  precisely  similar  to  that  here  em- 
ployed by  Peter.  When  Peter  says,  repent  and  be  baptized  into  (eis) 
the  remission  of  sins,  Mr.  C.  insists  that  the  meaning  is,  be  baptized 
in  order  that  your  sins  may  be  remitted — that  their  sins  could  be  par- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  489 

doned  only  in  baptism.  Then  I  insist,  that  when  John  said,  "  I  baptize 
you  with  water  feis)  into  repentance,"  he  must  have  baptized  the  Jews 
in  order  that  they  might  repent — to  cause  them  to  feel  godly  sorrow  for 
their  sins  !  and  they  could  not  repent  before  baptism  !  Let  the  audience 
get  the  idea  distinctly.  Peter,  according  to  Mr.  C,  commanded  baptism, 
in  order  to  remission  of  sins ;  but  the  language  of  John  is  precisely  simi- 
lar, and,  of  course,  he  must  have  baptized  the  Jews  in  order  to  repent- 
ance !  This,  indeed,  would  be  a  singular  doctrine — immerse  persons  into 
water,  to  cause  them  to  repent  of  their  sins  ! 

But,  says  Mr.  Campbell,  John  baptized  the  Jews  into  reformation — in 
order  that  they  might  reform.  But  this  rendering  of  the  passage  only 
involves  him  in  another  difficulty :  for,  how  came  John  to  baptize,  to 
cause  persons  to  reform,  when  Peter  required  them  to  reform  in  order 
that  they  might  be  baptized  ?  John,  according  to  this  construction,  bap- 
tized men,  in  order  to  reformation  ;  but  Peter  required  them  to  reform,  in 
order  to  baptism  !  Thus  the  doctrine  of  Peter  is  a  flat  contradiction  to 
that  preached  by  John  ?  Interpretations  so  inconsistent  will  not  do.  John 
baptized,  on  profession  of  repentance  ;  and  Peter  baptized,  on  a  profes- 
sion of  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  remission  of  sins  through  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was 
a  public  profession  of  their  firm  persuasion  that  Christ  was  able  to  save 
them  from  their  sins.  It  was  a  recognition  of  a  previous  relation,  con- 
stituted by  their  faith  in  him  as  their  only  Savior.  Their  sins  were  par- 
doned ;  and  they  received  the  sign  and  seal  of  remission. 

I  turned  to  Peter's  second  sermon :  and  what  did  he  say  ?  He  is 
again  preaching  to  many  anxious  inquirers ;  and  he  says,  "  Repent  and 
be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Then,  according  to  the 
obvious  meaning  of  his  language,  every  man  that  repented,  and  was  con- 
verted or  turned  to  God,  had  his  sins  blotted  out. 

My  friend  says,  it  was  not  necessary  to  mention  baptism  in  every  dis- 
course, and  he  has  referred  us  to  instances  where  persons  were  added  to  the 
church  ;  and  yet  it  is  not  said  by  the  inspired  historian,  that  they  believed. 
or  repented,  or  were  converted.  The  cases,  however,  are  not  at  all  par- 
allel. When  I  undertake  to  instruct  ignorant  and  anxious  inquirers,  con- 
cerning the  plan  of  salvation,  I  must  tell  them  every  thing  that  is  neces- 
sary, that  they  may  receive  remission  of  sins.  If  I  omit  any  thing  es- 
sential, I  am  a  false  or  unfaithful  teacher.  Suppose  I  preach  a  sermon 
to  this  congregation  to-day,  and  state  to  them  all  that  they  must  do  to  be 
saved ;  but  next  week  I  preach  a  sermon  to  another  congregation  of  in- 
quirers, and  I  neglect  to  state  to  them  one  of  the  most  important  conditions 
of  pardon  and  salvation:  am  I  not  justly  chargeable  with  being  an  unfaith- 
ful minister  ?  In  view  of  my  responsibility  to  God,  am  I  not  solemnly 
bound  to  present  to  both  congregations,  the  same  conditions  of  salvation  ? 

But  when  I  undertake  to  write  a  history  of  the  church,  I  am  not  oblig- 
ed, every  time  I  record  a  number  of  conversions,  to  state,  that  they  all 
repented,  believed,  and  were  converted.  In  such  a  history,  one  distinct 
and  full  statement  of  the  conditions  of  admission  to  the  church,  is  suffi- 
cient. But  Peter  was  instructing  anxious  and  ignorant  minds  concerning 
the  way  to  be  saved ;  and  he  was  obliged  to  tell  them  all  that  was  ne- 
cessary, in  order  that  their  sins  might  be  remitted,  &c.  He  did  so  ;  but 
he  did  not  mention  baptism  as  a  condition  of  remission.  Consequently, 
baptism,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  was  not  part  of  his  doctrine : 
with  him,  repentance  and  conversion  were  the  conditions. 


400  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Peter,  it  is  true,  did  not  mention  conversion  in  the  first  discourse.  But 
this  objection  was  fully  answered  on  yesterday.  I  ask  any  man  of  com- 
mon sense,  can  a  man  repent,  and  not  be  converted  ?  What  is  repent- 
ance ?  My  friend  agrees  with  me,  that  it  is  a  change  of  mind — of  views 
and  feelings.  Would  you  believe  a  man  who  should  profess  that  his 
mind  is  changed,  and  yet  continue  to  pursue  the  same  course  of  conduct? 
If  there  is  a  change  of  mind,  there  must  be  change  of  conduct.  If  a  man 
repent,  he  is  grieved  because  of  his  sins.  And  will  not  such  a  change  of 
mind  produce  a  corresponding  change  in  his  conduct  ?  "  Make  the  tree 
good,"  said  our  Savior,  "  and  the  fruit  will  be  good."  Let  the  heart  be 
changed,  and  the  conduct  will  be  right.  If,  then,  a  man  repent,  will  he 
not  turn  ?  Does  not  repentance  imply  conversion  ?  Peter  might,  there- 
fore, either  mention  repentance  only,  or  repentance  and  conversion — the 
cause  only,  or  cause  and  effect.  When  I  speak  of  a  cause,  which  univer- 
sally produces  a  certain  effect,  I  may  mention  the  cause  alone,  or  the 
cause  and  the  effect.  I  may,  therefore,  mention  repentance,  or  repent- 
ance and  conversion  both.  Repentance,  conversion,  and  faith,  are  never 
separated  in  any  human  bosom.  You  cannot  find  a  man  with  faith  and 
not  repentance.  You  cannot  find  a  man  that  has  repentance  without 
conversion.  The  three  things  go  together,  as  much  as  the  heaving  of  the 
lungs  and  the  beating  of  the  pulse.  Hence,  I  may  tell  any  man  on  earth, 
if  you  repent,  your  sins  will  be  pardoned.  Or,  I  may  say  to  him,  if  you 
are  converted,  they  will  be  blotted  out.  For  no  man  was  ever  converted 
without  faith  and  repentance.  These  three  things  are  always  found  asso- 
ciated. This  common  sense  view  of  the  subject  will  remove  one  half  of 
the  difficulties  my  friend  has  presented. 

He  asks,  why  do  we  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  since  we  can  find  no  example  of  baptism  thus  administered?  If 
the  one  command  of  our  Savior  is  sufficient  to  justify  and  to  require  it  to 
be  so  administered,  the  authority  of  Peter  in  one  sermon,  he  argues,  is  as 
good.  We  are  disputing,  not  as  to  whether  Peter's  doctrine  is  true,  but 
about  what  Peter  did  say.  I  agree  that  what  he  said  is  true  ;  but  I  deny 
that  Mr.  Campbell's  construction  of  his  language  is  correct.  So  his  argu- 
ment or  illustration  does  not  touch  the  question. 

The  Samaritans  heard  the  gospel  preached  to  them ;  and  it  is  not  said 
that  they  repented  or  were  converted ;  but  it  is  said,  that  they  believed. 
But  could  they  have  faith,  and  not  have  repentance  and  conversion? 
*'  This  is  the  victor)',"  says  John,  "  that  overcometh  the  world,  even  our 
faith."  The  gentleman  will  not  pretend,  that  a  man  can  be  a  true  be- 
liever, and  yet  be  impenitent.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Savior  promised  eter- 
nal life  to  every  believer,  without  mentioning  repentance  or  conversion. 

My  friend  pointed  us  to  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch.  Here,  he  told  us, 
faith  is  mentioned,  but  not  conversion.  The  eunuch  said,  "  I  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  There  is  faith.  I  ask  again,  can  faith 
exist  without  conversion?  If  it  can,  then  faith  is  not,  as  John  represents 
it,  the  "  victory  that  overcometh  the  world." 

The  case  of  Cornelius  was  brought  forward.  He,  we  were  told,  was  a 
good  man,  but  not  evangelically  saved.  I  believe  that  is  the  phraseol- 
ogy used  by  the  gentleman ;  though  I  do  not  find  such  language  in  the 
Scriptures.  My  friend,  after  all  his  reforming,  retains  a  good  deal  of 
"the  language  of  Ashdod."  If  he  was  saved  at  all,  I  presume  he  was 
saved  evangelically.  If  he  was  saved,  his  sins  were  pardoned.  Look  at 
the  history  of  Cornelius,  and  determine  in  the  light  of  divine  truth, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  4^1 

whethfJr  he  was  yet  unpardoned.  When  Peter  reached  the  house,  and 
Cornelius  reported  to  him  the  revelation  which  God  had  made  to  him, 
then  Peter  said,  "  Of  a  truth,  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons ;  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness, 
is  accepted  of  him."  Now,  Cornelius  was  accepted.  A  man  accepted 
of  God,  and  not  pardoned  !  Moreover,  Peter  did  not  say  one  word  about 
baptism,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  He  ought  to  have  taught  Cor- 
nelius this  doctrine,  if  it  were  true.  What  did  Peter  say  ?  Instead  of 
saying,  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  he  said,  "  To  him  give  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  on  him, 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 

Now  my  friend  is  obliged  to  grant,  that  thousands  do  believe,  who 
never  will  be  immersed. 

But  again — Peter  said,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?" 
What  did  Peter  say  ?  Be  baptized,  that  you  may  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost?  No — the  Spirit  is  poured  out  before  baptism.  Cornelius  was 
not  only  a  good  man,  a  pious  man,  but  he  had  received  the  miraculous 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  before  baptism.  Here,  then,  if  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's doctrine  is  true,  we  find  a  good  man,  a  pious  man,  having  received 
the  miraculous  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and  still  he  is  a  condemned  man  ! ! 
His  sins  are  yet  upon  him ;  and  he  is  in  danger  of  being  lost ! 

My  friend  has  told  you  about  three  salvations,  viz :  of  the  body,  of  the 
soul,  and  the  salvation  in  heaven.  If  we  admit  that  there  are  three,  Cor- 
nelius, it  is  true,  had  not  the  third ;  but  most  assuredly  he  had  the  sec- 
ond— the  remission  of  sins.  And  with  great  propriety  it  might  be  said, 
Peter  told  him  words  whereby  he  might  be  saved ;  because  no  man  can 
be  said  to  be  saved,  in  the  highest  sense  of  this  word,  till  he  gets  to 
heaven.  I  presume  the  gentleman  has  not  gained  much  for  his  cause  by 
introducing  the  case  of  Cornelius.  He  will  find  it  difficult  to  convince 
any  enlightened  mind,  that  a  good  man,  whose  prayers  God  has  heard, 
•who  has  been  honored  by  a  visit  from  an  angel  from  heaven ;  and  upon 
whom  he  has  poured  out  the  miraculous  gifts  of  his  Spirit,  is  yet  in  a 
state  of  condemnation,  and  cannot  be  pardoned  until  he  is  immersed  !  We 
have  higher  ideas  of  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  than  to  believe,  that  he 
has  bound  himself  not  to  pardon  a  penitent  believer,  until  an  external  ordi- 
nance can  be  administered  to  him. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—1 1  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifth  address.] 
Mr.  President — It  is,  perhaps,  expedient,  that  I  now  attend  to  some 
objections  made  to  my  arguments.  As  yet,  indeed,  we  have  had  no  di- 
rect reply  to  any  one  of  them — no  debate  whatever,  as  doubtless  you  all 
perceive.  Ten  arguments  have  now  been  submitted,  and  not  a  direct  issue 
formed  on  any  one  of  them.  But  the  gendeman  throws  out  observa- 
tions, and  asserts  other  positions,  which  he  presumes  will  answer  the 
purpose  as  well  as  any  response  which  he  could  make.  He  has  asked 
the  question,  "  Into  what  new  relation  is  a  person  baptized?"  He  admits 
there  is  a  new  relation,  and  assumes  that  baptism  is  a  mere  recognition  of 
it.  Such,  indeed,  is  his  use  of  baptism — for  such,  he  has  argued,  waa 
the  use  of  circumcision;  it  recognized  a  previously  existing  relation. 
Well,  baptism  recognizes  that  an  infant  is  in  Christ  already!  !  His  de- 
sign of  baptism  is  very  simple.     It  merely  recognizes  a  relation  already 


492  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

formed.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  apostles'  view  of  the  matter.  The 
gentleman  can  find  no  text  in  the  Bible  that  says  so.  The  apostles  taught 
that  "  as  many  as  were  baptized  into  Christ,  had  put  on  Christ;  that 
they  were  baptized  into  Christ."  The  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  was,  in  baptism,  put  upon  them ;  and  hence  a  new  relation 
was  now  formed.  Is  marriage,  or  is  naturalization,  a  mere  recognition  of 
a  previously  existing  relation  ?  I  ask,  also,  in  what  previously  existing 
relation  do  infants  stand  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  in  respect 
to  baptism?  and  in  what  new  relation  do  these  infant  disciples  stand  to 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  after  baptism  ? 

Was  there  not  some  change  in  the  relations  of  Moses,  and  the  children 
of  Israel,  after  their  baptism  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  ? 
Moses,  with  considerable  difficulty,  constrained  them  to  prepare  for  a 
journey  from  Egypt.  Forty  years  before  that  time,  when  he  offered  his 
services,  they  were  rejected,  and  his  life  endangered.  Remembering  their 
unkind  treatment  of  him,  it  was  with  great  reluctance  he  undertook  the 
new  mission.  He  did  not  know  how  to  address  them.  "  Who  shall  I  tell 
them  sent  me  ?"  was  his  own  response  to  God,  when  about  receiving  his 
commission.  He  knew  the  reluctance  of  the  king  to  let  them  go,  and 
their  reluctance  to  leave  Egypt ;  and  between  these,  Moses  felt  it  would  be 
a  labor  and  a  toil  insuperable,  without  some  aids,  supernatural  and  Divine. 
The  Lord  promised  these,  and  gave  him  a  sign  of  the  power  which 
should  accompany  him  in  this  great  work  of  redeeming  that  people.  I 
need  not  relate  the  means  employed,  nor  the  dilhculties  encountered  and 
overcome,  in  making  both  parties  willing — Israel  to  depart,  and  Pharaoh 
willing  to  let  them  go.  At  last  they  encamped  near  the  Red  sea.  But 
when  they  found  themselves  encamped  between  defiles  of  mountains  on 
right  and  left,  the  Red  sea  before  them,  and  Pharaoh,  with  his  chariots 
and  horsemen,  behind  them,  their  spirits  sunk  within  them.  They  re- 
pented that  they  had  left  their  former  masters,  and  had  detached  themselves 
from  slavery.  Their  faith  in  Moses  was  not  sealed.  They  desponded — 
they  murmured.  He  saw  himself  in  the  midst  of  perils.  His  faith  failed 
not,  though  theirs  did.  He  threw  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters.  Stretching 
out  his  hand,  with  the  rod  of  God  in  it,  over  the  Red  sea,  he  said  "Stand 
still,  and  see  the  salvation  of  God."  The  waters  were  instantly  divided. 
As  though  congealed,  they  stood  like  walls  of  adamant — a  splendid  defile 
on  the  right  and  left.  The  channel  of  the  Red  sea  was  their  pavement. 
The  chariot  cloud  of  the  Redeemer  of  Israel  arched  it  over.  Moses 
marched.  He  gave  the  solemn  signal,  and  they  obeyed.  He  led  the 
way,  and  they  followed  him.  Soon  as  the  millions  of  Israel  were  all  in 
the  channel  of  the  sea,  the  cloud  of  glory  covered  them.  They  were,  in- 
deed, baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  They  now,  in 
fact,  assumed  him  as  their  leader,  practically  confided  in  him,  and  unit- 
ed their  fortunes  with  his  from  that  nioment.  So  with  the  discipled 
into  Christ.  They  enter  into  a  covenant,  in  their  hearts,  with  the  Lord. 
They  solemnly  give  themselves  away,  and  vow  an  everlasting  homage  to 
him  practically,  actually,  and  formally,  in  their  burial  with  Christ,  and  a 
formal  assumption  of  his  venerable,  holy,  and  beloved  name. 

The  gentleman  would  have  you  think  that  I  committed  a  great  error  in 
prefixing  the  word  Presbyterian  before  the  name  of  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight. 
Pedo-baptists  are  so  sub-divided,  and  even  Calvinists  and  Presbyterians 
so  frittered  into  parties,  and  the  nice  shades  that  designate  them  so  meta- 
physical, I  confess  I  frequently  err  in  this  way.    In  the  old  world,  in  my 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  493 

youth,  we  called  the  Congregationalists,  English  Presbyterians — some- 
times Puritans.  But,  inasmuch  as  Dr.  Dvvight  was  a  Pedo-baptist,  there 
is  no  injury  done  either  truth  or  religion,  by  placing  him  under  a  wrong 
label.  In  this  country,  indeed,  it  now  seems  this  error  has  been  sanc- 
tioned by  high  authority  ;  for  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  has,  within  a  few  years,  thrown  out  of  her  bosom  many  thou- 
sands of  those  Presbyterian  Congregationalists.  The  difference,  until 
recently,  hurt  no  man's  conscience,  except  a  very  few  of  the  deepest 
shade  of  true-blueism.  Dwight,  then,  we  shall  all  remember,  was  a  Pres- 
byterian in  doctrine,  and  a  Congregationalist  in  ecclesiastic  politics,  or 
government.     What  an  important  point  we  have  now  decided ! 

My  opponent  is,  I  think,  the  only  man  in  this  house  who  could  so 
have  misconceived  me,  on  the  meaning  of  John  iii.  5.  When  I  spoke 
of '^  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  did  any  other  person  imagine  that  I 
spoke  of  a  mere  outward  relation  to  something  called  a  visible  church  ? 
No.  That  is,  perhaps,  a  Pedo-baptist  idea ;  but  it  is  no  conception  of 
mine.  If  it  does  not  indicate  more  than  a  nominal  outward  profession 
and  adhesion  to  a  particular  community,  it  is,  indeed,  a  matter  of  very  little 
importance.  Have  I  to  enlighten  my  friend  upon  this  subject?  It  seems 
as  though  he  were  in  the  dark,  on  the  spirituality  of  baptism,  and  the 
church  or  kingdom  of  Christ.  With  me,  union  with  Christ  is  not  mere 
union  with  a  creed,  and  a  party  built  upon  it.  The  kingdom  of  God  is 
no  party,  no  one  party  on  earth.  It  is  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  is  in  the 
hearts  of  men :  consisting  not  in  meats,  drinks,  creeds,  and  covenants, 
"  but  in  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Into  this  no 
one  can  enter  without  faith,  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  Baptism  into  Christ, 
the  effect  of  faith,  is  a  sensible  introduction  into  this  spiritual  slate,  and 
outwardly  unites  us  with  the  public  profession ;  but  when  properly  un- 
derstood, spiritually,  sometimes  called  mystically,  or  under  the  symbol, 
inducts  into  an  intimate,  near,  and  holy  union  with  the  Savior  of  the 
woild,  by  his  Spirit.  The  outward  act,  then,  is  but  the  symbol  of  the 
transition,  inioard  and  spiritual,  by  which  our  souls  are  bathed  in  that 
ocean  of  love,  which  purifies  our  persons,  and  makes  them  one  with  the 
Lord.  Without  this,  being  born  of  water,  or  being  connected  with  a 
church,  is  nothing — worse  than  nothing.  Hence,  without  previous  know- 
ledge, faith,  and  repentance,  immersion  into  the  name,  &c.,  is  a  mere 
outward  and  unprofitable  ceremony.  Hence  my  opposition  to  infant 
baptism  ;  and  hence  my  opposition  to  adult  baptism,  without  a  previous 
knowledge  of  the  gospel. 

All  outward  ordinances,  (and  all  ordinances  are  outward,)  prayer, 
praise,  the  Lord's  day,  the  breaking  of  the  loaf,  fasting,  &c.,  have  each  a 
peculiar  grace  or  intercommunion  with  Christ  in  them.  Like  the  ordi- 
nances of  nature — sun,  moon,  stars,  planets,  atmospheric  clouds,  water, 
&c.,  &LC.,  each  has  some  peculiar  influence  of  its  own  which  can  never 
be  substituted  by  another.  Each  of  these  is  a  symbol  of  something  more 
spiritual  than  itself.  Prayer  is  but  the  embodiment  of  something  more 
inward  than  the  heart.  But  without  these  symbols,  spiritual  life,  health, 
comfort  can  never  be  enjoyed.  Hence,  to  enter  into  the  sanctum  sancto- 
nim,  the  inner  temple  of  spiritual  enjoyment  and  christian  life,  baptism 
is  essentially  necessary,  preceded  by  a  vigorous  faith,  and  genuine  peni- 
tence, and  fixed  resolves  of  obeying  from  the  heart  the  mandates  of  the 
Great  King. 

Among  other  grievous  and  revolting  errors  and  imperfections  which 

2T 


494  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

my  very  devoted  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  detects  in  me,  he  says  I  agree  with  the 
pope  in  my  views  on  baptism.  What  a  misfortune !  that  the  pope  should 
be  right  in  any  thing !  Has  Mr.  Rice  become  so  hyperprotestant  as  not 
to  agree  with  the  pope  in  any  thing?  Yes,  verily,  he  agrees  with  the 
pope  in  many  truths,  such  as  the  death  and  resurrection,  I  do  not  say 
burial,  of  the  Messiah ;  in  his  ascension  into  heaven,  in  his  divinity,  in 
his  coming  again,  &c.,  &c.  I  hope  these  truths  are  nothing  the  worse 
because  the  pope  beheves  them.  But  Mr.  Rice  agrees  with  the  pope  in 
other  matters,  in  which  I  agree  with  neither.  Even  in  baptism  itself,  he 
and  the  pope  agree  much  more  intimately.  In  two  of  three  of  the  points 
before  us  on  baptism,  he  and  the  pope  are  together ;  so  that,  in  this  case, 
he  is  twice  as  papistical  as  I. 

But  the  gentleman  desires  to  take  from  us  eis,  as  indicating  into,  in  the 
case  before  us.  In  this,  he  and  the  pope  may  be  against  us.  It  signifies 
for  and  into :  but  both  are  modes  of  expressing  the  same  idea.  Whether 
I  do  this  for,  into,  unto,  or  in  order  to,  the  sense  is  the  same.  These 
are  different  suits  for  the  same  idea.  All  critics  know  and  admit  this. 
It  is,  as  before  shown  by  me,  more  than  five  times  to  one  translated  into 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  reference  to  baptism,  the  Pedo-baptist  trans- 
lators of  the  common  version,  have  generally  translated  it  into  or  unto ; 
as  I  have,  on  other  occasions,  showed  at  considerable  length.  They 
were  baptized  "  into  Moses  "  or  unto  Moses,  "  into  Christ,"  "  into 
his  death,"  ^^into  John's  baptism;"  and,  if  any  one  prefer  it,  ^^into  re- 
pentance," '■'^into  remission  of  sins,"  ^'into  one  body,"  &c.  In  every 
instance  there  is  a  transition  from  one  state,  profession,  or  place,  into 
another.  The  person  has  suff"ered  an  immersion  for  something,  into  the 
possession  or  enjoyment  of  which  he  now  enters,  or  enters  into  more 
fully  than  before. 

The  gentleman  sports  with  John's  "  baptism  "  into  repentance — into 
reformation.  He  prefers  "in  order  to,''''  to  make  it  ridiculous.  He  would 
have  it  "  because  of  reformation,"  or  I  know  not  what.  Well,  John  bap- 
tizes those  confessing  their  sins,  in  order  to  an  amendment  of  life ;  and 
where  is  the  wit  ?  It  is  good  sense,  and  good  English,  and  a  fair  version. 
Many  matters  of  this  sort  I  pass  without  criticism,  without  exposition ; 
believing  that  if  I  attend  to  the  weightier  matters,  any  one  can  appre- 
ciate these. 

Touching  baptism  for  remission  of  sins,  it  is  lamentable  to  observe  the 
waste  of  ingenuity,  to  speak  of  nothing  worse,  displayed  on  the  part  of 
some  very  zealous  and  somewhat  learned  opponents.  They  have  said, 
like  Mr.  Rice,  that  we  are  only  once  commanded  to  be  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  sins ;  but,  unfortunately  for  this  sage  remark,  we  are  com- 
manded to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
but  once  in  all  the  New  Testament.  And  as  all  Christendom  follow  that 
one  occurrence,  why  not  also  this  ?  The  gentleman  makes  many  little 
points,  to  which  I  never  reply  ,  not  because  I  cannot,  but  because  I  will 
not.  They  are  sometimes  so  irrelevant  as  to  have  no  bearing ;  at  other 
times  so  palpably  defective,  as  his  infant  disciples,  that  all  the  world  shrinks 
from  his  logic.  But  in  this  case  I  must,  though  it  be  minute,  remark, 
that  we  have  baptism  for  remission  of  sins,  in  the  identical  same  words, 
three  times  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  that,  too,  always  in  connection 
with  metanoia,  reformation.  Mark  i.  4,  Luke  iv.  3,  Acts  ii.  38  : — John 
the  Baptist  came  kerussoon  baptisma  metanoias  eis  aphesian  toon  amar- 
tioon — preaching  the  baptism  of  reformation  for  the  remission  of  sins. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  495 

This  identical  phrase  is  used  once  in  each  of  these  evangelists,  at  the 
commencement,  to  indicate  the  design  of  his  baptism,  but  never  repeated 
again.  In  like  manner  and  form.  Acts  ii.  38,  Peter  preached,  saying, 
Metanoeesate,  kai  baptistheefoo  eis  aphesin  amartioon.  Three,  then,  of 
the  five  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament  open  in  the  same  style. 
And  what  is  worthy  of  special  remark  is,  that  when  our  Lord  gave  the 
eymbolic  cup  of  blessings  into  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  for  the  first  time, 
he  adopts  the  same  phrase  exactly,  consecrates  and  fixes  its  meaning: 
"  This  is  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant  shed  /or  (eis  aphisin  toon  amar- 
tioon,) the  remission  of  the  sins  of  many."  In  no  instance,  of  these 
four  cases,  is  there  one  particle  of  change  in  the  original  expression. 
Even  the  article  teen,  is  never  inserted  by  Matthew,  Mark,  or  Luke, 
before  aphesin;  a  very  singular  uniformity.  The  meaning  0^ for  or 
eis,  is  fixed  by  the  last  occurrence,  beyond  controversy.  Baptism  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  is  the  only  baptism  of  which  the  New  Testament 
knows  any  thing.  There  never  was  any  other  ordained  by  God — John's 
baptism  or  Christ's  baptism — there  is  no  other.  Mr.  Rice  will  not 
form  an  issue  on  these  phrases,  I  strongly  suspect.  He  labors  irrelevant 
points,  weak  points,  false  issues,  or  issues  of  no  pertinency.  But  he  will 
tell  you,  this  is  all  a  matter  of  policy  on  my  part  to  exaggerate  or  to  de- 
preciate topics,  arguments,  and  issues,  as  suits  my  cause  or  my  strength. 
I  do  not  think  it  worth  my  denial  or  refutation.  I  know  no  person  of 
discrimination  will  believe  it.  I  only  feel  mortified  that  I  have  not  some- 
thing to  do  worthy  of  the  occasion. 

But  we  must  have  a  word  or  two  on  metanoia,  which,  with  George 
Campbell  and  others,  I  prefer  to  repent.  It  is  not,  as  often  insinuated, 
because  I  have  any  objection  to  repentance,  properly  so  called ;  for,  with 
me,  repentance,  or  a  change  of  mind,  or  regret  for  the  past,  must  always 
precede  reformation.  Reformation  both  presupposes  or  comprehends 
penitence  in  its  biblical  acceptation.  I  desire  to  see  the  broken  and  the 
contrite  heart  as  the  prelude  of  effectual  repentance  ;  that  is,  reformation 
of  behavior.  The  reason  of  my  preference  is,  the  inspired  writers  had 
two  words  at  command,  metamelomai  and  metanoeoo,  and  their  verbals. 
The  first  indicates  a  change  of  mind,  accompanied  with  sorrow  and  regret, 
and  painful  reminiscences  of  the  past.  The  latter  expresses  a  change  of 
views,  feelings,  and  purposes  ;  issuing  in  a  new  course  of  action,  not  from 
merely  sorrow  or  regret,  though  these  may,  and  always  in  conversion  do, 
accompany  this  change ;  but  it  also  includes  the  discernment,  apprecia- 
tion, or  admiration  of  new,  sublime,  and  excellent  principles  which  con- 
strain to  a  new  course  of  action.  I  could  easily  document  these  defini- 
tions by  a  display  of  quotations  from  classic  and  sacred  Greek ;  but  as  I 
have  a  very  fixed  dislike  to  such  displays  before  a  popular  assembly,  I 
shall  only  give  a  few  instances  from  the  New  Testament,  confirmatory 
of  these  remarks,  and  pass  on.  We  have  metamelomai  only  some  six 
or  seven  times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  chosen  to  represent  the 
repentance  of  Judas,  Matt,  xxvii.  3.  He  repented,  and  went  and  hanged 
himself.  Metanoeoo  would  not  have  suited  there,  for  there  was  no 
change  for  the  better  in  the  mind  of  Judas.  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, 2d  epistle  vii.  7,  8,  "  I  do  not  repent  that  I  made  you  sorry  by  my 
letter,  though  I  did  repent ;"  for  again  "  Godly  sorrow  worketh  repent- 
ance to  salvation,  not  to  be  repented  of."  Here  is  the  best  illustration 
in  contrast,  not  only  in  the  New  Testament,  but  perhaps  in  all  classic 
usage  ;  for  here  we  have  a  repentance  to  salvation  expressed  by  metOr 


496  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

noia,  and  a  repentance  not  to  salvation  by  metamelomai.  Surely,  then, 
having  two  words  so  different  in  the  original,  we  ought  to  have  two 
equally  different  in  our  language.  This  is  my  reason,  then,  for  prefering 
reformation  to  the  more  doubtful  and  badly  defined  something  called  pen- 
itence, or  penance.  To  do  better,  is  a  repentance  to  salvation ;  this  is 
reformation.  To  be  sorry,  to  regret,  and  inefficiently  to  repent  our 
past  actions,  without  reformation,  is  mere  repentance. 

Having  now  paid,  as  I  conceive,  a  very  courteous  attention  to  some  of 
my  friend's  minor  matters,  I  shall  advance  again  toward  the  field  of  argu- 
ment. I  was  sorry  that  Mr.  R.  should  have  preferred  to  reply  to  some 
one  else,  on  the  case  of  Cornelius,  rather  than  respond  to  me.  Ought  it 
not  to  satisfy  us  all,  fellow-citizens,  that  an  angel  commanded  Cornelius 
to  send  to  Joppa  for  words  that  would  save  him  and  his  family ;  and  that 
when  these  words  were  being  uttered,  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  to 
confirm  them,  and  to  signalize  that  congregation,  making  them  on  their 
faith  a  proper  first-fruits  of  the  gentile  world,  and  thus  sanctioning  their 
baptism  and  admission  into  Christ's  kingdom  ? 

It  seems  as  if  Mr.  Rice  had  found  a  most  delicious  theme  in  my  alledged 
illiberality.  He  glories  in  an  assumed  liberality.  I  desire  no  invidious 
comparisons.  Still  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that,  truly  and  sincerely,  on 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  were  our  respective  views,  feelings,  and 
actions  thoroughly  dissected,  I  am  incomparably  more  liberal  than  he  : 
for  I  suppose  there  are  many  conscientious,  religious,  moral,  and  chris- 
tian Presbyterians;  and  that,  although  our  Savior  has  no  Presbyterian 
church  in  heaven,  or  earth,  yet  I  doubt  not  but  that  he  has  had  many, 
very  many,  that  loved  and  honored  him  in  that  worldly  church,  whom 
he  will  honor  in  the  world  to  come.  So  has  he  in  other  Protestant  com- 
munities in  this  cloudy  and  dark  day.  They  call  themselves  branches 
of  Christ's  church:  I  wonder  where  the  stem  is  !  In  their  own  esteem 
they  are  but  branches.  Now,  the  Bible  knows  neither  the  word  nor  the 
thing,  branch  church.  I  presume,  when  I  was  a  Presbyterian,  nay,  indeed, 
I  recollect  perfectly  well,  that  1  used  to  look  over  my  church  as  the  almost 
exclusive  boundary  of  the  elect.  Salvation  was  of  us,  and  a  few  like  us. 
But  since  I  became  a  man,  I  have  put  away  childish  things.  I  thank 
my  Lord  that  my  charities  extend  far  beyond  the  contents  of  that  little  book 
lying  on  the  table  [pointing  to  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church.] 
Yes,  sir,  while  I  go  for  only  one  true  catholic,  apostolic  church,  and  while 
I  cannot  find  it  in  any  of  these  Pedo-baptist  ^'^  branches,^''  I  can  find 
christian  people  among  them  all !  There  is  as  much  truth  as  wit  in  the 
saying — there  are  christians  without  a  church,  and  there  is  a  church  with- 
out christians. 

I  wish  to  add  a  few  words  on  evangelical  holiness  and  evangelical  sal- 
vation. Mr.  R.  seems  to  censure  me  for  not  using  certain  words,  and 
then  blames  me  for  using  them.  One  thing  is  very  obvious,  he  and  I  have 
not  been  taught  in  one  and  the  same  school.  Cornelius  was  a  good  man, 
as  we  sometimes  say,  but  no  saint.  He  did  not  know  the  Lord  Jesus, 
consequently  was  not  a  christian  ;  he  had,  therefore,  no  evangelical,  no 
gospel  holiness.  Peter  rehearsed  to  him  John's  mission,  Christ's  mis- 
sion and  character,  and  opened  his  credentials,  and  proved  all  his  sayings 
and  doings  by  the  prophets.  He  heard,  believed,  rejoiced,  and  put  on 
Christ,  by  abaptism  into  his  death.  He  is  now  pardoned,  sanctified,  saved, 
adopted,  and  filled  with  all  blessings  of  tlie  Spirit  of  holiness,  of  heavenly 
peace  and  love.     Any  one  that  can  comprehend  how  a  new  dispensation 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  497 

or  change  in  a  government  affects  society,  may  easily  understand  how 
John's  mission  obliged  the  good  to  separate  themselves  and  please  God 
by  receiving  baptism.  The  people  that  heard  him,  and  the  publicans,  jus- 
tified God,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John.  But  the  pharisees 
and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  being  not 
baptized  of  him.  Now,  as  no  one  could  please  God  and  obtain  salvation 
by  adhering  to  any  former  institution,  after  that  a  new  one  was  introduced, 
so  it  behooved  all  men,  however  virtuous  and  excellent  their  character,  to 
submit  to  the  christian  religion  immediately  after  its  introduction.  And 
not  only  this — Christianity  was  as  far  above  all  former  manifestations  of 
God's  love  and  dispensations  of  religion,  as  the  "heavens  are  higher 
than  the  earth."  The  privileges  it  communicated  to  all,  were  superior 
to  the  greatest  blessings  enjoyed  by  patriarchs,  kings,  or  prophets  of  the 
olden  time.  On  these  topics,  the  New  Testament  is  replete  with  light. 
Now,  although  Cornelius  would  have  been  saved,  in  all  probability,  un- 
der a  former  dispensation,  or  had  he  died  without  any  opportunity  of 
the  words  brought  from  Joppa ;  still,  in  the  christian  sense  of  the  word 
saved,  he  neither  was  saved,  nor  could  have  been  saved,  without  all  that 
Peter  did  for  him.  Calvin  and  Cornelius  we  shall  reserve  to  another 
speech,  and  will  return  to  my  series  of  argumentation. 

My  eleventh  argument  is  based  on  Eph.  v.  25,  26 : — "  Christ  loved 
the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  may  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word." 

That  the  washing  of  water  here  spoken  of  has  reference  to  baptism,  is 
admitted  almost  universally.  The  Westminster  divines,  and  all  the  com- 
mentators of  note  known  to  me,  concur  in  this  view  of  it.  Now  as  Mr.  R. 
•will  have  the  action  of  baptism  to  be  a  "religious  washing  with  water," 
he  cannot,  of  course,  object  to  this  application  of  the  passage.  The  only 
difference  here  of  importance  between  him  and  me  in  this  case  is — that 
the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  cleansing  effect  of  baptism,  and  not  of  the 
action  proper  to  the  institution.  Just  as  Ananias  once  said  to  the  author 
of  this  episde,  "Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and"  as  a  consequence,  '■^  wash 
away  thy  sins."  So  here  the  aposde,  in  allusion  not  only  to  baptism,  as 
some  affirm,  but  also  to  the  eastern  custom  of  brides,  to  whom  the  law  of 
matrimony  had  assigned  numerous  washings,  or  baths,  before  their  nuptials, 
I  would  say,  rather  comparing  "  this  bath  of  water,"  as  McKnight  renders 
it,  to  baptism,  that  the  apostle  here  not  only  connects  purification  with 
baptism,  purification  from  sin,  but  also  combines  that  with  the  word,  and 
of  course,  with  faith  in  that  word.  Now,  appears  it  not  evident,  that  the 
water  and  the  word  here  sustain  to  each  other  just  the  same  relation  inti- 
mated by  the  Messiah,  when  he  speaks  of  being  "  born  of  water,  and  of 
the  Spirit  ?"  I  cannot,  then,  separate  these  two,  so  firmly  seated  in  the 
minds  of  those  inspired  with  all  wisdom.  They  are  intimately  connected 
in  the  work  of  remission,  Ephesians  v.  20 ;  being  corroborated  by  John 
iii.  5,  furnishes  another  argument  in  proof  of  the  all-important  evangelical 
fact,  that  baptism  is  for  cleansing,  for  remission  of  sins.  Mr.  Rice  be- 
lieves in  baptism  for  purification,  though  I  think  he  has  not  satisfactorily 
defined  his  position.  Still  he  believes  in  water  as  an  emblem  of  sanctifi- 
cation.  We  differ,  indeed,  in  one  essential  point  just  here.  He  has  more 
faith'  in  water  than  1  have  ;  for  he  believes  that  water  alone,  even  a  few 
drops,  a  mere  spray,  witliout  faith  in  the  M'ord,  purifies  from  sin,  or  some 
way  cleanses  and  sanctifies  a  person.  I  do  not  comprehend  the  notion  of 
purification,  as  aforesaid.  Justification  and  sanctification  with  me  are 
32  2  T  2 


498  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

always  associated.  Paul  associated  them  to  the  Corinthians ;  he  said, 
"  You  are  washed  ;  you  are  justified ;  you  are  sanctified,  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  Here,  then,  justification 
preoedes  in  position,  if  not  in  terms,  sanctification.  Mr.  R.  must  believe 
in  baptism  for  remission  of  sins,  if  he  believes  in  baptism  for  purification, 
for  none  are  purified,  who  are  not  first  pardoned.  God  cleanses  the  guilt 
of  sin,  before,  or  at  least  simultaneously  with  sanctification.  I  hope  Mr. 
Rice  will  explain  his  baptismal  purification — I  mean  his  infant  baptismal 
purification.  Nothing  will  make  it  so  acceptable  as  to  show  its  utility. 
We  have  never  seen  any  use  in  infant  affusion ;  but  if  tiie  gentleman  will 
show  that  it  purifies  from  sin,  that  is,  of  course,  both  from  its  guilt  and  its 
pollution,  he  will  have  done  more  to  procure  it  a  favorable  hearing  and 
acceptance,  than  all  the  Pedo-baptists,  living  or  dead. 

My  twelfth  argument  is  drawn  from  Col.  ii.  12 — 15  :  "  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  whence  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you,  being  dead  in 
your  sins,  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he  quickened,  together 
with  him,  having  forgiven  you  all  trespasses;  blotting  out  the  handwriting 
of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out 
of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his  cross." 

Speaking  of  the  design  of  baptism,  it  is  impossible  not  to  look  at  and 
regard  both  the  subject  and  the  action  of  baptism  ;  because  you  cannot 
show  the  design,  without  remembering  how,  in  ancient  times,  it  was 
attended  to. 

Paul  says:  "We  put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  Now  this 
is  the  most  beautiful  alhision  to  circumcision  imaginable.  Here  were 
those  who  still  hankered  after  circumcision.  To  them  the  apostle  says, 
"You  are  complete  in  Christ;  you  need  not  to  be  circumcised  with  a 
circumcision  made  with  hand."  The  old  fleshly  circumcision  only  took 
off  a  mere  atom  of  flesh  ;  but  the  spiritual  circumcision,  which  we  have  in 
being  crucified  with  Christ,  in  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  cuts 
off,  without  a  knife,  and  without  a  hand,  the  wlioie  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh.  This  is  Christ's  way  of  circumcising  now-a-days.  So  that,  in- 
stead of  baptism  for  circumcision,  we  have  a  circumcision  of  all  our  sins, 
for  the  old  circumcision  of  a  mere  particle  of  flesh.  The  whole  body  of 
sins,  the  mighty  mass,  is  now  cut  off  through  our  faith  and  baptism  into 
Christ,  with  whom  we  have  risen  through  the  faith  of  the  mighty  opera- 
tion, the  operation  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead.  If  such  wit- 
nesses as  these  do  not  prove  that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  I  ask 
what  proof  would  be  sufficient  to  establish  it? — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24— lit  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  fifth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — I  will  follow  my  worthy  friend  (as  he  desires  to  be 
followed,)  so  far  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  answer  what  he  has  now  ad- 
vanced. You  remember,  one  of  his  arguments,  to  prove  that  baptism 
is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins,  was  founded  on  the  expression — 
baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  which  proves,  as  he  supposes, 
that  baptism  introduces  the  subject  of  it  into  a  new  relation  to  God;  or, 
as  he  now  expresses  it,  a  new  state.  In  reply,  I  referred  to  a  precisely 
similar  expression,  in  I  Cor.  x.  2,  where  it  is  said,  the  Jews  were  aU 
baptized  into,  (or  unto,)  Moses.  I  stated,  that  he  had  been  previously 
their  leader  and  deliverer;  that  there  was,  therefore,  no  new  relation  con- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  499 

stituted ;  that  they  passed  into  no  new  state  ;  that  their  baptism  was  only 
a  recognition  of  an  existing  relation.     It  could  not  constitute  a  new  one. 

But  my  friend  has  no  little  ingenuity  in  escaping  from  difficulties.  He 
asks,  what  previously  existing  relation  is  recognized  when  infants  are 
baptized  ?  I  have  repeatedly  stated,  that  they  are,  by  birth,  entitled  to 
membership  in  the  church,  and  that  their  baptism  is  the  recognition 
of  their  relation  to  God's  covenant,  and  to  his  people.  They  are  born 
with  the  right  to  be  included  in  God's  covenant — to  be  introduced  into 
the  school  of  Christ.  Baptism  is  the  rite,  divinely  appointed,  by  which 
their  relation  to  the  church  is  recognized.  When  they  are  thus  recogniz- 
ed, they  have  all  the  privileges  in  the  church  of  Christ,  of  which  they 
are  capable.  For  illustration,  a  man  is  entitled  to  the  presidency  of  the 
United  States,  when  the  people  have  elected  him  to  that  office ;  but  he  is 
not  recognized  as  the  president,  nor  can  he  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the 
office,  till  he  is  inaugurated ;  yet  the  ceremony  of  inauguration  does  not 
confer  upon  him  the  office.  The  vote  of  the  people  places  him  in  a  new 
relation  to  them,  and  to  the  government;  and  the  ceremony  of  inaugura- 
tion is  but  the  proper  recognition  and  confirmation  of  that  relation. 

But  Mr.  Campbell,  in  order  to  prove,  that  the  baptism  of  the  children 
of  Israel  unto  Moses,  constituted  a  new  relation,  or  introduced  them  into 
a  new  state,  went  into  Egypt,  and  informed  us,  with  what  difficulty  Mo- 
ses induced  the  people  to  follow  him ;  and  how,  by  divers  miracles, 
especially  at  the  Red  sea,  their  faith  was  confirmed,  and  they  resolved  to 
adhere  to  him  as  their  leader,  &c.  But,  unfortunately,  we  find  in  this 
history  no  new  relation  constituted.  The  Jews  liad  been  induced  to  ac- 
knowledge Moses  as  their  leader,  by  the  miracles  he  wrought  in  Egypt; 
and  those  miracles  may  be  said  to  have  caused  the  relation.  They 
approached  the  Red  sea,  and  saw  their  enemies  behind  them — their  con- 
fidence in  their  leader  was  shaken;  but  it  was  restored  and  confirmed  by 
the  wonderful  miracles  there  wi'ouglit.  These  confirmed  their  wavering 
purposes ;  and  their  baptism,  as  they  passed  through  the  sea,  was,  so  to 
speak,  a  public  recognition  and  confirmation  of  the  relation  which  liad 
been  constituted  in  Egypt,  when  they  agreed  to  take  him  as  their  leader. 
So  christian  baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  that  intimate  relation  to  Christ, 
constituted  by  faith,  and  of  remission  of  sins  ;  and  it  tends  greatly  to  con- 
firm our  faith.  But  who  ever  before  heard,  that,  by  the  baptism  at  the 
Red  sea,  the  Jews  were  made  to  sustain  to  Moses  a  new  relation ;  or, 
that  they  entered  into  a  new  state?  The  gentleman  will  be  obliged  to 
abandon  this  argument. 

His  mistake,  in  speaking  of  Dwight  as  a  Presbyterian  doctor,  it  is  true, 
is  a  small  matter;  but  it  shows  his  accuracy  in  quoting  authors.  We 
should  have  been  by  no  means  unwilling  to  own  Dwiglit,  if  he  had  been 
a  Presbyterian  ;  nor  do  I  dissent  from  his  views  of  this  subject.  Still 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  are  two  distinct  denominations — al- 
though their  doctrines  are  nearly  the  same,  and  they  difi'er  chiefly  in  their 
form  of  church  government.  I  alluded  to  this  circumstance  only  to 
show,  that  he  was  not  very  accurate  in  quoting  autliors. 

My  friend  says,  he  does  not  agree  with  the  pope  on  the  subject  under 
discussion ;  I  will  read  a  passage,  at  the  proper  time,  from  his  debate 
with  McCalla,  in  which  he  asserts,  that  the  baptized  person,  when  he 
emerges  from  the  water,  is  as  pure  as  an  angel.  Tlie  pope  says,  the 
person  baptized  is  "  pure,  and  guiltless,  and  beloved  of  God."  Their  doc- 
trines are  so  precisely  similar,  in  this  respect,  that  it  would  require  a 


500  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

skillful  metaphysician  to  show  the  difference.  It  is  true,  as  he  says,  that 
i  agree  with  papists  in  some  items  of  faith,  but  I  never  appeal  to  them, 
as  authority,  to  sustain  my  principles,  as  he  has  done.  Should  I  ever  do 
so,  his  reply  will  be  pertinent. 

I  will  now  read  you  a  quotation  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  vol.  iii. 
pp.  301,  302.  It  is  a  letter,  from  Prof  Stuart  to  Dr.  Fishback,  upon  this 
point.     My  friend,  Dr.  Fishback,  says  : 

"  From  my  great  anxiety  to  possess  the  true  meaning'  of  Acts  ii.  38,  and 
to  be  able  to  reconcile  the  apparent  discrepancy  between  what  was  said  by 
Peter  to  the  pentecostal  Jews,  in  reference  to  baptism  and  the  remission  of 
sin,  as  it  appears  in  our  common  translation,  and  in  your  new  one,  with 
what  occurred  at  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  to  the  gentiles  in  Acts  x. 
and  as  explained  in  chapter  xi.  in  relation  to  the  same  subject ;  I  wrote  to 
professor  Stuart  to  favor  me  with  his  interpretation  of  the  Greek  preposi- 
tion eis,  as  it  is  connected  with,  and  follows  baptism.  He  was  kind  and 
obliging  enough  to  comply  with  my  request,  and  sent  me  his  remarks,  which 
I  now  present  to  you,  and  hope  that  they  will  conduce  much  to  unite  our 
views  on  the  subject  of  discussion  between  us.  He  observes:  'The  word 
baptize  may  be  followed  by  a  person  or  a  thing,  (doctrine)  which  has  eis  be- 
fore it.  In  the  first  case,  when  it  is  followed  by  a  person,  it  means,  "  by 
the  sacred  rite  of  baptism  to  bind  one's  self  to  be  a  disciple  or  follower  of  a 
person,  to  receive  or  obey  his  doctrines  or  laws," — e.  g.  1  Cor.  x.  2,  "  and 
were  baptized  into  [eis)  Moses."  Gal.  iii.  27,  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  (eis)  Christ,  having  put  on  Christ."  Rom.  vi.  3,  "  Know 
ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  [eis]  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  [eis]  his  death!"  1  Cor.  i.  13,  "  Were  ye  baptized  into  [eis)  the  name 
of  Paul?"  V.  14,  15,  "  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus 
and  Gains,  lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized  into  [eis)  mine  own 
name."  Or  it  means,  to  acknowledge  him  as  Sovereign,  Lord,  and  Sancti- 
fier, — p..  g.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  "  Baptized  them  into  [eis)  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  viii.  16,  "  Only  they 
were  baptized  into  [eis)  the  name  of  %e  Lord."  Acts  xix.  .5,  "  When  they 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  into  [eis)  the  name  of  the  Lord."' 

That  name  is  used  after  eis,  as  it  is  in  some  of  the  above  cases,  makes  no 
difference  in  the  sense.  In  Hebrew,  '  the  name  of  the  God  of  Jacob  defend 
thee,'  is  just  the  same  as  '  the  God  of  Jacob  defend  thee.' 

2.  A  person  may  be  baptized  into  a  thing,  (doctrine.)  So  in  Matt.  iii.  11, 
'  I  baptize  you  with  water  into  [eis)  repentance  ;'  i.  e.  into  the  profession 
and  belief  of  the  reality  and  necessity  of  repentance,  involving  the  idea  that 
themselves  professed  to  be  the  subjects  of  it.  In  Acts  xix.  3,  we  have  '  into 
[eis)  one  body,'  all  in  the  like  sense,  viz.  by  baptism  the  public  acknowledg- 
ment is  expressed  of  believing  in,  and  belonging  to,  a  doctrine,  or  one  body. 
So  in  Acts  ii.  38,  '  Baptized  on  account  of  Jesus  Christ  into  (eis)  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;'  that  is,  into  the  belief  and  reception  of  this  doctrine  ;  in  other 
words,  by  baptism  and  profession,  an  acknowledgement  of  this  doctrine,  on 
account  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  made. 

Professor  Stuart  has  rendered  the  word  eis  into  in  Acts  ii.  38,  as  it  is 
done  in  other  places  when  connected  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  and  as 
you  have  rendered  the  same  word  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  in  the  new  version, 
and  which  you  have  justified  by  the  authority  of  Dr.  Dwight." 

Now  what  are  we  to  understand  by  being  baptized  into  the  remission 
of  sins  ?  Mr.  Campbell  makes  it  mean,  in  order  to  the  remission  of 
sins  ;  but  Stuart,  whose  learning  he  admires,  tells  us  it  is,  to  be  baptized 
into  the  belief  and  reception  of  the  doctrine  of  remission  through  Christ; 
as  to  be  baptized  into  repentance,  is  to  be  baptized  upon  a  profession  of 
repentance.  The  expressions  in  boih  cases  are  precisely  similar.  The 
Scripture  doctrine  evidently  is,  that  repentance,  not  baptism,  secures  re- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  50 1 

mission  ;  and  hence  it  is,  that  repentance  and  remission  are  so  repeatedly 
connected  together  by  our  Savior  and  liis  apostles. 

Mr.  C.  insists,  that  eis  means  in  order  to,  in  Peter's  discourse;  and 
to  be  consistent,  he  is  obliged  to  translate  Matt.  iii.  II,  "I  baptize  you 
in  order  to  reformation^  But,  as  I  have  proved,  this  rendering  makes 
the  doctrine  of  Peter  contradict  that  of  John.  Moreover,  it  makes  Peter, 
in  his  second  discourse,  speak  very  singularly.  It  represents  him  as 
saying  to  his  hearers,  reform  and  be  converted.  I  have  asked  the  gen- 
tleman, (and  he  has  not  attempted  to  answer  the  question)  what  is  the 
difference  between  reformation  and  conversion?  Reformation  certainly 
is  turning  from  an  evil  to  a  righteous  course  ;  and  conversion  is  the  same 
thing.  So  he  would,  in  effect,  make  Peter  say  to  the  Jews,  reform  and 
he  reformed,  or  convert  and  be  converted  !  J  I 

Metanoia,  the  word  commonly  translated  repentance,  in  our  Bible,  is 
used  to  denote  that  repentance  which  is  acceptable  to  God.  It  signifies 
a  change  of  mind — a  ciiange  of  views  and  feelings — terminating  in  sorrow 
for  sin,  and  leading  to  conversion,  or  turning  to  God.  The  genUeman, 
by  his  translation,  confounds  cause  and  eifect,  and  thus  makes  the  inspired 
aposUe  speak  the  most  singular  tautology.  Such  are  the  inextricable 
difficulties  of  his  doctrine. 

In  using  the  phrase  "  evangelical  salvation,"  with  reference  to  Corne- 
lius, he  says,  he  used  my  own  phraseolog}-.  I  do  not  remember  to  have 
used  the  phrase,  or  even  to  have  heard  it  from  others.  I  have  heard  of 
evangelicaiyai7/i ;  but  I  was  not  aware  that  there  were  so  many  kinds  of 
salvation.  I  have  always  thought,  when  a  man  was  saved,  he  was  saved. 
When  Paul  says,  "  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith,"  I  suppose,  he 
speaks  of  salvation  from  sin  and  hell,  and  elevation  to  the  enjoyment  of 
heaven  and  eternal  life.  I  thought  that  the  word  salvation  comprehended 
all  the  blessings  promised  in  the  gospel.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved."  Here  the  word  comprehends  both  the  present 
and  the  future  blessings  of  the  gospel.  Cornelius  had  the  present,  but 
he  needed  the  future.  Hence,  Peter  is  said  to  have  told  him  words  by 
which  he  should  be  saved.  But  the  fact  is  indisputable,  that  Peter,  when 
he  for  the  first  time  preached  the  gospel  to  the  gentiles,  did  not  preach 
baptism  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  He  did  not  mention  it  as  one 
of  the  conditions  of  pardon — it  was  not  even  a  prominent  topic  in  his 
discourse.  Such  being  the  facts,  no  one  has  a  right  to  assume  that  he 
preached  this  doctrine. 

The  gendeman  has  greatly  magnified  his  charity  and  liberality ;  but  I 
am  prepared  to  prove,  that  Dr.  Fishback,  his  friend  and  brother,  has  pro- 
nounced his  doctrine  "  the  most  exclusive,  sectarian  and  uncharitable," 
in  the  world  !  !  !  And  his  opinion  must  be  very  nearly  correct ;  for  he 
is  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Campbell's  real  views ;  and  is  not  under  the 
influence  of  prejudice  against  him. 

The  greatness  of  his  charity  and  liberality  are  strikingly  exhibited,  in 
the  following  sentence,  in  his  Christianity  Restored:  "Infants,  idiots, 
deaf  and  dumb  persons,  innocent  pagans,  wherever  they  can  be  found, 
with  all  the  pious  Pedo-baptists,  we  commend  to  the  mercy  of  God," 
p.  240.  In  the  exuberance  of  his  charity,  he  has  put  all  pious  Pedo- 
baptists  with  infants,  idiots,  and  pagans,  and  commended  them  to  the 
mercy  of  God  !  !  ! 

To  sustain  his  doctrine,  making  baptism  necessary  to  remission,  the 
gentleman  has  appealed  to  Ephesians  v.  25,  26,  "  Husbands,  love  your 


502  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it; 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the 
word."  Does  this  passage  prove  that  sins  are  remitted  only  in  baptism  ? 
Let  us  compare  this  with  a  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  I 
have  repeatedly  referred:  Eze.  xxxvi.  25,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from 
all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and 
a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you.  And  I  will  take  away  the  stony 
heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I 
will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes." 

Now,  it  is  here  proved,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell's  mode  of  inter- 
preting language,  that  sprinkling  clean  water  upon  persons  will  cleanse 
them  from  all  moral  filthiness,  and  from  idolatry.  Yet  he  has  not  the 
least  faith  in  the  eflicacy  of  sprinkling  clean  water.  The  language,  too, 
you  observe,  is  very  similar  to  that  employed  by  Ananias,  when  he  bap- 
tized Paul.  For  he  said,  "  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins."  So,  Ezekiel  said,  *'  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
you  shall  be  clean."  If,  then,  these  passages  prove  that  baptism  secures 
remission  of  sins  ;  that  in  Ezekiel  will  prove,  with  equal  clearness,  that 
the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  upon  persons,  would  cleanse  them  from 
moral  pollution  and  idolatry  !  But  what  is  the  truth  on  this  subject?  It 
is,  that  Ezekiel  connects  together  the  emblem  and  the  thing  signified. 
The  sprinkling  of  clean  water  is  the  emblem ;  and  the  new  heart  is  the 
thing  signified. 

We  turn  now  to  Ps.  li.  "  Purge  me  with  hysop,  and  I  shall  be  clean ; 
wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  What  is  the  meaning  of 
tliis  prayer  of  David  ?  According  to  my  friend's  principles  of  exposition, 
sprinkling  a  person  with  hysop,  would  make  him  white  as  snow — as 
pure  as  an  angel.  But  by  turning  to  Leviticus  xiv.  we  learn  that  the 
ceremonially  unclean  were  cleansed  by  sprinkling  blood  upon  them,  with 
hysop,  cedar-wood,  and  scarlet.  In  reference  to  this  ceremony,  David 
prayed  that  God  would  grant  him  the  inward  purity,  of  which  it  was  the 
emblem.  Thus  the  prophets  and  inspired  writers  were  accustomed  to 
connect  water  with  the  Spirit.  Another  striking  example  of  this  kind  is 
found  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  chapter  xliv.  3  :  "  For  I  will  pour  water 
upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground:  I  will  pour  my 
Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring :  and  they 
shall  spring  up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water-coui'ses." 
Here  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men  is  beautifully 
represented  by  the  falling  of  copious  showers  on  the  thirsty  ground, 
Episde  to  Titus,  he  says,  "  He  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration 
cleansing  of  the  church  from  sin.  Washing  is  the  emblem,  and  the  Spirit 
is  the  divine  agent  in  purifying  the  church  from  all  sin.  Thus,  in  the 
So  Paul  employs  water,  the  emblem  of  purification,  to  express  the  entire 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  just  so  Ezekiel  says,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  a  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you." 
Such  was  the  custom  of  the  Jewish  writers ;  and  Paul  \vas  a  Jew,  and 
wrote  acording  to  their  manner. 

The  gentleman  finally  appeals  to  Col.  ii.  10,  11 :  "  And  ye  are  complete 
in  him  which  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power  :  in  whom  also  ye 
are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off 
the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ :  buried 
with  iiim  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  503 

faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Now, 
let  us  inquire,  what  is  the  circumcision  made  witliout  hands  ?  It  evi- 
dently signifies  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  of  which  circumcision  was 
the  sign.  Hence  the  exhortation,  "  Circumcise  the  fore-skin  of  your 
hearts."  Spiritual  circumcision  is  a  new  heart — a  sanctified  nature  ;  and, 
as  circumcision  formerly  signitied  the  renewal  of  the  heart,  so  does  bap; 
tism  now.  Therefore,  Paul  puts  them  in  immediate  connection,  and  save 
to  christians — You  have  not  the  external  circumcision,  but  you  have  the 
grace  of  which  it  was  the  sign,  the  circumcision  of  the  heart.  You  are 
holy  in  heart ;  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  and  risen  with  him  through 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God.  As  you  have  the  spiritual  circumcision, 
so  you  have  the  spiritual  baptism.  You  are  identified  with  Christ  in  his 
death  and  resurrection.  I  find  in  this  passage  not  a  word  al)out  remis- 
sion of  sins.  The  apostle  is  speaking  of  sanctification  of  heart,  a  very 
different  subject. 

I  have  now  answered  what  my  friend  has  advanced  in  support  of  his 
doctrine.  In  reply  to  his  remarks  on  baptismal  purification,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  say — that  I  believe  in  the  entire  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin, 
by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  procuring  cause  ;  and  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  the  efficient  agent,  of  which  water  baptism  is  the  significant 
emblem.  But  we  are  not  now  discussing  the  doctrine  of  sanctification, 
but  the  doctrine  of  remission  of  sins ;  and  I  am  not  to  be  diverted  from 
this  important  point. 

I  was,  on  yesterday,  proving,  that,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell's  doc- 
trine, multitudes  of  the  most  godly  persons,  live  and  die  unpardoned,  and 
go  to  hell.  He  has,  indeed,  expressed  some  opinions  quite  inconsistent 
with  his  doctrine  ;  but  Ave  have  now  to  deal,  not  with  his  opinions,  but 
with  his  doctrine.  That  I  am  not  misrepresenting  him,  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  he  makes  repentance  and  immersion  "  equally  necessary''^  to 
the  remission  of  sins.  See  Christian  Baptist,  p.  416,  417,  and  Christi- 
anity Restored,  p.  240 ;  already  quoted.  Here  my  friend  commends  in- 
fants, idiots,  pagans,  and  jyious  Fedo-baptists  to  the  mercy  of  God ! 
He  has  nothing  to  say,  as  to  whether  they  can  be  saved  !  In  another 
place,  he  expresses  the  opinion  that  some  of  them  inay  be  saved  ;  but 
his  opinions  are  inconsistent  v/ith  his  doctrine.  For,  if  repentance  and 
immersion  be  equally  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins,  how  can  unim- 
mersed  persons  be  saved  ?  In  view,  then,  of  the  fact,  that  Mr,  Campbell 
maintains  that  baptism  is  an  essential  pre-requisite  to  remission  does  it 
not  follow  that  all  unbaptized  persons  must  be  forever  lost?  By  the 
way,  he  says  he  must  use  the  English  word  immersion,  for  baptism. 
That  it  was  English,  I  really  did  not  know — I  had  thought  that  it  was 
Latin.  He  is  pleased  to  use  the  Latin  word  immersion  ;  but  does  not 
like  the  Greek  word  baptism!  But,  as  I  was  remarking,  if,  as  tlie  gen- 
tleman teaches,  immersion  be  an  essential  pre-requisite  to  the  remission 
of  sins,  then  every  unimmersed  person  is  unpardoned  through  life.  Are 
any  pardoned  after  death?  I  have  never  found  the  passage  that  inti- 
mates, that  any  who  die  uuforgiven,  will  be  pardoned  in  the  next  world. 
I  have  read,  "  He  that  is  filtiiy,  let  him  be  filthy  still  ;  and  he  that  is  holy, 
let  him  be  holy  still."  He  who  is  not  pardoned  here,  cannot  be  pardoned 
hereafter. 

I  ask,  where  in  the  Bible  is  the  doctrine  taught,  that  tbe  righteous  sliall 
be  turned  into  hell?  I  do  not  bring  this  argument  to  awaken  prejudice 
against  my  friend ;  but,  I  am  constrained  to  ask,  where  is  it  said,  that 


504  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

any  hut  the  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell  ?  We  read,  that  the  wicked 
shall  be  lost ;  but,  if  his  doctrine  be  true,  hell  will  be  full  of  good  men! 
Multitudes  of  pious,  godly  people  will  be  found,  lifting  up  their  eyes  in 
hell,  being  in  torment ! 

The  next  argument  which  I  will  adduce  against  my  friend,  is,  that  his 
doctrine  ascribes  an  unscriptiiral  importance  and  efficacy  to  an  external 
ordinance.  The  Scriptures  uniformly  represent  the  religion  of  the  heart 
as  the  great  and  only  essential  matter.  It  was  one  of  the  radical  errors  of 
the  Jews,  that  they  made  religion  consist,  almost  exclusively,  in  attend- 
ance upon  external  rites  and  ceremonies.  And  how  often  did  our  Savior 
find  it  necessary  to  repeat  to  them,  "I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacri- 
fice'''— the  religion  of  the  heart,  not  external  forms  ?  When  Saul  brought 
back  a  great  many  oxen  and  sheep,  from  the  spoils  of  the  Amalekites, 
and  excused  himself  by  saying,  he  intended  to  offer  them  a  sacrifice  to 
God,  the  inspired  Samuel  proclaimed  to  him  a  glorious  truth,  which 
characterizes  the  whole  Bible :  "  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice, 
and  to  hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams  ;"  1  Sam.  xv.  22.  David,  in  that 
penitential  psalm,  (li.,)  gives  utterance  to  the  same  great  truth?  "For 
thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it:  thou  delightest  not  in 
burn-offering.  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit :  a  broken  and 
a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."  Yet,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Mr,  C.,  he  would  despise  the  broken  heart,  unless  immersed! 
Every  where,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  the  religion  of  the  heart  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  one  thing  needful.  The  remission  of  sins  was  never 
connected,  inseparably,  with  any  external  ordinance. 

Circumcision  was  omitted  for  forty  years  by  the  Jews,  while  they 
were  passing  from  Egypt  to  Canaan ;  and,  in  Joshua  v.,  we  read,  that 
Joshua  circumcised  the  whole  company  after  they  arrived  in  Canaan. 
Now,  if  this  rite  had  been  essential,  they  would  not  have  omitted  its  ob- 
servance for  forty  years.  So  Paul  teaches,  that  "  if  the  uncircuracision 
keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  their  uncircumcision  shall  be  counted 
for  circumcision  ;"  Rom.  ii.  Now  circumcision  was  as  important  to  the 
Jews,  as  baptism  is  to  christians. 

By  the  way,  I  was  surprised  to  hear  the  assertion  made  by  Mr.  C, 
that  the  blessings,  promised  imder  the  old  dispensation,  were  all  of  a 
temporal  character.  There  never  was  an  assertion  more  unfounded. 
"  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  came  to  years,  refused  to  be  called  the  son  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  esteeming  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than 
the  treasures  in  Egypt.  For  he  had  respect  to  the  recompense  of  the 
reward."  He  gave  up  the  earthly  crown  for  a  brighter  crown  in  heaven. 
So  it  is  said  of  all  the  pious,  under  the  former  dispensation,  that  they 
sought  a  city  whose  maker  and  builder  is  God.  Hence  David  prayed 
in  Ps.  li.,  "  Restore  unto  me  the  joy  of  thy  salvation.^'' 

No  external  ordinance  was  regarded  as  essential  to  salvation,  under  the 
pld  dispensation,  when  forms  and  ceremonies  had  more  importance  attach- 
ed to  them  than  under  the  christian  dispensation. — \_Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24 — 12  o'clock,  M. 

[mr.  Campbell's  sixth  address.] 

Mr.  President — It  cannot  have  escaped  your  notice  before  to-day, 

how  often  my  polite  friend  has  made  attempts  to  draw  me  off  to  debate 

with  him   about  the  new  version,   and  other  foreign  matters.     He  has 

made  numerous  allusions  to  it,  and  almost  challenged  me  to  the  task. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  505 

He  is  not  the  person,  nor  this  the  occasion,  for  such  a  discussi.in.  I 
have,  therefore,  paid  little  or  no  attention  to  his  efforts  to  entangle  the 
subject,  or  to  draw  me  off  from  the  proposition  before  us.  He  sought  to 
have  me  defend  Dr.  Campbell's  version  of  Mark  vii.  3,  by  a  most  violent 
assault  upon  it ;  as  though  it  were  my  own  work,  or  as  if  I  had  agreed  to 
debate  with  him  such  questions.  I  understand  his  policy.  I  am  pre- 
pared, at  a  proper  time  and  place,  and  with  a  proper  person,  to  defend  all 
that  I  have  written,  or  said,  on  those  subjects.  I  have  always  succeeded 
pretty  well  in  that  department,  my  opponents  themselves  being  judges. 
But  these  are  not  the  questions  now  before  us,  and  I  will  not  attend  to 
foreign  and  irrelevant  subjects  introduced  for  such  a  purpose. 

Again,  the  gentleman  has  sought  to  entangle  this  subject,  by  making 
out  inconsistencies  between  my  present  views  and  my  former  writings. 
Whenever  the  time  comes,  that  it  becomes  my  duty  to  defend  myself  on 
that  account,  I  shall  be  forthcoming,  I  hope.  One  thing  I  can  say,  in  all 
conscience,  that  I  feel  myself  prepared  to  sustain  every  prominent  view 
that  I  ever  published  on  the  subject  of  the  christian  religion.  Here  lies 
a  volume  before  me  upon  the  christian  system.  I  do  not  call  it,  as  insin- 
uated here,  "  the  Christian  System,''''  but  that  system  "  in  reference  to  the 
union  of  christians J'^  In  it  there  is  a  long  article  on  the  remission  of 
sins.  It  has  been  written  many  years  ago.  It  is  quite  pertinent  to  the 
subject  now  before  us.  If  the  gentleman  pleases,  I  shall  engross  the 
whole  of  it  as  evidence  on  this  proposition.  In  it  there  are  many  scrip- 
tural arguments,  many  authorities  from  the  creeds  and  concessions  of  dis- 
tinguished men.  Catholic  and  Protestant.  All  of  which  are  in  good  place 
and  time  here.  I  am  ready  to  sustain  every  position  taken  there.  I  am 
sorry  that  I  cannot  introduce  all  those  facts  and  documents  here. 

In  his  ad  captandiim  tactics,  my  friend,  who  certainly  deserves  a  diplo- 
ma for  his  proticiency  in  that  science,  though  I  think  he  has  almost  run 
himself  down  by  his  too  frequent  attempts  at  it,  seems  to  quote  the  pope 
and  Catholic  authorities  in  such  a  way,  as  to  insinuate  that  I  had,  in  the 
use  of  the  term  catholic,  alluded  to  Roman  authorities — to  universities  at 
Rome  or  at  Constantinople.  Not  so,  however.  My  Catholic  authorities 
are  neither  Grecian,  nor  Roman,  nor  German,  nor  English — they  are  cath' 
olic,  and  all  others  are  particular. 

But  in  order  to  respond  to  my  propositions,  failing  in  other  modes  of 
reply,  he  now  takes  up  some  essays  and  communications  between  my 
friend  and  brother,  Fishback,  and  myself,  written  some  years  ago,  touch- 
ing our  views  on  some  points  bearing  on  this  question.  Whatever  differ- 
ences of  opinion  or  of  inferential  reasonings  there  may  be,  between 
brother  Fishback  and  myself,  or  any  other  brother  here,  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose,  any  more  than  a  passage  in  my  debate  with  Robert  Owen.  I 
neither  know  nor  care  what  are  the  present  opinions  of  Dr.  Fishback  oa 
all  these  topics.  He  is  now  with  us  in  practice.  Our  bond  of  union  is 
not  opinion,  nor  unity  of  opinion.  It  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 
tism, one  Spirit,  one  hope,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.  These  we  all 
preach  and  teach.  We  have  no  standard  opinions  amongst  us.  We 
have  no  patented  form  of  sound  words  drawn  up  by  human  art  and  man's 
device,  to  which  all  must  vow  eternal  fidelity.  It  is  our  peculiar  felicity, 
and,  perhaps,  it  may  be  our  honor,  too,  that  we  have  been  able  to  discover 
a  ground  so  common,  so  sacred,  so  divinely  approbated,  so  perfectly 
catholic  and  enduring,  on  which  every  man,  who  loves  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  sincerely,  may  unite,  and  commune,  and  harmonize,  and  co-ope- 

2U 


506  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

rate  in  all  the  works  of  faith,  in  all  the  labors  of  love,  and  in  all  the  per- 
severance of  hope.  In  this  age  of  insular  theology,  this  age  of  proscrip- 
tion, ecclesiastic  dictation,  and  superciUous  orthodoxy,  it  is  like  an  oasis 
in  tlie  desert,  to  find  an  asylum,  a  sanctuary  in  which  we  can  all  worship, 
an  altar  around  which  all  christian  men  may  meet,  and  on  which  they 
may  offer  up  their  united  praises,  petitions  and  thanksgivings  to  the  Fa- 
ther of  all  mercies,  through  tlie  common  Savior  of  all  that  believe.  It  is, 
Mr.  President,  our  honor  to  have  given  to  the  world  the  first  example  in 
modern  times,  of  a  great  community,  made  np  of  accessions  from  all  com- 
munities, meeting  on  the  Bible  alone;  and  while  aiming  at  one  faith,  (for 
there  is  but  one  true  faith,)  bearing  with  each  other's  opinions  and  views, 
and  still  making  out  to  "  maintain  unity  of  spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace." 

It  gives  me  any  thing  but  pleasure,  sir,  to  have  so  often  to  turn  aside  to 
respond  to  so  many  very  little  things.  I  shall  now  turn  my  face  to  the 
argument,  and  endeavor  to  find  where  we  are.  I  stand,  sir,  for  the  de- 
fence of  truth — God's  own  soul-redeeming  truth.  It  is  for  what  is  writ- 
ten in  this  book,  I  stand  up  here.  When  convicted  of  any  error  or  false 
position,  which  I  may  have  assumed,  I  will,  sir,  gladly  retreat  from  it.  I 
fight  not  for  victory.  I  plead  for  truth.  I  would  a  thousand  times  rath- 
er, were  it  possible,  be  vanquished  with  the  truth,  than  to  triumph  with 
error.  Before  heaven  and  earth  I  lift  up  my  voice  for  the  truth  of  this 
holy  Book.  I  will  stand  by  it,  that  it  may  stand  by  me;  for  that  alone  can 
strengthen  man  in  the  day  of  trial. 

In  his  last  effort  to  sustain  his  views,  commenting  on  the  second  of  the 
Colossians,  the  gentleman  has  spiritualized  himself  far  beyond  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  whole  church  of  Scotland.  He  has  made  war  against  his 
own  orthodox  divines  of  Westminster,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  reputa- 
ble commentators  known  to  me.  The  church  of  England,  of  Scodand, 
with  the  continental  churches,  from  which  I  have  heard,  are,  to  a  man, 
with  me,  in  expounding  this  passage  as  referring  to  the  ancient  action  of 
baptism,  and  to  its  design.  1  agree  with  the  authors  of  the  confession  of 
faith,  in  all  their  references  to  this  passage,  so  far  as  I  now  remember 
them,  affirming  that  we  do  "  put  off  tJie  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ  (being)  buried  with  him  in  baptism."  The  lan- 
guage is  most  evidently  with  us,  without  either  note  or  comment.  What- 
ever is  done,  or  reported  as  being  done  in  the  11th  verse,  is  said  to  be 
done  in  the  12th,  in  or  by  the  fact  that  we  have  been  buried  with  him, 
and  risen  with  him  in  baptism.  But  we  must  hasten  to  another  argu- 
ment, (our  thirteenth^)  in  farther  confirmation  of  the  preceding: — 

I  will  read  Tit.  iii.  5,  "  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have 
done,  but  according  to  his  mercy,  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior  :  that  being  justified  by  his  grace,  we  might 
be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life."  The  introduction  to 
this  luminous  and  most  impressive  development  is  sublimely  beautiful  and 
captivating  in  the  composition  of  the  original  terms.  As  though  he  had 
said — '  After  that  the  starlight,  moonlight,  and  twilight  ages  of  the  world 
had  passed — after  that  the  philanthropy  of  God  our  Savior,  like  the 
rising  sun,  full-orbed,  shone  forth,  in  all  the  splendor  of  the  heavens,  "  he 
saved  us  in  a  way  divinely  simple  and  supremely  kind — not  by  works 
of  righteousness,"  '  &c.  I  have  again  the  concurrent  testimony  of  anti- 
quity— of  the  Greek,  Roman,  and  Protestant  churches, — Westminster 
tlieologians,  commentators,  and  paraphrasts,  universally  applying  these 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  507 

words  to  baptism.  I  presume  it  will  not  be  debated.  Who,  then,  can 
withhold  admiration  when  comparing  John  iii.  5,  Ep.  v.  26,  Titus  iii.  5, 
and  Acts  ii.  38,  at  the  singular,  yet  unstudied  similarity  of  arrangement 
of  the  two  ideas  of  water  and  Spirit  in  the  minds  of  the  Messiah,  Peter, 
and  Paul.  Jesus  said — "  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit."  Peter  said — 
"be  baptized  and  receive  the  Holy  Spirit."  Paul  said — "he  sanctified 
the  church  through  a  bath  of  water  and  the  Word."  And  again,  he  says 
to  Titus,  "  He  saved  us  through  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Here,  then,  we  have  the  water  and  the  Spirit, 
or  the  water  and  the  Word;  and  the  water  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  baptism  in  water  and  receiving  the  Holy  Spirit,  inseparably 
associated.  Who,  then,  so  indiscriminating  as  not  to  see,  that  there  is  a 
fixed  connection  in  the  christian  dispensation  between  water  and  the  Spi- 
rit !  Remission  of  sins  and  sanctificaiion  are,  therefore,  inseparably  con- 
nected with  each  other  in  the  christian  economy. 

These  facts,  thus  laid  before  us  by  apostolic  authority,  show  how  ne- 
cessary it  was  in  the  law  to  adumbrate  that  water  alone  could,  when 
sprinkled,  or  poured,  cleanse  no  person  from  either  legal  or  moral  pollu- 
tion. That  something  else  must  be  added  to  the  water,  is  clearly  and 
firmly  established.  Faith,  the  Word,  the  Spirit,  in  some  form  expressed, 
siiow  the  connection  to  be  most  authoritatively  established.  Of  course, 
then,  Mr.  Rice's  theory  of  sanctification  by  mere  water  alone  is  one  of  the 
most  baseless  theories  in  Christendom.  But  I  have  yet  remaining  a  four- 
teenth argument  in  support  of  this  grand  position :  Peter  tells  in  his  first 
episde,  iii.  19:  "  By  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison,  which  sometimes  were  disobedient,  when  once  the  long  suffering  of 
God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein 
few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto, 
even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  the  good  conscience  toward  God,)  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 

We  began  with  Peter,  who  began  the  christian  institution,  and  with 
Peter  we  shall  end.  From  him  we  took  our  first  argument,  and  from  him 
we  shall  draw  our  fourteenth.  His  first  precept  in  the  new  reign  was, 
"Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  not  because  your  sins  are  forgiven  you,  but  ybr  the  remission  of 
sins."  At  the  time  this  letter  was  written,  Peter  was  an  old  man — pro- 
bably had  completed  his  threescore  and  ten  years.  He  had  observed  the 
progress  and  operation  of  the  gospel  for  some  thirty  years,  or  more.  He 
opened  the  kingdom  to  the  Jews,  and  afterwards  to  the  Gentiles  ;  he  had 
seen  its  influences  on  both.  In  full  view,  then,  of  all  the  past  history  of 
Christianity,  and  in  bright  anticipation  of  its  ultimate  and  glorious  triumph, 
he  speaks  to  the  brethren  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  By- 
thinia,  as  you  have  heard  me  read  from  the  third  chapter.  He  places 
baptism  to  the  church  in  some  correspondence  with  the  ark  to  Noah,  and 
the  deluge.  Noah  had  faith  to  go  into  the  ark,  and  to  commit  himself  to  the 
flood,  in  the  firm  belief  that  God  would  bring  him  safely  out  of  the  deluge, 
and  save  him  from  destruction.  Thus,  immerged  in  a  flood  of  water, 
when  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of 
heaven  were  opened,  he  was  sustained  by  his  faith  in  God's  promise,  and 
while  the  fleshly  world  of  the  ungodly  perished,  he  escaped  destruction. 
Now,  says  the  apostle,  baptism  is  a  sort  of  antitype  of  this  whole  salva- 
tion     The  like  figure  answering  thereunto  is  baptism,  by  which,  through 


508  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

water,  we  are  saved,  not,  indeed,  like  the  legal  washings  and  bathings, 
which  only  sanctified  to  the  cleansing  of  the  flesh ;  not  the  washing  away 
of  the  outward,  natural,  or  legal  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God,  (or  the  seeking  of  a  good  conscience,)  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.  If,  then,  the  Messiah  says, 
"He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;''''  and  if  Peter  says, 
"  Baptism  doth  now  save  us,"  shall  we  not  regard  it  as  one  of  the  great 
means  of  God's  own  appointment,  for  the  sake  of  communicating  to  us  an 
assurance  of  his  love,  through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant? 

I  have  now  given  fourteen  distinct  and  independent  arguments  in  proof 
and  illustration  of  this  grand  position.  I  am  truly  sorry  that  they  have 
not  been  debated  by  my  respondent.  He  seems  exceedingly  coy  and  pru- 
dent in  coming  into  a  close  engagement  upon  all  matters,  but  especially  on 
this  proposition.  Not  one  of  my  arguments  has  yet  been  formally  as- 
sailed. They  stand  now  like  one  unbroken  phalanx,  side  by  side,  in 
illustration  and  confirmation  of  my  affirmation  of  the  design  of  christain 
baptism.  True,  he  has  oflTered,  in  no  very  connected  way,  some  object- 
tions  and  cavils,  against  several  of  them,  but  no  argument  has  been 
assailed,  no  position  canvassed — I  am  in  full,  and,  indeed,  in  undisputed 
possession  of  my  whole  forces.  In  answer,  however,  to  some  things  said 
here  and  elsewhere,  against  our  connecting  baptism  and  salvation,  in 
almost  any  sense,  and  on  the  supposed  interference  between  this  doctrine 
of  the  assurance  of  remission  through  baptism  and  justification  by  faith, 
I  shall  also  read  a  passage  from  "  the  Christian  System."  It  is  found  on 
page  258  : — 

"  In  examining  the  New  Testament,  we  find  that  a  man  is  said  to  be 
'^juslijied  by  faith,''  Rom.  v.  1;  Gal.  ii.  16,  iii.  24.  '  Justified  freely  by  his 
grace,''  Rom.  iii.  24;  Tit.  iii.  7,  'Justified  by  his  blood,''  Rom.  v.  9.  'Jus- 
tified by  works,''  James  ii.  21,  24,  25.  '  Justified  in  or  by  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,''  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  'Justified  by  Christ,^  Gal.  ii.  16.  'Justified  by 
knowledge,^  Isai.  liii.  11.  '  It  is  God  that  justifies,'  Rom.  iii.  33,  viz.  by 
tliese  seven  means — by  Christ,  his  name,  his  blood,  by  knowledge,  grace, 
faith,  and  by  works.  Are  these  all  literaH  Is  there  no  room  for  interpre- 
tation here'?  He  that  selects yai//i  out  of  seven,  must  either  act  arbitra- 
rily, or  show  his  reason  ;  but  the  reason  does  not  appear  in  the  text.  He 
must  reason  it  out.  Why,  then,  assume  that  faith  alone  is  the  reason 
of  our  justification  ?  Why  not  assume  that  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  the 
great  matter,  seeing  this  name  '  is  the  only  name  given  under  heaven  by 
which  any  man  can  be  saved;'  and  men,  who  believe,  receive  the  '  remission 
of  sins  by  his  name,''  Acts  x.  43  ;  and  especially  because  the  name  of  Jesus, 
or  of  the  Lord,  is  more  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
reference  to  all  spiritual  blessings,  than  anything  else!!  Call  all  these 
causes,  or  means  of  justification  ;  and  what  then  ?  We  have  the  grace  of 
God  for  the  moving  cause,  Jesus  Christ  for  the  efficient  cause,  his  blood  the 
procuring  cause,  knowledge  the  disposing  cause,  the  name  of  the  Lord  the 
immediate  cause,  faith  the  formal  cause,  and  works  for  the  concurriiig  cause. 

For  example :  a  gentleman  on  the  sea-shore  descried  the  wreck  of  a  ves- 
sel at  some  distance  from  land,  driving  out  into  the  ocean,  and  covered  with 
a  miserable  and  perishing  sea-drenched  crew.  Moved  by  pure  philanthro- 
py, he  sends  his  son  with  a  boat  to  save  them.  When  the  boat  arrives  at 
the  wreck,  he  invites  them  in,  upon  this  condition,  that  they  submit  to  his 
guidance.  A  number  of  the  crew  stretch  out  their  arms,  and  seizing  the 
boat  with  their  hands,  spring  into  it,  take  hold  of  the  oars,  and  row  to  land, 
while  some  from  cowardice,  and  others  from  some  difficulty  in  coming  at 
the  boat,  wait  in  expectation  of  a  second  trip  ;  but  before  it  returned,  the 
wreck  went  to  pieces,  and  they  all  perished.     The  moving  cause  of  their 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  509 

salvation  who  escaped,  was  the  good  will  of  the  gentleman  on  the  shore  ; 
the  son,  who  took  the  boat,  was  the  efficient  cause  ;  the  boat  itself  the  pro- 
curing cause  ;  the  knowledge  of  their  perishing  condition  and  his  invita- 
tion, the  disposing  cause  ;  the  seizing  of  the  boat  with  their  hands,  and 
springing  into  it,  the  immediate  cause  ;  their  consenting  to  his  condition 
the  formal  cause  ;  and  their  I'owing  to  shore,  under  the  guidance  of  his  son, 
was  the  concurring  cause  of  their  salvation — Thus,  men  are  justified  or 
saved  by  grace,  by  Christ,  by  his  blood,  by  faith,  by  knowledge,  by  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  and  by  works.  But  of  the  seven  causes,  three  of  which  are 
purely  instrumental,  why  choose  one  of  the  instrumental,  and  emphasize 
upon  it,  as  the  justifying  or  saving  cause,  to  the  exclusion  of,  or  in  prefer- 
ence to,  the  others '!    Every  one,  in  its  own  place,  is  essentially  necessary." 

Such  are  our  views,  as  often  expressed  on  this  subject. 

We  shall  now  attend  to  some  things  said  on  yesterday.  Mr.  Rice, 
you  will  remember,  made  one  wholesale  objection  to  my  first  seven  argu- 
ments, viz.  that  they  were  unscriptural — they  contradicted  the  Scrip- 
tures. Very  easil)'-  said — but  did  he  prove  it?  Did  he  select  any  one  of 
them,  analyze,  and  refute  it?  He  took  up  Calvin,  and  showed  you  how  I 
read  authors,  &;c.  Such  was  his  refutation  of  my  arguments.  But  he 
gaid,  and  asserted,  and  re-asserted,  several  things  which,  whether  true  or 
false,  affect  not  the  issue  in  any  way  whatever.  What  an  edifying  dis- 
sertation he  gave  us  on  "begotten  and  born,  and  born  and  begotten!" 
He  said  there  were  many  spiritual  benefits  connected  with  being  be- 
gotten, and  with  being  born,  and  that  it  was  indifferent  which  term  we 
used  on  many  occasions.  Did  that  conflict  with  any  thing  I  had  said, 
or  with  any  thing  I  have  now  read  from  the  Christian  System  ?  Any  one 
may  have  observed,  that  whether  John  says,  a  person  is  begotten  or  born 
of  God,  he  speaks  of  him  without  any  regard  to  any  difference  between 
tliese  two  states.  He  uses  the  phrase  characteristically.  It  is  two 
modes  (if  we  were  to  translate  them  diversely,)  of  speaking  of  the  same 
character.  But  in  the  original  of  John  there  is  no  difference.  The  change 
is  according  to  the  taste  of  the   translator. 

"  He  that  believetli  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God;"  and,  of 
course,  is  begotten  of  God.  And  unless  we  speak  very  critically,  whatever 
is  true  of  him  in  the  one  figure,  is  also  true  of  him  in  the  other  figure. 
These  persons,  however,  of  whom  the  apostle  thus  speaks,  are  all  bap- 
tized persons — every  one  of  them.  He  never  supposes  such  a  case  as  is 
often  before  our  minds — a  believing  unbaptized  man  !  Such  a  being  could 
not  have  been  found  in  the  whole  apostolic  age.  Faith  is,  indeed,  the 
master  principle  of  Christianity.  No  one  of  this  age,  I  presume,  has  either 
said  or  written  more  on  this  capital  principle  of  our  religion.  It  is  vital, 
essential,  and  omnipotent  in  Christianity.  It  removes  mountains — it  over- 
comes the  world.  It  is  the  spring  and  fountain  of  a  thousand  pure  and 
holy  pleasures.  It  throws  new  charms  over  heaven,  earth  and  sea.  It 
makes  the  heavens  more  bright,  and  gives  new  beauties  to  the  earth  and 
all  that  it  contains.  It  purifies  the  heart  from  all  its  unhallowed  and  pol- 
luting passions,  and  adorns  human  character  with  the  most  splendid  vir- 
tues. It  throws  a  bridge  over  the  gulf  of  time  past  and  of  time  to  come, 
and  connects  both  the  past  and  the  future  with  eternity.  "  It  is  the  evi- 
dence of  things  not  seen,  and  the  confident  expectation  of  things  hoped 
for."  It  is  the  parent  of  all  the  christian  graces,  and  is,  itself^,  the  off- 
spring of  heaven.  No  wonder,  then,  that  men  are  said  to  be  justified, 
sanctified,  saved,  &;c.  by  faith.  But  the  Westminster  catechism  says, 
by  FAITH  ALONE.     At  the  word  alone,  we  conscientiously  demur. 

5}u2 


510  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  apostle  James  has  said,  a  man  is  not  justified  by  faith  alone,  and 
here  we  must  go  Avith  the  apostle  against  the  creed.  Mr.  Rice  exagge- 
rates faith  to  depreciate  baptism.  I  would  give  to  both  their  proper  posi- 
tion and  influence  in  the  christian  religion. 

But  to  resume  the  capital  mistake  in  his  theology.  He  contends  that 
hath  means  actual  possession.  He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life.  I 
say,  in  grant,  in  promise,  within  his  reach,  yet  not  invested  with  it.  John 
the  Baptist  (John  iii.  36)  says,  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  ever- 
lasting life."  While  Mark  says,  "  there  is  no  one  that  has  forsaken 
houses,  lands,  &c.  for  my  sake,  who  shall  not  receive  manifold  more  in  the 
present  time,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  life  everlasting."  Can  any  one 
reconcile  these  sayings  without  admitting  all  that  we  contend  for?  viz. 
that  there  is  an  actual  possession,  and  a  possession  in  right,  or  in  grant. 
In  the  great  day,  the  Messiah  shall  say  to  the  righteous,  "  inherit  the 
kingdom  prepared  for  you  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  In  Tim- 
othy, Paul  says,  "  you  may  lay  hold  on  eternal  life."  Here  is  a  man  of 
God  exhorted  by  Paul,  to  lay  hold  on  eternal  life — and,  indeed,  the  same 
apostle  teaches,  "  that  we  are  made  heirs,  according  to  the  hope  of  eter- 
nal life.''''  Now,  as  I  have  before  said,  who  can  hope  for  what  he  has  ! 
The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that,  when  we  are  said  to  be  justified,  sancti- 
fied, saved  by  faith,  or  to  have  eternal  life,  through  believing,  it  does  not 
mean  that  we  actually  have  them  now,  or  shall  enjoy  them  hereafter,  by 
mere  faith  alone,  but  in  consequence  of  the  efficiency  of  this  principle 
displayed  in  the  obedience  of  faith,  or  in  submission  to  the  authority  and 
rule  of  the  Lord. 

Be  it  observed,  however,  with  joyful  attention,  that  when  a  child  is 
born  into  any  family,  the  privileges  of  the  family  are  his  in  virtue  of  birth. 
True,  his  present  or  continuous  enjoyment  of  them  depends  on  his  con- 
tinuing in  the  family,  and  in  being  properly  qualified  to  enjoy  them. 
Thus  a  birth  into  the  family  of  God  entitles  to  very  numerous,  various, 
and  glorious  privileges.  Like  a  king's  son,  he  is  born  to  a  fine  education, 
has  a  rich  estate,  and  much  glory  and  blessing  in  store.  The  child  of 
God  is  entitled  ip  the  finest  education.  God  is  the  author  of  three  grand 
works,  each  of  which  contains  many  volumes.  There  are  the  volumes 
of  nature,  of  providence,  and  of  redemption.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  his 
preceptor  in  studying  the  volumes  of  redemption,  and  this  gives  him  a 
more  profound  knowledge  of  all  the  others.  He  has  many  honorable  rela- 
tions. All  the  great,  and  noble,  and  honorable,  and  pure  spirits,  celestial 
and  terrestrial,  are  his  brethren  and  relatives.  God  is  his  father,  Jesus, 
the  supreme  Judge,  is  his  brother,  and  heaven  and  all  its  glories,  are  his 
inheritance.     Truly,  then,  he  is  rich  in  faith. 

But  the  question  in  debate  is,  does  rnere  birth  invest  any  one  with  all 
those  hereditaments,  privileges,  honors,  &c.  or  is  not  his  arriving  at  full 
majority,  at  a  manhood  stature,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  as 
well  as  through  the  belief  of  the  truth,  by  obeying,  from  the  heart,  the 
holy  precepts  of  Christ's  gospel,  essential  to  the  actual  possession  or 
enjoyment  of  all  these  immunities  and  honors? — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24— 12i  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — I  discover  that  my  friend  has  not  forgotten  the  events 
of  last  week.     My  exposure  of  his  translation,  continues  to  haunt  him. 
I  have  said  not  a  word  about  his  translation  to-day,  nor  yesterday.    Why, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  5II 

then,  is  he  now  bringing  up  again  these  old  matters  ?  Whilst  discuss- 
ing the  mode  of  baptism,  I  did  prove  that  his  translation  of  a  very  impor- 
tant verse  in  the  New  Testament,  is  no  translation,  but  a  very  great  per- 
version of  the  original.  Then  was  the  time  to  have  defended  his  trans- 
lation, if  he  could.  It  is  now  too  late.  But  he  seems  disposed  to  throw 
the  responsibility  of  this  gross  mistranslation  upon  Dr.  George  Camp- 
bell. But  has  he  not  adopted  it,  and  sent  it  forth  to  the  world  as 
his?  Did  he  not  make,  in  Dr.  Campbell's  translation,  various  emenda- 
tions ?     Why,  then,  did  he  not  rectify  this  most  remarkable  error  ? 

I  now  learn,  that  when  he  claimed  catholic  authority  in  favor  of  his 
doctrine,  he  meant,  not  popish,  but  universal  authority.  Now,  I  deny 
that  it  is  sustained  by  any  such  authority  ;  and  I  call  for  the  proof.  It  is 
not  a  little  singular  that  he  should  commence  a  radical  reformation,  pro- 
claiming all  the  world  in  error,  and  then  discover  that  almost  all  are  with 
him  !  I  deny  most  positively,  that  his  views  of  baptism  in  order  to  re- 
mission of  sins,  are  sustained  by  universal  authority, 

I  knew  that  I  was  touching  a  tender  point,  when  I  quoted  one  of  the 
most  prominent  ministers  of  his  cliurch  against  him;  but  I  cannot  help 
that.  In  looking  through  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  I  saw  that  Dr.  Fish- 
back  and  Mr.  Campbell  had  engaged  in  a  protracted  discussion  of  the 
very  doctrine  we  are  now  debating ;  and  that  the  doctor  was  decidedly  op- 
posed to  his  views.  I  paid  some  attention  to  his  arguments,  and  discov- 
ered that  Mr.  Campbell  did  not  answer  them  very  satisfactorily ;  and  I 
thought  it  might  be  well  to  give  him  some  of  those  arguments  to  answer 
now.  But,  he  says,  this  controversy  with  Dr.  Fishback  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  matter  before  us.  He  is  very  fond  of  quoting  Calvin  against 
Presbyterians ;  but  so  soon  as  I  quote  against  him  one  of  his  strongest 
men,  he  declares,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  before  us  ! 

Well,  he  is  very  catholic  in  iiis  views.  He  says,  his  church  does  not 
compel  all  their  ministry  to  adopt  the  same  opinions  and  speculations. 
But  are  we  now  debating  mere  opinions?  Is  his  doctrine  of  baptism,  in 
order  to  remission  of  sins,  an  opinion  or  a  speculation?  If  so,  the  gen- 
tleman is  certainly  running  contrary  to  his  own  published  principles ;  for 
he  has  maintained  that  no  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  has  the  right 
to  propagate  his  opitiions.  But  here  he  is,  in  a  public  debate,  propagating 
his  opinions  !  No ;  we  are  discussing  doctrines — matters  of  faith — not 
speculations  ;  and  unless  Mr.  C.  has  recenUy  succeeded  in  converting  the 
doctor,  they  differ  toto  ccelo,  not  about  speculations,  but  about  doctrines. 

But  is  Mr.  C.  really  so  catholic  in  his  views  and  feelings?  Would  he 
allow  me  to  preach  in  his  church,  unless  I  would  agree  to  be  immersed? 
I  trow  not.  Yet  how  can  he  consistently  exclude  me,  since  he  professes 
not  to  proscribe  men  for  their  opinions  ? 

I  will  not  charge  my  friend  with  courting  popularity  ;  but  I  will  say, 
that  he  has,  by  some  means,  happened  to  adopt  a  course  of  conduct  by 
which  he  has  secured  much  greater  popularity,  than  he  ever  could  have 
gained,  had  he  remained  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

But  he  is  resolved  to  make  me  a  heretic.  He  tells  you,  that  in  my 
•  exposition  of  Colossians  ii.  10,  11,1  have  gone  contrary  to  the  Confession 
of  Faith  But  that  is  a  book  which  he  seems  not  to  understand.  Neither 
Paul  nor  the  confession  teaches  the  necessity  of  baptism  in  order  to  re- 
mission of  sins.  Under  the  old  dispensation,  as  I  have  before  said, 
water,  the  emblem  of  purification,  was  constantly  associated  with  the 
Spirit  and  sanctitication.     So  under  the  new,  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is 


513  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

constantly  connected  with  regeneration,  which  is  called  baptism.  And 
Paul  speaks  of  "  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  just  as  Ezekiel  speaks  of 
cleansing  from  moral  pollution,  by  sprinkling  clean  water.  The  outward 
ordinance  serves  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  inward  grace.  So  Peter 
tells  us,  it  is  not  water-baptism  that  saves  us — "  not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God" — 
not  the  outward  baptism,  but  the  inward  grace,  of  which  it  is  the  sign  or 
emblem. 

The  gentleman  could  not  refer  to  this  passage,  without  trying  to  make 
an  argument  against  infant  baptism.  He  brought  up  that  subject  yester- 
day ;  and  to-day  we  have  it  again.  I  am  quite  sure  he  feels  very  much 
dissatisfied  with  his  performances  on  this  subject.  He  certainly  would 
not  recur  to  it  again  and  again,  if  he  believed  that  he  had  sustained  himself. 

I  will  now  resume  the  train  of  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  baptism 
in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  I  have  proved  that  this  doctrine  contradicts 
the  express  declarations  of  Christ,  who  said,  without  qualification,  "  He 
that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life."  The  gentleman  has  at- 
tempted to  evade  the  force  of  this  declaration,  by  making  the  word '  haM 
mean  may  have.  To  justify  this  most  unauthorized  perversion,  he 
refers  to  scriptures  which  speak  of  eternal  life  as  in  the  future,  as  the  ob- 
ject of  expectation  and  hope.  But  who  does  not  know,  that,  so  long  as 
eternity  endures,  the  righteous  will  be  looking  forward  and  anticipating 
increasing  blessing  and  glory.  If,  then,  we  cannot  possess  eternal  life, 
so  long  as  we  are  looking  forward,  we  can  never  possess  it. 

But  it  is  worse  than  vain  to  attempt  to  escape  the  force  of  such 
language,  presenting  the  same  truth  in  such  variety  of  forms.  The  Sa- 
vior said  to  Martha,  as  she  wept  for  her  deceased  brother,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live :  and  whosoever 
liveth  and  believeth  in  me,  shall  never  die  ;"  John  xi.  25,  26.  The  body 
may  die,  but  the  soul  never  will.  Pardoned,  sanctified,  and  saved,  it  will 
go  onward  and  upward,  ever  enjoying  the  perfection  of  present  felicity, 
and  ever  looking  to  future  and  greater  glory. 

But  there  is  one  passage  which  I  quoted,  to  which  I  cannot  arrest 
the  attention  of  the  gentleman,  viz :  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not 
condemned ;''^  John  iii.  18.  According  to  his  doctrine,  many  believers 
are  condemned.  The  Savior  says,  they  are  not.  Here  is  a  flat  contradic- 
tion. Paul,  too,  as  I  proved,  teaches  that  every  believer  is  justified — 
"justified  by  faith  ;"  Rom.  iii.  I  have  reminded  the  gentleman  of  these 
passages  repeatedly,  but  he  cannot  see  them  ! 

I  have  also  proved  his  doctrine  untrue  by  the  indisputable  facts,  that 
those  Avho  are  begotten,  or  born  of  God,  whether  baptized  or  not,  do  en- 
joy the  remission  of  their  sins.  But  he  asks,  why  run  away  from  the 
subject  under  discussion  to  the  new  birth  ?  Because  in  his  Avritings  I 
discovered  that  he  had  relied  very  much  on  the  new  birth  to  sustain  his 
views ;  for,  with  him,  baptism  is  the  new  birth,  and  is  designed  to  efl^ect 
a  change  of  state — a  passing  from  condemnation  to  justification.  I  see, 
in  his  Christianity  Restored,  he  has  attempted,  singularly  enough,  to 
illustrate  his  doctrine  by  representing  naturalization  in  our  country  as  a 
birth.  The  foreigner  who  emigrates  from  England  to  America,  and  is 
naturalized,  he  represents  as  born  of  America! !  !  And,  as  he  who  is 
born  of  America,  enjoys  the  privileges  of  a  citizen,  so  he,  who  is  born  of 
water,  enjoys  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Such  an  illus- 
tration, I  presume,  no  one  ever  thought  of  using  before ;  and  the  palpa- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  513 

ble  absurdity  of  it,  is  evidence  of  the  lameness  of  the  doctrine.  You 
see,  then,  I  was  not  running  from  the  subject  under  discussion,  but  run- 
ning into  it. 

There  are  some  remarkable  peculiarities  in  the  gentleman's  theology. 
He  teaches,  that  men  are  first  begotten  ivithout  the  water,  by  the  truth, 
and  then  born  of  water ;  and  the  water  he  represents  as  the  mother  of  all 
christians  ! ! !  The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  "  Jerusalem,  which  is  above, 
is  the  mother  of  us  all ;"  but  they  never  do  teach,  that  the  water  is  our 
mother  !  This  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  Mr.  Campbell's  theology  ! 
The  inspired  writers  never  speak  of  baptism  as  a  birth,  nor  of  water  as 
the  mother  of  believers.  This  fact,  Avhich  is  fatal  to  the  gentleman's  doc- 
trine, I  presume  he  will  not  answer. 

I  have  proved,  by  a  number  of  facts,  that  the  new  birth  is  not  at  all 
connected  with  baptism — that  our  Savior  had  no  reference,  particularly, 
to  baptism,  Avhen  he  said,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Mr.  Campbell  ad- 
mits, that  christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  when  the  Savior  uttered 
this  language;  and  how,  I  ask,  can  he  prove,  that  he  alluded  to  an  ordi- 
nance not  then  in  existence  1  He  may  take  it  for  granted,  but  lie  cannot 
furnish  a  particle  of  proof.  And  if  he  cannot,  his  doctrine  goes  by  the 
board.  Let  the  fact  not  be  forgotten,  that,  when  christian  baptism  was 
instituted,  it  was  never  called  a  birth.  The  expression,  born  of  God,  is 
intended  to  convey  to  our  minds  two  important  ideas,  viz :  1  That  the 
change  denoted  by  it,  constitutes  us  the  children  of  God ;  and  2.  That  it 
makes  us,  morally,  like  God — holy  in  heart.  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh,  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit." 

I  proved  on  yesterday,  (and  I  will  repeat  the  argument,)  that  every  one 
%vho  is  begotten  or  born  of  God,  enjoys  the  remission  of  sins.  John, 
the  apostle,  says,  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born 
of  God."  If  the  believer  is  born  of  God,  he  is  a  child ;  and  if  a  child, 
an  heir  of  God,  and  a  joint-heir  with  Christ.  It  will  scarcely  be  denied, 
that  the  sins  of  all  such  are  pardoned.  But  Mr.  Campbell  will  not  im- 
merse a  man  till  he  professes  to  believe,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ;  and, 
therefore,  he  cannot  immerse  him  till  he  is  born  of  God — is  a  child,  and 
is  in  possession  of  the  remission  of  sins.  Consequently,  his  doctrine, 
which  teaches,  that  sins  are  remitted  in  the  act  of  being  baptized,  and  not 
before,  is  untrue. 

The  gentleman  has  found  justification  in  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  sev- 
en causes.  So  he  informs  us ;  though  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove, 
that  the  whole  seven  amount  to  some  three  or  four.  For  example,  who 
imagines,  that  justification  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  by  Christ,  are  two 
distinct  causes ;  Is  the  name  of  Christ  one  thing,  and  Christ  himself 
another  ?  But  there  is  one  fatal  misfortune  connected  with  this  matter. 
It  is  this  :  baptism  is  not  one  of  those  seven  causes,  himself  being 
JUDGE  !  This  fact  being  indisputable,  I  would  not  care,  so  far  as  this  dis- 
cussion is  concerned,  if  justification  were  ascribed  to  forty  causes.  What 
are  these  seven  causes  ?  They  are,  as  enumerated  by  Mr.  Campbell,  the 
following:  "by  Christ,  his  name,  his  blood,  by  knowledge,  grace,  faith, 
and  by  works."  Now  where  is  baptism  ?  If  his  doctrine  be  true,  bap- 
tism is  one  of  the  most  important  causes  of  justification.  Yet,  amongst 
all  the  causes  to  which  he  says  it  is  ascribed,  he  cannot  find  it  mentioned ! 
If  only  baptism  had  been  once  mentioned  as  a  cause  of  justification,  how 
irresistibly  it  would  have  been  urged  by  my  friend  !  But  is  it  notmarvel- 
33 


5U  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

lous  to  hear  a  man  contending,  most  earnestly,  that  baptism  is  one  of  the 
most  important  causes  of  justification;  and  yet,  when  he  himself  enu- 
merates all  the  causes  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  and  increases  the  number 
by  making-  Christ  one  cause,  his  name  another,  and  his  blood  a  third,  he 
cannot  find  baptism  amongst  them  ! !  ! 

But  he  represents  us  as  relying  for  justification  and  salvation  on  faith 
alone.  We  hold  no  such  doctrine.  Our  confession  does  not  say,  that 
faith  alone  justifies  men.  It  teaches,  that  they  are  justified  on  account  of 
"  the  perfect  obedience  and  full  satisfaction  of  Christ,  by  God  imputed 
to  them,  and  received  by  faith  alone.'^  The  meritorious  ground  of  our 
justification,  is  the  obedience  of  Christ  inito  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross.  The  instrumental  cause  is  faith,  whereby  the  sinner,  conscious 
of  his  helpless  and  guilty  condition,  receives  and  rests  on  Christ  as  his 
only  Savior.  Neither  does  our  confession  teach,  that  men  can  be  justi- 
fied and  saved  who  do  not  live  holy  lives.  Faith  is  the  cause,  of -which 
good  works  are  the  necessary  and  uniform  etfect.  Hence  our  confession 
teaches,  that  "  Faith  is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever  ac- 
companied with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead  faith ;  but  worketh 
by  love."  As  the  cause  cannot  exist  without  producing  its  legitimate 
effect,  so  faith  cannot  exist  in  any  mind  without  producing  good  works. 

I  will  now  resume  the  argument  I  was  presenting  when  I  sat  down.  I 
was  proving,  that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  ascribes  to  an  external  ordinance 
an  unscriptural  importance  and  efiicacy.  The  one  thing  needful  is, 
throughout  the  Scriptiires,  declared  to  be  vital  piety — the  religion  of  the 
heart.  No  external  ordinance,  however  important,  was  ever  made  essen- 
tial to  the  remission  of  sins,  or  efticacious  in  securing  that  blessings. 
Circumcision,  which  was  quite  as  important  in  the  church  under  the 
former  dispensation,  as  baptism  now,  was  omitted,  as  I  stated,  during  the 
forty  years  of  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wiklerness ;  and  was 
then  administered,  on  their  arrival  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  adults  and 
infants.  Besides,  Paul  has  taught  us,  that  it  never  was  essential  in  order 
to  remission  of  sins. 

I  was  a  little  surprised  to  hear  the  gentleman  proclaim  his  belief,  that 
eternal  life  was  not  ofi'ered  to  the  Jews — that  their  religion  was  a  mere 
temporal  affair.  David  prayed  for  remission  of  sins  and  for  sanctifica- 
tion,  (Psal.  li.)  and  looked  for  eternal  salvation.  Abraham,  by  faith, 
"  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,  •whose  builder  and  maker  is 
God."  By  faith,  Moses  "  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches 
than  the  treasures  in  Egypt;  for  he  had  respect  unto  the  recompense  of 
the  reward,"  (Heb.  xi.)  The  ancient  patriarchs  and  servants  of  God 
walked  by  faith,  "died  in  faith,"  and  were  received  up  to  glory. 

But  it  was  the  capital  error  of  the  Jews,  in  the  most  corrupt  period  of 
their  history,  that  they  sought  to  be  justified  by  their  own  righteousness  ; 
which  they  made  to  consist  chiefly  in  their  punctilious  attention  to  ex- 
ternal rites  and  forms.  How  often  did  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  teach 
them  the  impossibility  of  securing  justification  by  attending  on  any  of 
those  ordinances,  or  upon  all  of  them.  Never  was  it  necessary  for  the 
Savior,  whilst  on  earth,  to  rebuke  the  Jews  for  undervaluing  external  or- 
dinances ;  but  how  frequently  did  he  reprove  them  for  attaching  to  them 
an  undue  importance  and  efficacy  ! 

The  Jewish  law  contained  two  principal  classes  of  ordinances,  the 
bloody  sacrifices  and  the  washings.  These  were,  as  Paul  says,  "  a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come."     The  former  pointed  to  the  cross  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  515 

Christ,  on  which  he  should  by  one  offering  perfect  them  that  are  sancti- 
fied ;  the  latter  pointed  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  sanctifying  the 
hearts  of  men.  The  bloody  sacrifices  taught  men  their  guilt  and  pointed 
them  to  the  remedy,  the  blood  of  Christ;  and  the  ablutions  taught  them 
their  depravity  and  pointed  them  to  the  remedy,  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Jews,  in  their  blindness,  lost  sight  of  the  promised  Savior,  the 
glorious  substance,  clung  with  the  most  perverse  tenacity  to  the  mere 
shadow,  and  fondly  imagined,  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  could 
atone  for  sin.  They  also  lost  sight  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  his  agency 
in  sanctifying  the  heart,  and  relied  for  purification  upon  external  ablu- 
tions. In  their  blind  zeal  they  even  added  other  ablutions  to  those 
divinely  appointed,  and  incessantly  washed  the  outside  of  the  "cup  and 
the  platter,"  leaving  the  inside  in  its  impurity.  They  could  not  even  sit 
down  to  eat  when  they  came  from  the  market  or  a  public  place,  till  they 
had  washed  their  hantls.  And  not  only  were  they  most  conscientious  in 
their  observance  of  the  sacrifices  and  washings  ;  but  in  i-egard  to  all  ex- 
ternal forms  and  ordinances,  however  unimportant,  they  were  zealous  in 
their  observance.  The  reproof  uttered  by  our  Savior,  in  view  of  this 
state  of  things,  contains  a  principle  which  should  never  be  lost  sight  of. 
"  Wo  unto  you,  scribes  and  pharisees,  hypocrites !  for  ye  pay  tithe  of 
mint,  and  anise,  and  cummin,  and  have  omitted  the  weightier  matters  of 
the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  andfaith,^^  Matt,  xxiii.  23. 

But  this  error  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews.  At  a  very  early  period  in 
the  history  of  the  christian  church,  we  find  the  same  disposition  devel- 
oped. It  was  not  long  until,  losing  sight  of  the  true  nature  and  design 
of  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  memorial  of  his  sufferings,  christians  regarded 
the  partaking  of  it  as  essential  to  salvation,  and  attached  to  it  some  mys- 
terious efficacy  in  imparting  grace.  Step  by  step  they  proceeded,  until, 
having  lost  sight  of  the  cross  which  it  was  intended  ever  to  keep  in  full 
view,  they  deified  the  bread  and  the  wine,  and  strangely  imagined  that 
the  mystic  words  of  the  priest  converted  these  elements  into  the  body, 
blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ ! !  This  was  the  perfection  of  human 
folly.  But  baptism,  the  other  sacrament,  was  almost  equally  perverted. 
It  was,  at  an  early  day,  considered  essential  to  salvation.  The  Holy  Spi- 
rit was  supposed  to  sanctify  the  heart  at  the  moment  when  baptism  was 
administered ;  and  those  who  died  without  baptism  were  supposed  to  be 
lost.  They  proceeded  even  further,  and,  to  impart  greater  virtue  to  the 
water,  they  consecrated  it,  and  thus  baptized  with  holy  ivater! 

This  error  has  been  common  to  human  nature,  in  all  ages,  as  the 
thousand  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  various  systems  of  pagan  mytho- 
logy demonstrate. 

This,  precisely,  is  the  error  into  which  Mr.  Campbell  has  run.  In- 
deed he  seems,  in  one  respect,  to  have  gone  further  into  extremes,  than 
the  christians  of  the  third  and  succeeding  centuries.  They  made  exter- 
nal ordinances  essential  to  salvation ;  but  he  makes  the  mode  of  an  ordi- 
nance essential !  He  not  only  insists  that  baptism  is  essential  to  secure 
remission  of  sin  ;  but  the  water  must  be  applied  in  a  particular  mode,  or, 
according  to  his  theology,  it  answers  no  purpose!  In  this  almost  univer- 
sal error  of  attaching  unscriptural  importance  and  efficacy  to  extern^ 
rites,  he  has  gone  further  than  any  one  of  whom  I  have  heard  or  read. 

To  show  the  audience  the  wonderful  efficacy  he  ascribes  to  baptism,  I 
will  read  an  extract  from  his  debate  with  McCalla :   (p.  137.) 

"  He  appointed  baptism  to  be,  to  every  one  that  believed  tlie  record  he 


516  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

has  given  of  his  Son,  a  formal  pledge  on  his  part  of  that  believer's  personal 
acquittal  or  pardon :  so  signiticant,  and  so  expressive,  that  vi^hen  the  bap- 
tized believer  rises  out  of  tlie  water,  is  born  of  water,  enters  the  world  a 
second  time,  he  enters  it  as  innocent,  as  clean,  as  unspotted,  as  an 
ANGEL.  His  conscience  is  purged  from  guilt,  his  body  washed  with  pure 
water,  even  the  washing  of  regeneration.  He  puts  himself  under  the  priest- 
hood of  Jesus,  under  his  tuition  and  government.  If  afterwards  he  sins, 
through  the  weakness  and  corruption  of  human  nature,  or  the  temptation  of 
the  adversary,  lie,  in  the  spirit  of  repentance,  comes  to  his  Advocate,  con- 
fesses his  fault,  and  obtains  pardon." 

I  think  it  must  be  admitted,  that  he  ascribes  wonderful  virtue  to  baptism  ! 

The  last  argument  against  this  doctrine,  which  I  shall  now  offer,  is 
this  :  Mr.  Campbell  himself  says,  it  is  not  true  !  This  statement 
will  doubtless  surprise  the  audience  ;  but  nevertheless  it  is  certain,  that  the 
gentleman  himself  has  said,  that  the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  now  con- 
tending is  not  true.  I  will  prove  this  assertion  by  reading  from  his 
debate  with  McCalla:   (p.  135.) 

"  The  water  of  baptism,  then,  formally  washes  away  our  sins.  The  blood 
of  Christ  really  washes  away  our  sins.  PauVs  sins  wei'e  really  pardoned 
when  he  believed;  yet  he  had  no  solemn  pledge  of  the  fact,  no  formal  acquit- 
tal, no  formal  purgation  of  his  sins,  until  he  washed  them  away  in  the 
water  of  baptism." 

I  could  shake  hands  with  my  friend  over  this  sentiment,  and  we  might 
have  something  like  christian  icnion.  What  does  he  say  ?  "  Paul's  sins 
were  really  pardoned,  when  he  believed."  This  is  all  for  which  I  am 
contending — that  the  sins  of  every  individual  are  really  pardoned,  when 
he  believes.  I  quoted  Dr.  Fishback,  a  little  while  ago,  one  of  his  right- 
hand  men,  in  favor  of  this  doctrine ;  and  now  I  have  Mr.  Campbell 
himself  on  my  side.  It  must  be  conceded,  that  I  have  the  two  most 
distinguished  men  in  the  gentleman's  church  sustaining  the  views  for 
which  I  am  contending.  Now  it  is  no  part  of  my  business  to  reconcile 
the  doctrine  here  taught,  with  what  he  has  elsewhere  inculcated,  or  with 
what  he  is  now  inculcating.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  he  has  said,  that 
the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  now  contending  is  not  true  !  If  he  has  since 
changed  his  views,  and  is  disposed  to  retract  what  he  has  here  published 
^very  well.  But  so  long  as  I  have  Mr.  C.  on  my  side,  it  will  be  ad- 
mitted that,  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned,  I  am  safe. 

I  will  read  again  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  vol.  iii.  p.  304.  The 
article  was  written  in  reply  to  Dr.  Fishback,  who  was  contending,  that  the 
remission  of  a  man's  sins  is  not  suspended  upon  his  being  baptized.  Mr. 
C.  remarks:  "You  [Dr.  F.]  say,  'the  essential  point  of  difference  be- 
tween you  and  me  is  suggested  in  the  following  question ;  Is,  or  is 
not,  the  free  favor  of  God,  by  which  he  justifies  the  believing  sinner,  or 
remits  his  sin,  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  suspended,  according  to  the 
Gospel,  upon  his  being  baptized  in  water?  You  [Mr.  Campbell]  defend 
the  affirmative,  and  I  [Dr.  F.]  maintain  the  negative  side  of  the  ques- 
tion.' Now,"  remarks  Mr.  C.,  "  let  me  tell  you  that  /  maintain  the 
negative  too.  So  we  are  both  agreed  !  Because,  mark  me  closely,  I  do 
admit  that  a  person  who  believes  the  Gospel,  and  cannot  be  immersed, 
may  obtain  remission.^^ 

This  admission  is  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  baptism  in  order  to  remission 
of  sins.  I  may  believe  the  Gospel  to-day,  but  may  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  receive  baptism  before  to-morrow,  next  week,  or  next  month. 
Now  am   I  under  condemnation  till  to-morrow,  next  week,  or  next 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  517 

month?  It  is  surely  most  undesirable  to  be  under  condemnation,  even  for 
a  single  night ;  because,  during  that  time,  the  person  is  exposed  to  eter- 
nal death.  Every  one  who  truly  believes  in  Christ,  is  disposed,  at  once, 
to  obey  every  command,  as  he  understands  it.  But  suppose  an  indivi- 
dual mistakes  something  else  for  baptism,  and  believes  that  he  has  beeu 
baptized,  when  he  has  not;  is  he  under  condemnation  because  of  this 
error?  Mr.  Campbell  expresses  the  opinion  that  he  is  not.  In  the  Mil- 
lenial  Harbinger,  he  expresses  the  opinion  that  there  are  some  christians 
among  "the  sects."  For  this  charitable  (!)  opinion,  some  of  his  zealous 
coadjutors  found  fault  with  him,  as  having,  by  expressing  such  an  opin- 
ion, crippled  their  efforts  in  the  laudable  work  of  reformation.  He  re- 
iterates the  opinion,  and  writes  as  follows  : 

"  In  reply  to  this  conscientious  sister,  I  observe,  that  if  there  be  no 
christians  in  the  Protestant  sects,  there  are  certainly  none  among  the  Ro- 
manists, none  among  the  Jews,  Turks,  pagans  ;  and  therefore  no  christians 
in  the  world  except  ourselves,  or  such  of  us  as  keep,  or  strive  to  keep,  all 
the  commandments  of  Jesus.  Therefore,  for  many  centuries  there  has  been 
no  church  of  Christ,  no  christians  in  the  world  ;  and  the  promises  concern- 
ing the  everlasting  kingdom  of  Messiah  have  failed,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
have  prevailed  against  his  church!  This  cannot  be;  and  therefore  there 
are  christians  among  the  sects. 

But  who  is  a  christian?  I  answer,  every  one  that  believes  in  his  heart 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God  ;  repents  of  his  sins, 
and  obeys  him  in  all  things  according  to  his  measure  of  knowledge  of  his 
will*     *     *     %     * 

I  cannot,  therefore,  make  any  one  duty  the  standard  of  christian  state  or 
character,  not  even  immersion  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  my  heart  regard  all  that  have  been  sprinkled  in 
infancy  without  their  own  knowledge  and  consent,  as  aliens  from  Christ 
and  the  well-grounded  hope  of  heaven.  '  Salvation  was  of  the  Jews,'  ac- 
knowledged the  Messiah  ;  and  yet  he  said  of  a  foreigner,  an  alien  from  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,  a  Syro-Phceniciau,  '  I  have  not  found  so  great 
faith — no,  not  in  Israel.' 

Should  I  find  a  Pedo-baptist  more  intelligent  in  the  christian  Scriptures, 
more  spiritually-minded  and  more  devoted  to  the  Lord  than  a  Baptist,  or 
one  immersed  on  a  profession  of  the  ancient  faith,  I  could  not  hesitate  a 
moment  in  giving  the  preference  of  my  heart  to  him  that  loveth  most.  Did 
f  act  otherwise,  I  would  be  a  pure  sectarian,  a  pharisee  among  christians. 
Still  I  will  be  asked,  how  do  I  know  that  any  one  loves  my  Master  but  by 
his  obedience  to  his  commandments'?  I  answer,  in  no  other  way.  But 
mark,  I  do  not  substitute  obedience  to  one  commandment,  for  universal,  or 
even  for  general  obedience.  And  should  I  see  a  sectarian  Baptist  or  a  Pedo- 
baptist  more  spiritually-minded,  more  generally  conformed  to  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  Messiah,  than  one  who  precisely  acquiesces  with  me  in  the 
theory  or  practice  of  immersion  as  I  teachk  doubtless  the  former  rather  than 
the  latter,  would  have  my  cordial  approbation  and  love  as  a  christian.  So 
I  judge,  and  so  I  feel.  It  is  the  image  of  Christ  the  christian  looks  for  and 
loves  ;  and  this  does  not  consist  in  being  exact  in  a  few  items,  but  in  gene- 
ral devotion  to  the  whole  truth  as  far  as  known. 

With  me  mistakes  of  the  understanding  and  errors  of  the  affections  are 
not  to  be  confounded.  They  are  as  distant  as  the  poles.  An  angel  may 
mistake  the  meaning  of  a  commandment,  but  he  will  obey  it  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  understands  it  John  Bunyan  and  John  Newton  were  very  differ- 
ent persons,  and  had  very  dilierent  views  of  baptism,  and  of  some  other 
things;  yet  they  were  both  disposed  to  obey,  and  to  the  extent  of  their 
knowledge  did  obey  the  Lord  in  every  thing.     *     *     *     * 

Now,  unless  I  could  prove  that  all  who  neglect  the  positive  institutions 

2X 


518  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  Christ,  and  have  substituted  for  them  something  else  of  human  authority, 
do  it  knowingly,  or,  if  not  knowingly,  are  voluntarily  ignorant  of  what  is 
written,  I  could  not,  I  dare  not  say  that  their  mistakes  are  such  as  unchris- 
tianize  all  their  professions." — J\Iill.  Harb.  JVt'w  Se.  vol.  i.  pp.  411,  412,  413. 

John  Bunyan  and  John  Newton  had  very  different  views  of  baptism; 
and  yet  they  were  christians.  This  is  quite  orthodox.  It  is  just  saying 
that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  the  remission  of  sins.  Paul's  sins 
were  pardoned,  he  tells  us,  when  he  believed.  So  we  believe.  And  we 
believe  that  all  others  will  be  pardoned,  who  believe  in  Jesus  Christ.  I 
have  Mr.  C.  and  Dr.  Fishback  with  me  to  day;  and  as  I  am  in  so  good 
company,  I  will  just  close  here. — ^Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  seventh  address. J 

Mr.  President — If  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  had  thought  more  profound- 
ly on  the  subjects  submitted  to  his  reflection,  and  on  which  he  has  been 
speaking,  he  would  likely  have  discovered  that  there  is  not  the  least  con- 
tradiction between  my  first  and  last  views  on  the  style  of  the  apostle 
Paul.  He  does  not,  indeed,  always  speak  in  the  same  words.  Mr.  Rice 
has  only  demonstrated  in  these  remarks,  how  much,  on  former  occasions, 
he  has  misrepresented  me.  In  the  manner  and  in  the  matter  of  his  ob- 
jections and  reasonings,  he  only  certifies  us  of  the  truth,  and  confirms  us 
in  the  justice  of  our  conclusions. 

In  the  beginning,  he  gave  a  wrong  view  of  my'sentrments  as  written 
and  published,  especially  in  some  one  or  two  points,  to  which  I  shall 
now  call  your  attention.  The  gentleman,  with  great  emphasis,  expati- 
ates on  the  seven  causes  of  justification,  exhibited  in  the  extracts  read 
from  the  Christian  System.  He  says  there  are  not  so  many.  1  have 
given  chapter  and  verse  for  every  one  of  them.  He  says,  with  a  sort  of 
dolorous  sympathy,  that  not  one  of  them  alludes  to  baptism.  We  have 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  then  we  have  the  Lord  himself,  without  the 
name.  The  highest  authority  in  the  universe  is  his  name.  What  is  the 
person  of  the  hero,  compared  with  the  name  of  the  victor?  The  name 
is  sometimes  a  great  deal  more  important  than  the  person.  No  matter 
who  is  king,  it  is  the  name  of  the  king  that  gives  validity  to  the  acts  of 
the  government.  The  name  of  the  Lord  is  here  mentioned.  I  did  not 
quote  the  whole  passage;  but  I  will  now  read  it.  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  "Such 
were  some  of  you :  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'^ 
Here  we  have  washing,  justification,  and  sanctification — and  all  of  them 
collectively  and  severally  represented  as  being  alone,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.  Evident,  then,  it  is,  that  this 
washing  is  done  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  as  well  as  that  we  are  justified 
in  his  name.  What  other  than  the  baptismal  washing  is  performed  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  ?  The  apostle  assigns  adequate  causes  for  this 
great  change.  The  name  of  the  Lord  put  upon  any  person  by  a  divine 
warrant,  is  no  ordinary  matter;  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  given  to  any 
one,  is  competent  to  his  victory  over  all  iniquity.  Were  I  to  analyze 
and  argue  at  length  the  two  positions  in  this  verse,  as  I  understand  them, 
we  would  probably  find  that  we  have  the  same  two  causes  associated 
here,  which  we  have  already  found  four  times  connected,  in  this  great 
work  of  pardon  and  renovation ;  for  if  we  are  immersed  into  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  we  are  justified  by  his  name ;  and  if  we  are  sanctified  by  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM,  519 

Spirit  of  our  God,  we  are  at  once  fitted  for  the  high  enjoyments  of  the 
christian  rank  and  calling.  I  conceive,  then,  that  we  are  represented 
here,  as  in  other  scriptures,  as  being  justified  by  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
believing  iyi  him.,  in  baptism  ;  and  that  we  are  also  sanctified  by  his  Spi- 
rit. And,  if  so,  does  not  baptism  stand  as  high  here  as  in  the  commis- 
sion, according  to  Mark  ;  and,  also,  in  good  keeping  with  Peter,  on  Pen- 
tecost, and  in  his  first  epistle  ? 

With  regard  to  the  passage  which  has  been  so  often  quoted  from  John, 
I  shall  still  notice  it  farther  in  its  proper  place.  Indeed,  it  has  been  fully 
disposed  of  already,  in  the  remarks  offered  on  yesterday.  My  friend 
has  intimated  that  I  wished  to  evade  it.  This  is  only  in  harmony  with 
his  policy.  When  he  wishes  you  to  think  he  has  a  strong  and  convin- 
cing fact,  or  argument,  he  takes  this  method  of  gaining  it  credit.  Have  I 
not,  however,  given  you,  on  this  class  of  texts,  something  stronger  than 
such  insinuating  assertions  ? — those,  to  you,  are  common  now  as  house- 
hold words  ? 

I  proceed  to  ilhistrate  those  passages  read  from  the  Debate  with  Mc- 
Calla,  and  from  the  Harbinger.  In  order  to  dispense  with  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  baptism,  the  gentleman  remarked,  that  as  a  man  cannot 
baptize  himself,  it  would  be  incongruous  to  suspend  a  matter  so  essen- 
tially necessary,  upon  the  contingency  of  extrinsic  help  from  another 
person.  This,  perhaps,  to  some  weak  minds,  might  assume  the  form  of 
a  solid  objection  to  the  value  of  the  institution.  A  man  cannot  baptize 
himself,  nor  can  he  be  baptized  without  an  administrator  and  without 
water.  Well,  formidable  though  it  appear,  I  am  willing  to  meet  it  in  all 
its  wisdom  and  strength.  I  frankly  admit  the  possibiJit)'-  of  the  contin- 
gency. Still,  if  there  be  any  wisdom  or  potency  in  the  objection  drawn 
from  it,  it  lies  just  as  much  in  the  way  of  my  opponent,  as  in  my  way. 
It  requires  both  water  and  an  administrator  with  him.  But  the  difference 
is  in  his  favor,  for  he  requires  less  water,  and  attaches  much  less  conse- 
quence to  the  ordinance.  That,  however,  avails  nothing  as  to  the  real 
value  of  the  objection.  We  will,  therefore,  select  another  case,  in  the 
importance  of  which  we  will  equally  agree — the' sending  of  the  gospel 
to  the  heathen.  Now  Mr.  Rice  believes,  that  a  knowledge  of  the  name 
ef  the  Lord  is  essential  to  salvation  ;  for  where  no  vision  is,  the  people 
perish.  Now  whether  the  people  of  remote  countries  shall  ever  hear  the 
gospel,  is  made  dependent  upon  the  instrumentality  of  other  persons  than 
themselves.  Some  persons  must  be  sent  to  them  with  the  Bible — it  must 
be  translated  into  their  tongues,  and  persons  must  be  found  to  do  it. 
Now  in  case  of  the  failure  of  any  of  these  contingencies,  the  salvation 
of  the  pagans  is  impossible.  The  question,  then,  arises  :  Is  the  Bible 
necessary  to  salvation,  or  the  promulgation  of  the  truths  in  it  ?  Mr. 
Rice  says.  Yes.  Well,  tiien,  let  him  reconcile  this  contingency  first, 
before  he  demands  of  me  to  reconcile  the  one  he  has  feigned  on  baptism. 
I  say  feigned  ;  for  while  I  have  given  him  a  real  difficulty,  on  his  princi- 
ples, his  is  but  a  feigned  difficulty  on  my  principles.  Because  I  do  not 
make  baptism  absolutely  essential  to  salvation  in  any  case,  while  he 
makes  the  knowledge  of  Christ  absolutely  necessary  in  all  cases.  Let 
him  adjust  these  matters  at  home,  before  he  goes  abroad  with  feigned 
difficulties  ! 

There  is  nothing  that  does  not  depend  upon  contingencies  of  some 
sort :  but  according  to  our  teaching,  there  is  no  one  required  to  be  bap- 
tLzed  where  baptism   cannot  be  had.     Baptism,  where  there  is  no  faith. 


520  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

no  water,  no  person  to  administer,  was  never  demanded  as  an  indispen- 
sable condition  of  salvation,  by  Him  who  has  always  enjoined  upon  man 
"  mercy,  rather  than  sacrifice. " 

Still,  there  have  been  matters  of  great  moment  suspended  upon  contin- 
gencies. A  person  who  had  committed  a  specified  trespass,  according  to 
the  law  of  Moses,  who  had  in  copartnery  wronged  the  company,  or  who 
had  violated  a  pledge,  or  taken  away  property  feloniously,  or  by  falsifi- 
cation, could  not  be  pardoned  only  on  certain  conditions.  He  must 
make  restitution  of  the  principal,  he  must  add  twenty  per  cent.,  or  one- 
fifth,  to  it  :  he  must  then  find  a  priest,  and  an  ofTering,  and  go  to  the 
priest,  make  confession  of  his  sin,  and  have  him  to  offer  and  intercede 
for  him,  or  he  could  not  obtain  remission. 

When  Jesus  said  to  the  apostles,  "  Whose  sins  soever  you  retain  are 
retained,  and  whose  sins  soever  you  remit  are  remitted  to  them,"  there 
was  contingency  in  it ;  for  they  were  not  omnipresent,  nor  could  they 
write  or  speak  to  the  whole  world.  These  are  weak,  very  weak,  objec- 
tions, and  as  unreasonable  as  weak. 

We  must  now  hear  Calvin.  Mr.  Rice  has  given  you  a  specimen  of 
my  manner  of  quoting  authorities.  We  shall  now  have  a  specimen  of 
his,  [io  me  inimitable.')  art  of  mystification,  and,  as  charity  would  have  it, 
involuntary  perversion.  Calvin  wrote  every  idea  I  have  read  you,  and 
no  one  of  ordinary  candor,  in  my  opinion,  can  misconceive  it.  A  ques- 
tion may  possibly  arise  in  some  minds,  whether  Calvin  did  not  contradict 
himself.  But  that  I  have  fairly  and  fully  given  you  his  words,  there  can 
be  no  doubt. 

I  will  read  a  few  extracts  from  book  iv.  vol.  ii.  indicative  of  the  fact 
that  he  has  spoken  as  plainly  as  I  have  done,  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism for  remission :   (Book  iv.  chap.  xv.  sec.  5,  6,  7.) 

"  By  baptism  Christ  has  made  us  partakers  of  his  death,  in  order  that  we 
may  be  engrafted  into  it.  And  as  the  scion  derives  substance  and  nourish- 
ment from  the  root  on  which  it  is  engrafted  ;  so  they,  who  receive  baptism 
with  the  faith  with  which  they  ought  to  receive  it,  truly  experience  the 
efficacy  of  Christ's  death  in  the  mortification  of  the  flesh,  and  also  the  ener- 
gy of  his  resurrection  in  the  vivification  of  the  spirit." 

The  doctrine  of  John  Calvin  is  the  doctrine  of  the  confession  of  faith. 
Observe  the  following  extract ; 

"  6th.  The  last  advantage  v/hich  our  faith  receives  from  baptism,  is  the 
certain  testimony  it  affords  us,  that  we  are  not  only  engrafted  into  the  life 
and  death  of  Christ,  but  are  so  united  as  to  be  partakers  of  all  his  benefits." 

This  is  all  we  contend  for.  Calvin  saw  the  same  design  in  John's 
baptism  as  in  christian  baptism. 

"7th.  Hence  also  it  is  very  certain  that  the  ministry  of  John  was  precise- 
ly the  same  as  that  which  was  afterwards  committed  to  the  apostles.  For 
their  baptism  was  not  difTerent,  though  it  was  administered  by  different 
hands  ;  but  the  sameness  of  their  doctrine  shews  their  baptism  to  have  been 
the  same.  John  and  the  apostles  agreed  in  the  same  doctrine ;  both  bap- 
tized to  repentance,  both  to  remission  of  sins  ;  both  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  from  whom  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  proceed." 

This  may  be  regarded  as  going  too  far  in  some  particulars.  Still  it 
strikingly  evinces  his  belief  that  all  baptisms  were  for  remission  of  sins. 
On  John's  baptism,  as  on  the  design  of  christian  baptism,  Mr.  Rice  repu- 
diates Calvin.     (Book  iv.  sec.  4.  II  :) 

"  I  know  the  common  opinion  is,  that  remission  of  sins,  which  at  our  6rst 
legeneration  we  receive  by  baptism  alone  is  afterwards  received  by  repent- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  521 

ance  and  the  benefit  of  the  keys.  But  the  advocates  of  this  opinion  have 
fallen  into  an  error,  for  want  of  considering  that  the  power  of  the  keys,  of 
which  they  speak,  is  so  dependent  on  baptism,  that  it  cannot  by  any  means 
be  separated  from  it.  It  is  true,  that  the  sinner  receives  remission  by  the 
ministry  of  the  church,  but  not  without  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  Now 
what  is  the  nature  of  that  preaching  .'  That  we  are  cleansed  from  our  sins 
by  the  blood  of  Christ.  What  sign  and  testimony  of  that  absolution  is 
there,  except  baptism! 

11th.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  we  are  baptized  into  the  mortification 
of  the  flesh,  which  commences  in  us  at  baptism,  which  we  pursue  from  day 
to  day,  and  which  will  be  perfected  when  we  shall  pass  out  of  this  life  to 
the  Lord." 

We  shall  give  you  a  little  more  of  his  remarks  on  the  case  of  Cor- 
nelius than  Mr.  Rice  gave  you,  that  we  may  comprehend  the  apparent 
contradiction. 

"  15th.  We  may  see  this  exemplified  in  Cornelius  the  centurion,  who, 
after  having  received  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  the  visible  graces  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  was  baptized  :  not  with  a  view  to  obtain  by  baptism  a  more 
ample  remission  of  sins,  but  a  stronger  exercise  of  faith,  and  an  increase  of 
confidence  from  that  pledge.  Perhaps  it  may  be  objected,  wliy  then  did 
Ananias  say  to  Paul,  '  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sin,'  if 
sins  are  not  washed  away  by  the  efficacy  of  baptism  itself]  I  answer,  we 
are  said  to  receive  or  obtain  that  which  our  faith  apprehends  as  presented 
to  us  by  the  Lord,  whether  at  the  time  that  he  first  declares  it  to  us,  or 
when  by  any  subsequent  testimony  he  affords  us  a  more  certain  confirma- 
tion of  it.  Ananias,  therefore,  only  intended  to  say  to  Paul,  '  That  thou 
mayest  be  assured  that  thy  sins  are  forgiven,  be  baptized :  for  in  baptism 
the  Lord  promises  remission  of  sins;  receive  this,  and  be  secure.'    *     *     * 

Nevertheless,  from  this  sacrament,  as  from  all  others,  we  obtain  nothing 
except  what  we  receive  by  faith.  If  faith  be  wanting,  it  will  be  a  testi- 
mony of  our  ingratitude,  to  accuse  us  before  God,  because  we  have  not  be- 
lieved the  promise  given  in  the  sacrament :  but  as  baptism  is  a  sign  of  our 
confession,  we  ought  to  testify  by  it,  that  our  confidence  is  in  the  mercy  of 
God,  and  our  purity  in  the  remission  of  sins,  which  is  obtained  for  us  by 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  we  enter  into  the  church  of  God,  in  order  to  live  in 
the  same  harmony  of  faith  and  charity,  of  one  mind  with  all  the  faithful. 
This  is  what  Paul  meant  when  he  said,  that  '  by  one  spirit  we  are  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body.'" 

I  agree  with  Calvin,  as  I  understand  him.  We  receive  remission  of 
sins  in  anticipation  through  faith,  as  Cornelius  did;  and  with  a  clear 
assurance  and  solemn  pledge  through  baptism.  We  must  take  all  that 
Calvin  has  said  on  the  subject,  before  we  fully  comprehend  his  meaning. 
I  have  therefore  given  a  full  outline  of  his  whole  views  on  the  subject. 

The  case  of  Cornelius  is  urged,  as  a  proof  that  I  have  either  miscon- 
strued or  misstated  Calvin's  views  of  baptism  for  remission.  But  a  care- 
ful examination  of  these  extracts  will  only  show  that  the  gentleman  is 
mistaken.  Calvin  repudiates  the  idea  of  receiving  remission  by  the  mere 
act  of  baptism  without  faith.  His  doctrine  is,  that  through  baptism  we 
are  said  to  receive  that  which  our  faith  apprehends  as  presented  to  us  by 
the  Lord,  "  whether  at  the  time  that  he  first  declares  it  to  us,  or  ivhen 
by  any  subsequent  testimony  he  affords  us  a  more  certain  confirmation 
of  it."     Another  extract  corroborates  this:  (Book  iv.  chap.  15.  sec.  17.) 

"  Now,  since  by  the  grace  of  God  we  have  begun  to  repent,  we  accuse 
our  blindness  and  hardness  of  heart  for  our  long  ingratitude  to  hie  great 
goodness.  Yet  we  believe  that  the  promise  itself  never  expired ;  but  on 
the  contrary,  we  reason  in  the  following  manner :  By  baptism  God  promises 
remission  of  sins,  and  will  certainly  fulfill  the  promise  to  all  believers:  that 

2x2 


522  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

promise  was  offered  to  us  in  baptism ;  let  us  therefore  embrace  it  by  faith: 
it  was  long  dormant  by  reason  of  our  unbelief:  now  then  let  us  receive  it 
by  faith." 
His  views  of  baptism  extend  still  farther,  as  the  following  extract  shows  : 

"  Baptism  is  also  attended  with  another  advantage :  it  shews  us  our  mor- 
tification in  Christ,  and  our  new  life  in  him.  For,  as  the  apostle  says,  '  So 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death: 
therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  we  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life.'  In  this  passage  he  does  not  merely  exhort  us  to 
an  imitation  of  Christ,  as  if  he  had  said,  that  we  are  admonished  by  bap- 
tism, that  after  the  example  of  his  death  we  should  die  to  sin,  and  that  after 
the  example  of  his  resurrection  we  should  rise  to  righteousness  ;  but  he 
goes  considerably  further,  and  teaches  us  that,"  dec. — Calviri's  Institutes,  vol. 
)i.  book  ii.  chap.  xv.  sec.  5. 

Now,  as  I  understand  this,  it  substantially  accords  with  the  case  read 
from  the  Harbinger.  I  believe  that  when  a  person  apprehends  the  gos- 
pel and  embraces  the  Messiah  in  his  soul,  he  has  in  anticipation  received 
the  blessing.  His  mind  finds  peace  in  the  Lord.  "  He  rejoices  with  joy 
unspeakable  and  full  of  glory."  He  anticipates  the  end  of  his  faith — his 
actual  emancipation  from  sin.  In  his  heart  he  dies  unto  sin,  and  by  his 
burial  and  resurrection  with  the  Lord,  he  thus  formally  receives,  what 
was  at  first  received  by  faith  in  anticipation. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  Calvin  with  myself,  any  more  than 
with  Paul,  and  the  other  New  Testament  writers.  It  is,  however,  nothing 
to  me,  nor  you,  what  Calvin's  opinions  were.  Calvin,  like  other  men, 
had  his  errors  and  defects.  He  did  not  always  select  the  most  apposite 
terms.  I  do  not  say  that  I  have  invariably  used  the  words  which  I  ought 
to  have  used.  This  confession  of  faith  has  been  amended,  often  amended, 
in  some  points,  and  it  yet  needs  other  emendations.  The  gentleman  said 
I  had  not  the  concurrent  assent  of  the  universal  church.  I  believe  there 
is  not  a  proposition  in  the  universe  that  can  be  proved  in  that  sense  of 
universality.  There  is  nothing  absolutely  universal.  I  never  heard  of 
any  opinion  or  tenet,  approved  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  church, 
or  of  the  whole  family  of  man.  I  did  not  intend,  sir,  to  speak  of  indi- 
vidual men,  women  and  children ;  but  when  I  spoke  of  the  whole  chris- 
tian world,  in  terms  of  the  most  extensive  universality,  I  meant  all 
parties,  sects,  and  denominations,  in  the  old  world  and  in  the  new.  I 
have  made  my  appeal  to  Greek  fathers,  Latin  fathers,  synods,  councils, 
special  and  oecumenical,  and  their  creeds,  to  the  rabbis  and  doctors  of 
ancient  times,  finally  calling  upon  some  of  the  more  distinguished  mo- 
derns, like  Drs.  Wall  and  Doddridge,  to  sustain  my  assertions,  all  of  them 
avowing,  that  John  iii.  f>,  and  Titus  iii.  5,  refer  to  baptism,  and  espe- 
cially bearing  testimony  to  the  propriety  of  our  interpretation  of  Acts 
ii.  38.  The  church  of  England  still  avows  the  ancient  faith.  The  creed 
of  St.  Athanasius  says,  "  We  confess  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  The  creed  of  Nice  says,  "  We  believe  in  one  baptism  for  remis- 
sion of  sins."  I  am,  if  in  error  on  this  point,  in  good  company,  as  Mr. 
Rice  would  say.  All  the  old  creeds,  the  modern  creeds,  the  ancient 
fathers,  the  modern  reformers,  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  names  the  most 
learned,  the  most  honorable,  the  most  venerable,  the  most  admired,  and 
the  most  beloved,  are  all  with  me  on  this  point.  No  one  can  assemble 
such  a  host  in  support  of  any  one  dogma,  proposition,  doctrine,  or  tradi- 
tion, as  I  can  bring  up  in  attestation  of  baptism  for  remission  of  sins. 
But  all  this  with  me  weighs  nothing,  not  a  feather,  had  I  not  Paul,  and 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  523 

James,  and  John,  and  Peter,  the  high  functionaries  and  administrators  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

As  to  what  my  friend  says  of  outward,  external  ordinances,  I  need  only 
remark,  that  I  know  of  no  such  institutions  of  Christ.  Prayer,  praise, 
eating  the  supper,  baptism,  fasting,  &c.,  are  all  alike  bodily,  mental,  spir- 
itual, outward  and  inward.  Such  language  is  that  of  Ashdod,  and  not  of 
Canaan.  I  go  for  that  religion  with  all  my  heart,  and  soul,  and  mind,  and 
strength.  Still,  without  the  head,  there  can  be  no  heart-religion.  With- 
out light  there  can  be  no  love.  If  there  be  any  externals  in  religion,  I  care 
nothing  for  them.  It  helps  devotion  to  bow  the  knee,  to  stand  up,  to 
speak  solemnl3%  to  fast,  to  use  words  full  of  spiritual  feeling.  What  act 
of  religion  so  solemn  as  being  buried  with  the  Lord  ?  What  seizes  the 
soul  of  man  with  such  power,  as  the  mighty,  soul-subduing  fact  that  we  are 
entering  into  an  everlasting  covenant  with  the  Supreme  Divinity ;  vowing 
eternal  faithfulness  to  the  Messiah  ;  putting  on  Christ  as  our  wisdom,  jus- 
tification, sanctification,  and  redemption  ?  What  reflections  touch  the 
fountains  of  our  moral  sympathies  with  such  awakenings,  meltings,  ecsta- 
sies, as  these  heaven-begotten  emotions,  rising  within  us  when  we  per- 
sonally rise  with  Jesus,  and,  in  our  affections,  mount  to  heaven?  How 
sweet  the  thought,  too,  that  the  Messiah  himself  led  the  way ;  that  he 
put  his  body  into  the  hands  of  John,  and  suffered  him  to  accompany  him 
into  the  mystic  Jordan,  and  bury  him  there  in  solemn  anticipation  of  his 
future  interment  in  the  bosom  of  his  own  earth. 

If  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  could  speak  experimentally  on  the  subject  of 
christian  immersion,  he  would  tell  you  that  there  is  no  action  ever  com- 
manded of  God  of  more  solemn  significance  than  holy  baptism  ;  that  it 
operates  powerfully  upon  those  who  are  rightly  exercised  therein.  What 
feeling  like  that  of  having  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the*  Holy  Spirit  put  upon  a  person  by  the  authority  of  our  Redeemer,  Law- 
giver and  King?  What  singular  associations  spring  up  within  us,  when 
we  t^el  ourselves  enter  into  a  relation  that  makes  God  our  Father,  Jesus 
our  S&  "ior,  the  Holy  Spirit  our  Guest,  Instructor  and  Guide  ;  that  connects 
with  thi  hierarchies  of  heaven — its  angels,  authorities,  principalities  and 
powers ;  that  emboldens  us  to  draw  near  to  God,  having  our  hearts  sprink- 
led from  a  guilty  conscience,  and  our  bodies  bathed  in  the  pure  water  of 
sanctification?  No  one  could  institute  such  an  ordinance,  filled  with  such 
honors,  blessings,  joys  and  transports,  but  Emanuel. 

My  friend  still  talks  of  what  he  has  done.  No  doubt  it  is  both  neces- 
sary and  expedient  that  he  should  do  so.  You  will  all  judge  of  what  I 
have  done.  But  I  will  tell  you,  while  he  keeps  talking  thus,  I  am  thinking 
of  one  saying  of  the  Messiah,  which  always  overwhelms  me  especially, 
when  I  think  any  one  makes  little  of  any  of  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord.  It  is  a  saying  of  the  Great  King  :  "  Whosoever  shall  break  one  of 
the  least  of  these,  my  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  shall  be  of 
no  esteem  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach 
them,  shall  be  of  high  esteem  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Nothing  is 
little  that  my  Lord  Messiah  ever  thought,  said,  commanded,  or  did.  To 
stand  up  for  him,  and  for  his  ordinances,  and  to  plead  the  necessity  of 
obeying  to  the  letter,  of  honoring  and  magnifying  him,  of  worshiping  and 
adoring  him,  is  my  greatest  honor,  and  my  highest  ambition.  Heaven 
has  yet  revealed  to  me  no  higher  honor,  than  to  stand  up  for  the  honor  of 
his  commandments.  I  disclaim  all  merit;  all  claims  of  praise,  honor  or 
reward  from  him,  I  most  cordially  renounce.     It  is  an  act  of  mercy  on  his 


524  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

part  to  accept  our  purest  offerings.  Did  we  live  the  life  of  a  Methusela, 
and  devote  all  its  hours  to  him,  it  would  constitute  no  ground  of  boasting, 
no  claim  for  his  favor.  We  are  saved  by  grace  ;  still,  our  happiness  and 
our  honor  are  necessarily  dependent  upon  our  usefulness,  our  faithfulness 
to  God,  and  our  active  and  practical  benevolence  towards  man.  To  walk 
by  faith,  is  to  walk  with  God.  A  heart  and  lip  devoted  to  his  will,  is  the 
highest  style,  dignity  and  happiness  of  man. — [^Tijne  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24 — 1^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  seventh  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  wish,  in  commencing  my  reply,  to  read  a  brief  ex- 
tract from  two  of  the  gentleman's  books,  that  you  may  be  able  to  deter- 
mine how  far  I  have  misrepresented  him.  I  will  read  first  from  his  de- 
bate with  McCalla : 

"  The  water  of  baptism,  then,  formally  washes  away  our  sins.  Paul's 
sins  were  really  pardoned  when  he  believed ;  yet  he  had  no  solemn  pledge 
of  the  fact,  no  formal  acquittal,  no  formal  purgation  of  his  sins,  until  he 
washed  them  away  in  the  water  of  baptism." 

Let  us  compare  with  this  his  doctrine,  as  taught  in  the  Christian  Bap- 
tist, p.  422. 

"  That  such  was  the  universally  received  sense  of  immersion  amongst 
the  teachers  and  preachers  of  Christianity,  is  most  certain  from  express 
declaration  and  incident.  For  example :  when  Paul  was  immersed,  it  was 
declared  and  understood  by  the  parties,  that  all  his  previous  sins  were  wash- 
ed away  in  the  act  of  immersion." 

Again  : 

"  What  made  the  eunuch  go  on  his  way  rejoicing'?  Was  it  because  he 
had  some  difficult  texts  explained  J  Or  was  it  because  he  had  some  distant 
hope  or  remote  prospect  of  enjoying  pardon  and  acceptance  after  death,  or 
after  the  lapse  of  certain  years  of  travail  and  of  trial !  No,  indeed  :  he  '.^ad 
found  what  thousands  before  him  had  experienced,  peace  with  God,  f  om  a 
conviction  that  his  sins  had  been  actually  forgiven  in  the  act  of 
immersion.  Indeed,  the  preaching  of  all  the  apostles,  as  well  as  all  their 
writings,  embrace  this  as  a  fact  never  to  be  called  into  question." 

Now  if  any  one  can  reconcile  these  doctrinal  statements,  he  possesses 
more  ingenuity  than  has  fallen  to  me.  In  the  debate  with  McCalla  the 
gendeman  said  distinctly,  that  Paul's  sins  were  really  pardoned  when  he 
believed.  In  the  Christian  Baptist  we  learn,  that  they  were  washed 
away  in  the  act  of  immersion,  and  that  the  sins  of  the  eunuch  were 
actually  forgiven  in  the  act  of  immersion  !  I  cannot  put  these  things 
together.  I  presume,  however,  that  if  Paul  was  really  pardoned  when 
he  believed,  he  had  evidence  of  that  fact.  If  Mr.  Campbell  could  ascer- 
tain it,  (and  he  has  asserted  it,)  certainly  Paul  himself  might. 

I  will  read  again  on  the  next  page  :  "  In  the  ancient  gospel,  it  was  first 
a  belief  in  Jesus;  next,  immersion;  then,  forgiveness;  then,  peace  with 
God;  then,  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Now  observe,  in  the  ancient  gos- 
pel we  are  told,  it  was  first  belief,  then  immersion,  then  forgiveness ;  but, 
in  the  debate  with  McCalla,  Mr.  C,  tells  us,  in  the  case  of  Paul  it  was 
first  faith,  then  real  pardon,  then  immersion  and  formal  pardon  !  I  leave 
those  who  can,  to  reconcile  these  contradictory  views.  But  as  the  gentle- 
man is,  in  one  statement  of  his  views,  precisely  with  me,  I  shall  insist 
on  keeping  him  on  my  side. 

But  he  tells  us,  the  confession  of  faith  has  been  mended;  and,  there- 
fore, he  may  be  permitted  to  change  his  views.  The  confession  consists 
of  two  parts :  first,  an  outline  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible ;  secondly, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  525 

a  form  of  chiu-ch  government.  The  latter  has  been  altered  in  some  im- 
important  particulars ;  but  the  former  has  not,  as  the  gentleman  certainly 
ought  to  have  known. 

I  have  said,  that  God  never  made  the  remission  of  sins  depend  upon 
an  act  which  a  man  cannot  do  for  himself,  but  which  must  be  performed 
by  another.  Suppose,  for  illustration,  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  New  Tes- 
taments to  be  given  to  a  man  in  Africa.  He  reads  it,  believes,  and  de- 
sires to  obey  it ;  but  there  is  no  one  to  immerse  him,  or,  as  it  may  often 
happen,  not  sufficient  water  in  which  to  immerse  him.  Now  if  immersion 
is  a  prerequisite  to  the  remission  of  sins,  though  his  heart  is  right,  though 
he  is  truly  penitent  and  disposed  to  do  his  whole  duty,  he  cannot  be  par- 
doned. He  must  live  and  die  condemned,  only  because  it  was  impossi- 
ble that  he  should  be  immersed!  Can  any  one  believe,  that  such  absurd- 
ities can  belong  to  God's  plan  of  salvation  ? 

The  gentleman  has,  indeed,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  sins  of  such 
a  person  might  be  pardoned,  and  that  he  might  be  saved  ;  but  his  opinion 
contradicts  his  doctrine ;  and  if  the  latter  be  true,  the  former  is  false,  and 
vice  versa.  He  holds  it  to  be  a  doctrine  of  revelation,  that  the  remission 
of  sins  is  secured  only  in  immersion.  Then  let  him  point  us  to  the 
place  where  God  has  made  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  I  will 
show  him  the  passage  which  refutes  his  doctrine.  His  opinion  and  his 
doctrine  cannot  both  be  true,  for  in  the  Christian  Baptist  he  asserts,  that 
Peter  made  "  repentance,  or  reformation  and  immersion  equally  ne- 
cessary TO  forgiveness  ;"  p.  417.  Does  he  believe,  that  any  adult  will 
be  pardoned  and  saved  without  repentance,  or,  as  he  calls  it,  reforma- 
tion ?  I  presume  he  does  not.  Then,  if  repentance  and  immersion  are 
equally  necessary,  how  can  any  be  pardoned  and  saved  without  immer- 
sion ?  I  repeat,  his  opinion  or  his  doctrine  must  be  abandoned.  They 
cannot  stand  together. 

But  he  tries  to  place  me  in  a  similar  predicament.  He  says,  that, 
according  to  my  views,  men  must  be  ordained  before  they  can  preach ; 
and  many  may  be  lost  because  their  salvation  depended  on  acts  to  be  per- 
formed by  others.  I  answer,  the  salvation  of  none  depends  on  their  hear- 
ing the  Word  preached.  They  can  read  the  Bible,  or  hear  it  read,  and 
thus  become  wise  unto  salvation.  And  tliose  who  have  not  the  Bible,  are 
accountable  only  for  the  light  they  have.  God  has  never  suspended  the 
salvation  of  a  soul  upon  an  action  which  must  be  performed  by  another, 
and  which  circumstances  may  make  it  impossible  to  have  performed.  He 
■whose  heart  is  right,  who  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  is,  consequently, 
disposed  to  obey  his  commandments,  has  the  best  assurance  that  his  sins 
are  remitted. 

The  gentleman  has  appealed  to  tlie  Leviiical  law  to  sustain  him. 
When  he  gives  us  the  chapter  and  verse,  which  I  hope  he  will  do  in  his 
next  speech,  I  will  prove,  that  it  aflbrds  him  no  support.  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell replied — 6th  chapter.]  He  says,  it  is  in  the  6th  of  Leviticus  ;  and  I 
say,  when  he  reads  it  I  will  reply  to  it. 

Mr.  Campbell  strangely  attempts  still  to  prove,  that  Calvin  held  the 
doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending,  and  that  he  has  not  misrepresented 
him.  Calvin  says,  "  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  initiation,  by  which  we  are 
admitted  into  the  society  of  the  church,  in  order  that,  being  incorporated 
into  Christ,  we  may  be  numbered  among  the  children  of  God ;"  and  he 
says,  it  secures  to  us  three  advantages :  1st.  It  is  a  symbol,  or  token,  of 
our  purification,  &c.     I  deem  it  unnecessary  again  to  read  what  I  have 


526  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

already  read  in  your  hearing.  I  will,  hoAvever,  turn  to  the  4th  section 
of  the  15th  chapter,  which  the  gentleman  read: 

"  I  know  the  common  opinion  is,  that  remission  of  sins,  which  at  our 
first  regeneration  we  receive  by  baptism  alone,  is  afterwards  obtained  by 
repentance  and  tlie  benefit  of  the  keys.  But  the  advocates  of  this  opinion 
have  fallen  into  an  error,  for  want  of  considering  that  the  power  of  the  keys, 
of  which  they  speak,  is  so  dependent  upon  baptism  that  it  cannot  by  any 
means  be  separated  from  it,"  &c. 

It  is  certainly  remarkable,  that  the  gentleman  should  have  read  as  the 
real  sentiments  of  Calvin,  a  statement  he  made  of  a  popish  error,  which 
he  immediately  proceeded  to  refute  !     Again,  Calvin  says  : 

"  In  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  what  is  said  by  Paul,  that  Christ 
sanctifies  and  cleanses  the  church  '  with  the  washing  of  water'  by  the 
word,  (Eph.  v.  26;)  and  in  another  place,  that  '  according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
(Tit.  iii.  5;)  and  by  Peter,  that  '  baptism  doth  save  us,'  (1  Pet.  iii.  21.)  For 
it  was  not  the  intention  of  Paul  to  signify  that  our  ablution  and  salvation 
are  completed  by  the  water,  or  that  water  contains  in  itself  the  virtue  to 
purify,  regenerate,  and  renew  ;  nor  did  Peter  mean  that  it  was  the  cause  of 
salvation,  but  only  that  the  knowledge  and  assurance  of  it  is  received  in  this 
sacrament;  which  is  sufficiently  evident  from  tlie  words  they  liave  used. 
For  Paul  connects  together  '  the  word  of  life  '  and  '  the  baptism  of  water  ;' 
as  if  he  had  said,  that  one  ablution  and  sanctification  are  announced  to  us 
by  the  gospel,  and  by  baptism  this  message  is  confirmed.  And  Peter,  after 
having  said  that  baptism  doth  save  us,  immediately  adds,  that  '  it  is  not  the 
putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God  ;'  which  proceeds  from  faith.  But  on  the  contrary,  baptism  promises 
us  no  other  purification  than  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  which 
is  emhlcmaticaliy  represented  by  water  on  account  of  its  resemblance  to  wash- 
ing and  cleansing.'''' 

Calvin  speaks  of  baptism  as  an  emblem  of  sanctification  and  as  con- 
firming to  us  the  message  of  salvation.  Mr.  C.  represents  baptism  as 
SQcmmg  justification. 

Again,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  Calvin  says — "  We  see 
this  exemplified  in  Cornelius,  the  centurion,  who,  after  having  received 
the  remission  of  sins  and  the  visible  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  bap- 
tized ;  not  with  a  view  to  obtain  by  baptism  a  more  ample  remission, 
of  his  sins,  but  a  stronger  exercise  of  faith,  and  an  increase  of  confidence 
from  that  pledge."  Observe,  Calvin  says  distinctly,  his  sins  were  first 
remitted,  and  afterwards  he  received  baptism.  Could  he  possibly  have 
employed  language  more  flatly  contradictory  of  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Campbell?  And  why  was  he  baptized?  "  Not  with  a  view,"  says  Cal- 
vin, "  to  obtain  a  more  ample  remission  of  his  sins,  but  a  stronger  exer- 
cise of  faith  and  an  increase  of  confidence  from  that  pledge."  Accord- 
ing to  Calvin,  Cornelius  first  believed  and  received  the  remission  of  sins 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  then  received  baptism  for  the  pur- 
pose of  strengthening  his  faith. 

But  let  us  hear  Calvin  once  more.  I  read  in  his  Commentary  on  Acts 
viii.  38,  the  passage  so  lengthily  commented  upon  by  Mr.  Campbell : 

'•  Tametsi  in  contextu  verborum  baptismus  remissionem  peccatorum  hie 
praecedit,  ordine  tamen  sequitur :  quia  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  bonorum,  quae 
per  Christum  consequimur,  obsignatio,  ut  in  conscientiis  nostris  rata  sint." 
Although,  in  the  arrangement  of  the  words,  baptism  here  precedes  remission 
of  sins,  yet,  in  the  order  [of  their  occurrence]  it  follows:  because  it  is  noth- 
ing else  than  a  seal  of  the  blessings  which  we  obtain  through  Christ,  that 
they  may  be  confirmed  in  our  consciences. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  527 

According  to  Calvin,  then,  when  Peter  said,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins;"  although  baptism  is  mentioned  first,  yet  re- 
mission of  sins  is  really  first  in  the  order  of  occurrence.  Sins  are  first 
remitted,  then  baptism  is  administered.  And  he  gives  the  reason  why 
remission  is  properly  first,  viz  :  because  baptism,  so  far  from  securing  to 
us  remission,  is  only  a  seal  of  the  blessings  we  obtain  through  Christ. 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  Calvin.  True  or  false,  it  is  directly  opposed  to 
the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell.  I  will  cheerfully  admit,  that  the  whole 
world  sustains  him  as  fully  as  does  Calvin. 

1  gave  up  Luther  into  his  hands  yesterday,  not  having  particularly  ex- 
amined his  views  of  the  design  of  baptism;  but  I  must  take  him  back 
into  our  ranks  to-day.  1  will  read  from  his  commentary  on  the  epistle  to 
the  Galatians  ii.  16. 

*•  Here  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  these  three  things,  faith,  Christ,  accepta- 
tion or  imputation,  must  be  joined  together.  Faith  taketh  hold  of  Christ, 
and  hath  him  present,  and  holdeth  him  inclosed,  as  the  ring  doth  the  pre- 
cious stone.  And  wliosoever  shall  be  found  having  this  conndence  in  Christ 
appreliended  in  the  heart,  him  will  God  account  righteous.  This  is  the 
mean,  and  this  is  the  merit,  whereby  we  obtain  the  remission  of  sins  and 
righteousness.  Because  thou  believcst  in  me,  saith  the  Lord,  and  thy  faith 
layeth  hold  upon  Christ,  whom  I  have  freely  given  unto  thee  that  he  might 
be  thy  mediator  and  high-priest;  therefore  be  tliou  justified  and  righteous. 
Wherefore  God  doth  accept  or  account  us  as  righteous,  only  for  our  faith  in 
Christ." 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  and  such  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am 
contending.  Justification,  he  teaches,  is  obtained  by  faith  only,  not  by 
baptism.  I  will  give  you  Wesley's  doctrine  on  this  subject,  this  even- 
ing, and  will  prove  that  he  does  not  sustain  Mr.  Campbell. 

He  attempts  to  reconcile  the  contradictory  doctrines  he  has  published, 
by  saying,  that  when  an  individual  believes,  he  receives  the  remission  of 
sins  in  anticipation;  that  his  fears  and  distress  subside,  and  he  rejoices  with 
joy  unspeakable.  But  how  his  fears  can  subside,  or  how  he  can  rejoice, 
when  he  is  yet  condemned  and  exposed  to  eternal  ruin,  I  cannot  imagine. 
I  see  no  possible  foundation  for  comfort  in  the  condition  of  one  whose  sins 
are  yet  upon  him.  For  Mr.  Campbell  has  said — the  unimmersed  per- 
son, however  his  views  of  Christ  may  be  changed,  and  his  heart  re- 
newed, "  is  still  unpardoned,  unjustified,  unsanctified,  unreconciled,  un- 
adopted, and  lost  to  all  christian  life  and  enjoyment!'''' — Christ.  Restored, 
p.  196.  What  good  has  such  a  person  received  in  anticipation?  How 
utterly  inconsistent  this  declaration  with  that  which  I  read  from  his  de- 
bate with  McCalla,  in  which  he  declared,  that  Paul's  sins  were  really 
jiardoned  ivhen  he  believed.' 

He  would  have  you  believe  that  his  views  are  very  catholic — not  abso- 
lutely universal ;  but  that  all  denominations  agree  with  him  on  the  sub- 
ject. This  I  deny,  and  call  for  tiie  evidence.  He  has  told  us,  that  our 
confession  of  faith  teaches  his  doctrine,  and  that  Calvin  taught  the  same. 
I  have  proved  that  Calvin  held  just  tiie  doctrine  for  which  I  contend. 
That  our  confession  teaches  his  views,  I  and  all  Presbyterians  deny.  In- 
deed, if  a  Presbyterian  minister  were  known  to  preach  such  doctrine,  he 
would  soon  cease  to  exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry  in  our  church. 

It  is  true,  our  confession,  in  the  article  on  baptism,  quotes  John  iii.  5, 
Colossians  ii.  10,  11,  &;c.,  because,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  under 
both  the  old  and  new  dispensations  water  was  religiously  used,  .is  an 
emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing,  or  sanctification.     But  it  is  not  true,  that  it 


528  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

says,  that  our  Savior,  in  speaking  of  the  new  birth,  referred  to  christian 
baptism ;  nor  is  it  true,  that  either  the  framers  of  the  confession,  or  Cal- 
vin, understood  baptism,  or  the  new  birth,  as  effecting  a  change  of  state, 
as  securing  the  remission  of  sins.  By  the  new  birth  they  understood  a 
change  of  heart,  or  regeneration,  of  which  water  is  the  appointed  em- 
blem. But  with  Mr.  Campbell,  the  new  birth  is  not  a  change  of  heart, 
but  a  change  of  state  from  condemnation  to  justification.  They  did  not 
adopt  the  views  he  entertains. 

Neither  did  the  old  christian  fathers  teach  his  doctrine.  Dr.  Wall 
does  not  say  they  did.  True,  they  used  the  word  regeneration  for  bap- 
tism ;  but  by  regeneration  they  did  not  mean  what  Mr.  C.  means — mere- 
ly a  change  of  state,  but  a  change  of  heart,  which  they  believed  to  be 
effected  in  baptism,  as  well  as  consequent  remission  of  sins.  The  fathers 
do  not  sustain  him.  He  cannot  prove  that  any  of  them  taught  his  doc- 
trine.    If  he  can,  I  hope  he  will  do  so. 

He  says,  he  has  no  faith  in  outtvard forms  merely.  But  it  certainly  is 
true  that  he  has  very  strong  faith  in  forms ;  for  he  teaches  that  an  exter- 
nal ordinance,  which  an  individual  cannot  administer  to  himself,  is  essen- 
tial to  the  remission  of  sins,  and,  of  course,  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
It  matters  not,  in  his  theology,  how  entirely  changed  the  heart  may  be, 
how  sincerely  a  man  loves  and  trusts  in  Christ — all  is  vain  and  worthless 
without  baptism,  and  even  without  immersion!  Even  a  mistake  about 
the  m^ode  of  applying  the  water  is  fatal !  I  verily  believe  that  the  Jews, 
with  all  their  zeal  for  external  rites,  and  their  confidence  in  their  efficacy, 
would  not  have  maintained  that  a  man  with  a  wicked  heart  could  be 
saved.  The  gentleman  seems  to  attach  quite  as  much  importance  to  bap- 
tism, as  they  did  to  circumcision,  or  to  their  various  ablutions. 

But  that  the  audience  may  see  how  extremely  he  has  magnified  the 
importance  of  baptism,  I  will  read  a  proposition  which  is  very  promi- 
nently stated,  and  argued  at  length  in  his  Christianity  Restored.  It  is 
this:  "  That  the  Gospel  has  in  it  a  command,  and,  as  such,  must  he 
obeyed,''''  p.  196.  A  command,  that  is,  one  command!  The  Gospel  has 
in  it  one  command  ! !  Now,  I  presume,  he  did  not  mean  to  say,  that  the 
Gospel  has  in  it  only  one  command  ;  but  certainly  such  language  can 
mean  nothing  less,  than  that  the  command  alluded  to,  is  the  great  com- 
mand in  the  Gospel,  more  important  than  any  other.  That  command, 
Mr.  C.  tells  us,  is  immersion,  which,  he  says,  "  necessarily  becomes  the 
line  of  discrimination  between  the  two  states  before  described.  On  this 
side,  and  on  that,  mankind  are  in  quite  different  states.  On  the  one  side 
they  are  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved; 
on  the  other,  they  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation."  In  this  same  book, 
as  well  as  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  and  other  writings  of  the  reformers, 
I  find  immersion  called  obeying  the  Gospel,  obedience  of  faith,  &c. 
When,  in  these  writings,  it  is  said,  that  persons  have  '■*■  obeyed  the  Gos- 
pel,'" or  "  made  the  good  confession,"  I  find  that  it  is  meant,  that  they  have 
been  immersed.'  Did  the  inspired  writers  ever  say  that  the  Gospel  has  in 
it  .^command?  Did  they  ever  represent  being  baptized  as  obeying  the 
Gospel,  as  the  obedience  of  faith  ^^  Never — not  in  a  solitary  instance  ! 

But  we  are  told  by  these  modern  theologians,  that  we  must  obey  before 
we  can  be  pardoned.  This  is  true;  but  believing  is  as  truly  obedience 
to  Christ,  as  being  baptized.  God  commands  men  to  believe  and  to 
repent ;  and  those  who  do  believe  and  repent,  obey  his  commands  as 
truly  as  when  they  receive  baptism.     It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  529 

gospel  is  obeyed  in  nothing  before  baptism  is  received.  Yet,  according 
to  Mr.  C,immersion  is  the  act  of  faith,  by  which  alone  persons  can  be 
pardoned  !  This  is  what  I  consider  ascribing  an  unscriptural  importance 
and  efficacy  to  an  external  ordinance. 

The  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ  are  important  in  their  place,  but 
when  removed  from  the  place  in  the  system  of  truth,  which  he  has  as- 
signed them,  and  made  to  answer  purposes  for  which  they  were  never 
designed,  the  consequences  must  be  ruinous.  This,  as  I  have  said,  was 
one  of  the  capital  errors  of  the  Jews.  The  Savior  often  rebuked  and 
condemned  them,  not  for  strict  observance  of  divinely  appointed  ordi- 
nances, but  for  having  substituted  them  for  "  the  weightier  matters  of 
the  law ;"  for  attaching  to  them  undue  importance,  and  ascribing  to  them 
an  efficacy  they  did  not  possess.  The  whole  christian  church,  as  I  have 
before  remarked,  at  an  early  day,  was  corrupted  in  the  same  way ;  and 
vita!  piety  was  buried  and  almost  extinguished  under  a  multitude  of  forms 
and  ceremonies.  Both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  were  perverted,  so 
as  to  become  a  curse  instead  of  a  blessing. 

In  the  close  of  this  address,  I  am  constrained  to  declare  it  as  my  clear 
and  solemn  conviction,  that  the  views  on  this  subject,  published  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  have  fatally  deceived  thousands  of  souls.  They  have  been 
taught  to  believe,  that  in  order  to  secure  the  remission  of  sins  and  accept- 
ance with  God,  it  was  only  necessary  for  them  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  be  immersed.  When  they  have  made  "  the 
good  confession,"  as  it  is  called,  and  been  plunged  under  the  water,  they 
are  induced  to  believe,  that  their  sins  are  actually  pardoned,  and  th^t  they 
are  saved.  They  go  on  through  life,  fondly  dreaming  that  all  is  well,  and 
that  they  are  on  their  way  to  heaven.  Thus  they  are  under  a  fatal  delu- 
sion ;  for  it  is  certain,  if  we  regard  the  plainest  declarations  of  God's  Word, 
that  their  belief  of  the  fact,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  being 
immersed,  afford  no  evidence  of  remission  of  sins,  or  acceptance  with 
God.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  deludes  many  into  the  belief  that  they 
are  safe,  when  in  truth  they  are  under  the  curse  of  God.  This  belief 
that  their  sins  are  forgiven  in  the  water,  produces  a  feeling  of  security, 
and  prevents  all  further  investigation,  and  those  who  embrace  it,  are 
likely  to  die  in  the  delusion. 

I  do  not  say,  that  all  who  have  followed  Mr.  C,  are  thus  fatally  deceiv- 
ed ;  for  I  doubt  not,  many  sincerely  and  truly  pious  persons  have  been 
led  astray,  without  perceiving  the  dangerous  character  of  the  error,  who 
yet  look  to  the  cross  of  Christ  as  the  ground  of  their  hope  of  pardon 
and  acceptance.  But  I  do  say,  ray  solemn  conviction  is,  that  the  ten- 
dency and,  in  thousands  of  instances,  the  effect  of  this  doctrine  is  to 
induce  persons  to  believe  that  they  are  pardoned  and  saved,  when,  in 
truth,  they  have  not  one  scriptural  evidence  on  which  to  base  such  belief. 
They  have  been  immersed,  and  they  are  told,  that  in  being  immersed  they 
obeyed  the  gospel,  and  are  consequently  safe.  I  am  constrained  to  lift 
my  voice  against  this  soul-destroying  doctrine,  that  finds  evidence  of 
pardon  and  acceptance  with  God  in  an  external  ordinance. — \_Tline  ex- 
fired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—6  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[]mr.  Campbell's  eighth  address.] 

Mr.  President — It  has  been  asserted  and  re-asserted  that  such  pas- 
sages as,  "he  that  believeth  is  not  condemned,"  and  "he  that  believeth 
is  passed  from  death  to  life,"  and  "  he  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life," 
34  2Y 


530  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

&c.  conflict  with,  and  refute  the  whole  doctrine  of  baptism  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  Mr.  Rice  urges  them  with  such  a  vehemence  as  though  he 
believed  them  to  be  invincible  proofs,  that  a  man  may  be  safe  from  con- 
demnation and  ruin  if  he  only  believe,  without  obedience  to  the  truth 
believed.  For  that  is  the  case  before  us?  When  the  Savior  spoke  of 
him  that  believeth,  he  did  not  mean  a  disobedient,  ignorant,  and  lawless 
believer:  one  that  said  he  had  faith,  but  one  who  practically,  really,  sin- 
cerely believed  his  gospel.  On  many  occasions,  it  is  true,  our  Lord 
spake  prospectively  of  his  kingdom,  as  he  did  of  his  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection ;  and  so  I  understand  his  discourse  with  Nicodemus.  And 
then  the  phrase,  "he  that  believeth,"  and  such  like,  do  neither  indicate  a 
mere  act  of  the  mind,  nor  a  mere  state  of  the  mind ;  but  an  actual,  practi- 
cal recognition  of  the  precepts  addressed  to  belief.  When,  then,  the  Sa- 
vior ascribes  any  good  effect,  any  salutary  or  saving  efficacy  to  faith,  or 
to  any  other  principle,  he  not  only  supposes  it  to  be  genuine,  active,  and 
operative ;  but  that,  also,  it  is  associated  with  all  other  principles  that 
lead  to  a  practical  acquiescence  with  the  whole  existing  will  of  God  as 
revealed. 

To  conclude  this  subject  of  faith,  I  will  only  add,  that  even  on  the  sub- 
ject of  justification  by  faith,  I  am,  in  reference  to  baptism,  in  good  com- 
pany with  John  Calvin.  I  must  read  another  short  passage  or  two  from 
the  great  Presbyterian  reformer.  The  gentleman  told  you  I  had  mistaken 
the  drift  of  one  passage  read  from  Calvin.  But  he  might  have  observed 
that  1  only  began  to  read  the  wrong  section,  which  was  occasioned  by  a 
wron^  marginal  reference  ;  and,  therefore,  I  made  no  use  of  the  passage. 
But  you  shall  have  an  extract  in  direct  harmony  with  my  views,  and 
also  indicative  of  Calvin's  own  views  of  the  connection  between  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  and  baptism.     He  observes: — 

"I  know  the  common  opinion  is,  that  remission  of  sins,  which  at  our  first 
regeneration  we  receive  by  baptism  alone,  is  afterwards  obtained  by  repent- 
ance and  the  benefit  of  tlie  keys." — Calv.  Inst.  vol.  ii.  b.  iv.  ch.  15,  \  4. 

"  As  if  baptism  itself  were  not  a  sacrament  of  repentance  ;  but  if  repent- 
ance be  enjoined  upon  us  as  long  as  we  live,  the  virtue  of  baptism  ought  to 
be  extended  to  the  same  period.  Wherefore  it  is  evident  that  the  faithful, 
whenever  in  any  part  of  their  lives  they  are  distressed  with  a  consciousness 
of  their  sins,  may  justly  have  recourse  to  the  remembrance  of  baptism,  in 
order  to  confirm  themselves  in  the  confidence  of  their  interest  in  that  one 
perpetual  ablution  which  is  enjoyed  in  the  blood  of  Christ." — Ibid, 

In  the  same  section  from  which  I  have  read  these  extracts,  he  further 
says : — 

"  It  is  true  that  the  sinner  receives  remission  by  the  ministry  of  the 
church,  but  not  without  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  Now  what  is  the  na- 
ture of  that  preaching — that  we  are  cleansed  from  our  sins  by  the  blood  of 
Christ?     what  sign  and  testimony  of  that  ablution  is  there  but  baptism  ]" 

Yes,  I  ask  Mr.  Rice,  and  every  other  Presbyterian,  this  question, 
which  their  own  Calvin  asked — "  What  sign  and  testimony  of  that 
ABLUTION  IS  THERE  BUT  BAPTISM?"  This  was  the  passage  intended  to  be 
read.  I  have  now  given  what  I  conceive  a  fair  exhibit  of  the  views  of 
Calvin,  on  the  proper  province  of  faith  and  baptism,  as  connected  in  the 
remission  of  sins,  through  the  blood  of  Christ. 

To  these  testimonies  given,  from  Luther  and  Calvin,  I  might  add  many 
such  from  Turrentine  and  from  other  continental  reformers  ;  but  there  is 
one  man,  who,  above  all  others,  stands  next  to  Calvin ;  nay,  indeed,  in 
my  esteem,  above  Calvin,  both  for  learning  and  talents,  and  great  mental 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  531 

independence.  A  greater  luminary,  as  a  tvriter,  than  Witsius,  in  the 
esteem  of  the  best  judges,  has  not  arisen  in  the  ranks  of  Protestant  refor- 
mation. His  reception  in  England  by  the  people,  the  clergy,  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  when  sent  upon  a  special  mission,  on  a  very 
important  occasion,  is  said  to  have  been  of  the  most  complimentary 
and  flattering  character  enjoyed  by  any  merely  ecclesiastic  character 
of  that  day.  We  shall  now  hear  him  for  a  few  minutes  speak  for 
himself: — 

Dr.  Witsius,  on  the  Economy  of  the  Covenants,  London,  1837,  2  vols. 
8vo. — ii.  vol.  p.  429,  says  : — 

"  18.  The  thing  signified  by  baptism  in  general,  is  the  reception  into 
the  covenant  of  grace,  as  administered  under  the  New  Testament." 
Again  on  same  page  : 

"  Moreover,  that  reception  into  the  covenant  of  grace  imports  two  things: 
1st.  Communion  with  Christ  and  his  mystical  body,  and  consequently  a  par- 
ticipation of  all  his  benefits.  2ndly.  An  engagement  to  incumbent  duty. 
Both  are  signified  and  sealed  by  baptism.  In  respect  to  the  former,  we  are 
said  'to  be  baptized  into  one  body,'  1  Corinthians  xii.  13;  and  'saved 
by  baptism,'  Titus  iii.  3,  5,  1  Peter  iii.  21.  With  respect  to  the  latter, 
baptism  is  called  sun  eideeseos  agathees  eperoteema  eis  Thcon — '  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,"  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 
Volume  ii.  pages  432,  433  : 

"  26.  First,  therefore,  the  immersion  into  the  water  represents  to  us  that 
tremendous  abyss  of  divine  justice,  in  which  Christ  was  plunged  for  a  time, 
in  some  measure,  in  consequence  of  his  undertaking  for  our  sins;  as  he 
complained  under  the  type  of  David,  Psalms  Ixix.  2:  '  I  sink  in  deep  mire, 
where  there  is  no  standing.  I  am  come  into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods 
overflow  me.'  But  more  particularly,  an  immersion  of  this  Ivind  deprives 
us  of  the  benefit  of  the  light,  and  the  other  enjoyments  of  this  world  ;  so  it 
js  a  very  apt  representation  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The  continuing  how 
short  soever  under  the  water,  represents  his  burial,  and  the  lowest  degree 
of  humiliation,  when  he  was  thouglit  to  be  wholly  cut  off"  while  in  the 
grave,  that  was  both  sealed  and  guarded.  The  emersion  or  coming  out  of 
the  water,  gives  us  some  resemblance  of  his  resurrection  or  victory,  obtain- 
ed in  his  death,  over  death,  which  he  vanquished  within  its  inmost  re- 
cesses, even  the  grave :  all  these  particulars  the  apostle  intimates  in  Rom. 
vi.  3,  4. 

"  27.  Moreover,  baptism  also  signifies  those  blessings  which  believers 
obtain  in  Christ;  and  these  are  either  present  or  future.  Among  the  pre- 
sent, is  fellowship  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  the 
consequence  of  it,  viz:  the  mortification  and  burying  of  our  old  man,  and 
the  raising  of  the  new,  by  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ. 
For,  the  immersion  into  the  water  represents  the  death  of  the  old  man, 
even  in  such  a  manner  that  it  can  neither  stand  in  judgment  to  our  condem- 
nation, nor  exercise  dominion  over  our  bodies,  that  we  should  serve  it  in 
the  lusts  thereof.  In  the  former  respect,  the  death  of  the  old  'man  apper- 
tains to  justification ;  in  the  latter  to  sanctification.  The  continuing 
under  the  water,  represents  the  burying  of  the  body  of  sin,  whereby  aJl 
hopes  of  a  revival  are  cut  off";  so  that  after  this,  it  is  neither  able  to  con- 
demn nor  rule  over  the  elect.  For,  as  in  burying,  the  dead  body,  which  is 
covered  over  with  earth,  is  removed  from  the  sight  of  men,  and  so  weighed 
down  by  the  earth  thrown  upon  it,  that  should  we  suppose  some  life  to  re- 
main in  the  buried  person  to  be  bestowed  upon  him  anew  by  a  miracle,  yet 
it  cannot  fail  to  be  stifled  by  the  load  of  earth  lying  upon  it,  nor  recover  to 
any  degree  of  permanence.  In  the  same  manner,  when  in  baptism  the  per- 
son, sunk  under  the  water,  is  for  some  time  detained  therein ;  this 
signifies  and  seals  to  us,  that  cur  sins  are  removed  from  the  view  of  the 
divine  justice,  never  to  be   imputed  to  our  condemnation :  or    as  Micah 


632  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

speaks,  chap.  vii.  19, '  he  will  subdue  our  iniquities,  and  cast  all  our  sins 
into  the  depth  of  the  sea ;'  likewise,  that  the  power  of  sin  is  so  depressed 
and  weakened,  that  it  can  no  longer  drive  us  at  its  pleasure,  or  hinder  our 
salvation,  or  be  able  to  resume  the  power  which  it  has  once  lost,  in  order 
to  bring  us  again  under  its  dominion.  The  emersion  out  of  the  water  is  a 
symbol  of  the  revival  of  the  new  man,  after  our  sins  are  now  sunk  to  a 
spiritual  life  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  And  this  also  the  apostle  de- 
clares, Rom.  vi.  3 — 6,  and  Col.  ii.  11,  12,  where  he  intimates  that  our 
baptism  is  such  a  memorial  of  the  things  that  happened  to  Christ,  as  at  the 
same  time  to  seal  our  communion  with  him  in  all  these  things,  and  our 
union  as  it  were  into  one  plant." 
Vol.  ii.  page  434,  §  31 : 

"  Thus  far  concerning  the  rites  of  immersion  and  emersion.  Let  us  now 
consider  the  ablution  or  washing,  which  is  the  effect  of  the  water  applied 
to  the  body.  In  external  baptism  there  is  '•  the  putting  away  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,'  1  Peter  iii.  21,  which  represents  the  ablution  or  washing  away 
the  filth  of  the  soul  contracted  by  sin  ;  Acts  xxii.  16,  '  Arise  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  But  the 
filth  of  sin  may  be  considered  either  with  respect  to  the  guilt,  which  is  an- 
nexed to  the  filth  or  stain,  and  so  it  is  removed  by  remission,  which  is  a 
part  of  justification  ;  or  with  respect  to  the  stain  itself,  or  spiritual  defor- 
mity and  dissimilitude  to  the  image  of  God,  and  so  it  is  taken  away  by  the 
grace  of  the  sanctifying  Sprit ;  and  both  are  sealed  by  baptism.  Of  the 
former  Peter  speaks,  Acts  ii.  38,  '  Be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  Concerning  the  latter, 
Paul  writes,  Ephes.  v.  25,  26,  '  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it ;  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word.'  And  they  are  laid  before  us  both  together,  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  '  But 
ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'  Ye  are  washed  sacrament- 
ally  in  baptism,  which  washing  is  a  symbol  of  the  mystical  washing :  but 
the  mystical  washing  comprehends  both  justification  and  sanctification, 
both  which  are  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, — that  is,  by  tlie 
efficacy  of  his  merits,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God,  which  effectually  applies 
the  merits  of  Christ  to  the  elect." 

Numerous  passages  might  be  read  from  this  distinguished  master  in 
the  Pedo-baptist  Israel.  From  these  two,  however,  his  views  may  be 
pretty  fairly  estimated.  The  passages  from  John  iii.  and  Titus  iii.,  to 
which  Mr.  R.  so  often  alludes,  and  which  I  have  shown  the  Pedo-baptists 
almost  universally  refer  to  baptism,  are  not  yet  disposed  of  fully  to  his 
satisfaction.  It  is  denied  by  him  that  baptism  is  ever  called  a  "  birth" 
and  that  these  passages  are  so  universally  regarded  as  relating  to  baptism. 
I  say  again,  that  Dr.  Wall,  from  whom  he  has  taken  so  much  argument 
on  this  occasion,  says :  "  There  is  not  one  christian  writer  of  any  an- 
tiquity, in  any  language,  but  who  understands  the  new  birth  of  water, 
(John  iii.  5,)  as  referring  to  baptism ;  and,  if  it  be  not  so  understood, 
it  is  difficult  to  give  any  account  how  a  person  is  born  of  water,  any  more 
than  born  of  wood." — Vol.  i.  p.  110.  Again,  he  says,  after  quoting  Justin 
Martyr :  "  We  see  by  him,  that  they  understood  John  iii.  5,  of  water 
baptism,  and  so  did  all  the  tvriters  of  those  four  hundred  years,  not 

ONE  MAN  EXCEPTED." 

Is  not  this  clear  and  intelligible  talk  ? — who  can  misunderstand  it ! 
"  Not  one  man  excepted  "  of  all  the  writers  of  the  first  four  hundred  years. 
All  proclaim  the  conviction  that  born  of  water  means  baptism  ;  and,  in- 
deed, the  same  host  go  for  "  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,''^  "  not 
one  man  excepted.''''     I  say  again,  because  of  strangers  present,  that  I 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  533 

quote  these  authorities,  not  to  sustain  my  views,  but  to  disprove  those  of 
my  opponent.  The  Bible  supports  me ;  and  those  "  fathers,"  to  whom 
some  people  look  with  so  much  veneration,  sustain  us,  and  oppose  them, 
in  these  two  important  particulars,  as  well  as  in  some  others.  I  could 
read  you,  from  my  Essay  on  Remission,  (Christian  System,)  many  such 
authorities,  but  as  they  are  now  common  property,  I  will  only  add  a  few 
not  quite  so  common. 

I  may  add  a  few  words  from  so  great  a  man  as  John  Wesley.  1 
quoted  him  as  a  distinguished  reformer  in  that  treatise,  affirming  that, 
*' baptism  administered  to  real  penitents,  is  both  a  means  and  a  seal  of 
pardon.  Nor  did  God  ordinarily,  in  the  primitive  church,  bestow  pardon 
on  any,  unless  through  this  means."  But  I  shall  quote  him  again  more 
at  large,  from  another  work  than  his  commentary.  I  am  sorry,  indeed, 
that  he  uses  the  word  primitive  before  church  ;  as  that  would  indicate  that 
God  forgave  sins  diversely  in  the  modern  church.  This  is  an  extract 
from  a  treatise  on  baptism,  found  in  doctrinal  tracts,  published  by  order 
of  the  General  Conference,  New  York,  1825. 

"  What  are  the  benefits  we  receive  by  baptism  1  is  the  next  point  to  be 
considered.  And  the  lirst  of  these  is,  the  washing  away  the  guilt  of  origi- 
nal sin,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ's  death." — p.  4. 

"■  By  baptism  we,  who  were  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath,'  are  made  the 
children  of  God.  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church  in  so  many 
places  ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the 
church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith  ;  being  '  grafted  into  the 
body  of  Christ's  church,  we  are  made  the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and 
grace.'  This  is  grounded  on  the  plain  words  of  our  Lord,  John  iii.  5,  '  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
kingdom  of  God.'  By  water  then,  as  a  mean,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are 
regenerated  or  born  again :  whence  it  is  also  called  by  the  apostle,  '  the 
washing  of  regeneration.'  Our  church,  therefore,  ascribes  no  greater  virtue 
to  baptism,  than  Christ  himself  has  done.  Nor  does  she  ascribe  it  to  the 
outward  washing,  but  to  the  inward  grace,  which  added  thereto  makes  it  a 
sacrament.  Herein  a  principle  of  grace  is  infused,  which  will  not  be  wholly 
taken  away,  unless  we  quench  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  by  long  continued 
wickedness." — p.  5. 

Mr.  Wesley  (pp.  7,  8,)  says: 

"  If  infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  unless  this  be  washed  away  by  bap- 
tism, it  cleaves  to  them."  [And  several  other  matters  indicative  of  the 
obscurity  of  his  mind  on  the  subject.] 

There  is  a  singular  eccentricity  in  the  minds  of  Pedo-baptists  on  this 
subject.  In  this  controversy  they  refuse  a  positive  precept  in  one  case, 
and  build  a  positive  institution  in  another,  without  any  pretension  of  a 
positive  precept.  There  is  not  in  the  king's  English  a  more  clear,  defi- 
nite and  positive  precept,  than  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 
you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Can 
•an)'  one  state  a  more  explicit  and  intelligible  positive  precept  than  this 
one !  Now  when  Pedo-baptists  argue  with  us,  you  will  occasionally  ask 
for  a  positive  precept.  We  give  it  in  all  cases  requiring  it  But  when 
we  produce  one  to  them,  they  will  not  yield  to  it.  We  only  ask  them 
to  give  us  a  positive  example — one  single  precedent  of  a  domestic  or  an 
infant  baptized  on  the  faith  of  the  household  or  parent ;  and  promise  to 
submit  to  it  the  moment  it  is  offered.  Yet  they  do  not,  because,  indeed, 
they  cannot,  give  one  such  case  in  the  Bible.  They  ask  subordination 
from  us,  when  the)'-  produce  what  they  call  a  fair  inference  ;  and  will 
act  yield  to  us,  when  we  produce  a  thus  saith  the  Lord  in  so  many 

2y2 


534  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

words.  I  began,  the  gentleman  says,  with  "  a  thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for 
all  acts  of  worship  ;  and  we  still  continue  to  act  upon  that  principle. 
In  the  midst  of  the  most  solemn  scenes,  since  Jesus  Christ  left  this  earth, 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  was  in  Jerusalem,  Peter  uttered  the  oracle — "  Re- 
pent and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you;"  (not  formerly  circumcised,) 
no,  but  every  one  in  this  house,  circumcised  or  not,  in  heart  or  in  body, 
and  "be  baptized  for  remission."  Well,  now,  why  will  not  the  Pedo- 
baptists  give  up  and  obey  it! 

But  the  gentleman  demurs  at  our  use  of  the  phrase  "  obey  the  gospel." 
It  is  solemnly  written  by  Paul,  that  "  all  shall  be  punished  with  an  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  the  glory  of  his 
power,  who  obey  not  the  Gospel."  We  neither  believe  nor  teach  that 
the  phrase,  "obedience  of  faith,"  means  one  single  act;  or  that  obeying 
tlie  Gospel  is  one  solitary  deed.  Certainly  they  do  not  "  obey  the  Gospel" 
who  do  not  obey  the  iirst  precept ;  any  more  than  they  who  obey  the  first, 
and  afterwards  apostatize.  The  Gospel  calls  for  perpetual  obedience,  or  a 
life  of  conformity  to  its  pure  and  elevated  piety  and  humanity.  It  is 
only  to  them,  who,  by  a  patient  continuance  in  doing  well,  are  seeking  for 
glory,  honor,  and  immortality,  God  will  reward  or  bestow  eternal  life. 

Still  there  is  one  act,  the  most  solemn,  significant,  and  sublime,  which 
may  emphatically  be  called  obeying  the  Gospel — an  act  of  homage  the 
most  profound,  of  devotion  the  most  pure,  of  aspiration  the  most  heavenly 
— when  we  confess  the  Lord,  die  on  that  confession  to  sin,  and  are  buried 
into  his  death,  and  rise  with  him  to  newness  of  life.  It  is  then  the  Sov- 
ereign of  the  universe  says,  "  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee :  go  in  peace. 

Pardon  is  no  quality  of  the  mind,  nor  remission  of  sins  a  virtue.  It 
is  a  sovereign  act  of  favor  on  the  part  of  the  offended.  "Justification  is 
an  act  of  God's  free  grace,"  as  the  old  catechism  says.  It  is  no  process; 
it  is  done  in  a  moment — it  is  an  act — a  single  act — a  word — a  volition. 
The  persons  to  whom  Peter  spoke  the  precept,  were  believers.  Their 
asking,  "  what  shall  we  do  ?"  was  a  confession  of  the  facts  alledged  in  the 
speech.  Peter  did  not  command  them  to  believe — a  proof  that  they  had 
believed.  Now  I  ask,  how  could  he  command  believers  to  seek  remis- 
sion of  sins,  if  pardon  and  faitli  were  simultaneous  ?  Nor  did  he  say, 
"  Be  baptized,  because  your  sins  are  forgiven  you."  The  words  used 
by  our  Lord  in  instituting  the  cup.  This  is  my  blood,  shed  for  (not 
because  of)  the  remission  of  sins.  Why  hold  out  the  idea  of  baptism  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  if  the  act  was  passed?  !  It  might  have  been 
the  intention  of  one  or  both  parties  to  speak  prospectively,  but  to  speak 
of  remission  as  past  or  present,  entered  not  into  the  conceptions  of  either. 
Moreover  there  must  be  some  reason  for  the  act  of  pardon  which  did  not 
exist  before  the  moment  that  it  passed.  There  is  nothing  done  by  God 
our  Father  without  a  proper  reason. 

Man  desires,  and  God  promises,  an  assurance  of  pardon.  If  any  thing 
ought  to  be  secured,  this  ought.  If  any  covenant  ought  to  be  sealed,  this 
most  certainly  has  superlative  claims.  A  covenant  which  involves  one's 
present  peace  and  his  eternal  destiny,-  ought  to  be  made  sure ;  solemnized 
and  sealed  in  the  most  authoritative,  formal,  and  sensible  manner.  For 
this,  probably,  among  other  sublime  reasons,  are  we  to  be  baptized  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
terms  of  such  a  pardon  should  be  clear  and  definite ;  they  ought  to  be 
felt  and  understood  in  all  their  mysterious  significance.  The  act  of  sol- 
emnization should  be  the  most  imposing  in  sacred  grandeur ;  and  the  seal 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  535 

of  confirmation  no  less  than  the  sign  manual  of  God's  Spirit,  and  his  own 
immutable  promise  and  inviolable  oath. 

All  men  desire  such  a  pledge  in  the  direct  ratios  of  their  convictions  of 
sin — of  its  deep,  dark,  and  soul-ruining  malignity.  In  the  direct  ratios 
of  their  apprehensions  of  the  immaculate  holiness,  inflexible  justice,  and 
awful  dignity  of  Him  against  Avhom  it  is  comuiitted,  do  they  long  for  an 
acquittal,  as  evident  and  sure  as  tlie  veracity  of  Him  that  cannot  lie,  can 
make  it.  It  is,  more  or  less,  the  desire  of  every  awakened  sinner,  under 
heaven.  Cornelius,  too,  and  the  best  of  the  Jewish  and  gentile  world, 
have  sought  it  with  a  promptness,  assiduity,  and  earnestness,  equal  to  all 
their  prospects  and  hopes  of  attaining  it.  The  joy  of  pardon,  of  assured 
pardon,  through  tlie  blood  of  the  slain  Lamb  of  God,  is  the  purest,  holi- 
est, highest  joy,  that  ever  swelled  the  grateful  heart  of  an  adoring  saint. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory. 

I  cannot  think  that  He  that  swore  to  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
could  withhold  from  his  children,  raised  up  to  him  from  Abraham's  son 
and  heir,  a  pledge  of  his  love,  as  strong  as  that  he  gave  the  father  of  this 
illustrious  and  most  honorable  family. 

The  gendeman  spoke  of  a  delusion  to  which  this  doctrine  is  some  way 
favorable.  But  he  uttered  it,  as  I  thought,  in  terms  unkind,  uncharita- 
ble, and  ambiguous.  The  delusion,  so  far  as  expressed,  seemed  to  be 
that  many  concluded  that  in  one  act  they  had  obeyed  the  gospel,  and 
hence,  that  all  was  forever  safe.  I  have  never  yet  found  any  one  who 
thought  so.  Such  a  case  is  possible — as  possible  as  that  thousands  may 
imagine  themselves  to  be  "  ingrafted  into  Christ,''''  and  "  in  covenant 
with  God,"  in  consequence  of  one  drop  of  water  put  on  their  face  while 
a  sleeping  babe,  in  the  adorable  name  of  the  Almighty.  AVe  teach  pub- 
licly and  privately,  that  all  the  baptized  must  give  all  diligence  to  make 
tlieir  calling  and  election  sure  ;  must  add  to  their  faith  courage,  knowledge, 
temperance,  patience,  godliness,  brotherly  kindness,  and  philanthropy. 

Persons,  I  again  say,  may  be  deluded  under  the  best  systems — under 
all  systems.  Possibly  a  few  may  be  so  deluded  amongst  us.  But  the 
question  is,  which  system  is  most  naturally  and  obviously  tending  that 
way — ours,  or  that  which  teaches  thousands,  millions,  to  regard  them- 
selves born,  or  initiated,  into  God's  family,  or  sealed  members  of  Christ's 
church — regenerated  unto  God,  having  received  "  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  of  their  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration  and  the 
remission  of  sins,"  through  the  faith  of  a  god-father,  or  an  own  father: 
one  drop  of  water  and  the  name  of  God,  without  any  act,  or  deed,  or 
word,  or  thought,  or  volition,  or  desire  of  their  own?  Whether  such  a 
system  is  more  pregnant  with  delusion,  or  one  that  calls  for  personal 
knowledge,  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism,  with  all  corresponding  piety 
and  humanity,  I  leave  to  you,  sir,  and  this  attentive  and  intelligent  audi- 
ence to  decide. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—6^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  eighth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — Before  proceeding  to  reply  to  m)'  friend's  last  speech, 
I  will  read  a  few  passages  from  the  Confession  of  Faith: 

"  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the  vis- 
ible church,  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of 
his  giving  up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  iu  newness  of  life," 


636  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

dec.  chap,  xxviii.  sec.  1.  Again,  (sec.  5,)  "  Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to 
contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  insep- 
arably annexed  unto  it,  as  that  no  person  can  be  regenerated  or  saved  with- 
out it,  or  that  all  that  are  baptized  are  undoubtedly  regenerated." 

Baptism,  we  are  here  taught,  is  an  ordinance  for  the  solemn  admis- 
sion of  persons  into  the  visible  churchy  that  it  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  of  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission 
of  sins,  &c.  It  is  an  outward  sign  of  regeneration  and  of  remission.  The 
confession  does  not  say,  that  remission  of  sins  is  granted  in  the  act  of 
receiving  baptism,  and  never  before.  An  instrument  is  first  written,  then 
sealed.  So  a  believer  is  first  pardoned,  and  then  receives  the  seal;  or, 
more  properly,  the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  which 
baptism  is  the  seal,  are  enjoyed,  when  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  are 
complied  with.  The  believer  is  pardoned  and  justified,  so  soon  as  he 
exercises  faith  in  Christ.  Those  baptized  in  infancy  enjoy  remission  of 
sins,  so  soon  as  they,  having  come  to  responsible  age,  receive  Christ  as 
their  Savior;  and  henceforth  they  enjoy  all  the  spiritual  blessings  pro- 
mised in  the  covenant  of  grace,  sealed  by  christian  baptism.  But  Mr. 
Campbell  holds,  that  remission  of  sins  and  justification  are  obtained  in  the 
act  of  receiving  baptism,  never  before.  Now  what  says  our  confession 
on  this  subject?  "Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he 
pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone." 
— Shorter  Catechism.  The  confession  does  not  say,  we  are  justified  by 
faith  alone,  as  the  gentleman  intimates,  but  that  we  are  justified  for  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone.  Yet 
it  also  says,  "that  faith  is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever 
accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead  faith,  but  work- 
eth  by  love,"  chap.  xi. 

Mr.  Campbell  tells  us,  that  all  this  he  learned  when  a  child.  Certain- 
ly, if  he  did,  he  should  have  better  remembered  it,  and  have  known,  that 
the  confession  does  not  countenance  the  doctrine  for  which  he  contends. 
He  has  quoted  Mr.  Wesley  as  having  taught  his  doctrine  of  baptism,  in 
order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  It  is  possible  that  Wesley,  who  was  an 
Episcopalian,  wrote  some  things  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  which 
savor  of  baptismal  regeneration ;  but  if  he  did,  he  certainly  afterwards 
entertained  very  different  sentiments.  I  am  not  willing  that  the  views  of 
that  great  man  shall  be  misrepresented,  and  made  to  favor  dangerous 
errors.  If,  then,  he,  in  his  youth,  entertained  on  this  subject  erroneous 
views,  and  afterwards,  upon  more  mature  examination,  renounced  them, 
it  is  important  that  this  should  be  known.  I  will  read  an  extract  from 
his  sermon  on  justification: — (Vol.  i.  p.  147.) 

"  Faith,  therefore,  is  the  necessary  condition  of  justification :  yea,  and 
the  only  necessary  condition  thereof.  This  is  the  second  point  carefully  to 
be  observed ;  that,  the  very  moment  God  giveth  faith,  (for  ii  is  the  gift  of 
God )  to  the  '  ungodly,'  that  '  worketh  not,'  that  '  faith  is  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness  1'  He  hath  no  righteousness  at  all,  antecedent  to  this,  not 
so  much  as  negative  righteousness,  or  innocence.  But  '  faith  is  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness,'  the  very  moment  that  he  believeth.  Not  that  God 
(as  was  observed  before)  thinketh  him  to  be  what  he  is  not.  But  as  'he 
made  Christ  to  sin  for  us,'  that  is,  treated  him  as  a  sinner,  punishing  him 
for  our  sins ;  so  he  counteth  us  righteous,  from  the  time  we  believe  in  him  : 
that  is,  he  doth  not  punish  us  for  our  sins,  yea,  treats  us  as  though  we  were 
guiltless  and  righteous.  Surely  the  difficulty  of  assenting  to  the  proposi- 
tion. That  faith  is  the  only  condition  of  justification,  must  arise  from  not 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  537 

understanding  it.  We  mean  thereby  thus  much,  that  it  is  the  only  thing 
that  is  immediately,  indispensably,  absolutely  requisite,  in  order  to  pardon. 
As  on  the  one  hand,  though  a  man  should  have  every  thing  else  without 
faith,  yet  he  cannot  be  justified  :  so  on  the  other,  though  he  be  supposed  to 
want  every  thing  else,  yet  if  he  hath  faith,  he  cannot  but  be  justified.  For  sup- 
pose a  sinner  of  any  kind  or  degree,  in  a  full  sense  of  his  total  ungodliness, 
of  his  utter  inability  to  think,  speak,  or  do  good,  and  his  absolute  meetness 
for  hell  fire  ;  suppose,  I  say,  this  sinner,  helpless  and  hopeless,  casts  him- 
self wholly  on  the  mercy  of  God,  in  Christ,  (which,  indeed,  he  cannot  do  but 
by  the  grace  of  God,)  who  can  doubt  but  he  is  forgiven  in  that  moment  V  &c 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  John  Wesley.  I  leave  the  audience  to  deter 
mine  whether  it  is  the  doctrine  for  which  Mr.  Campbell  contends. 

He  has  certainly  succeeded  in  proving,  by  Dr.  Wall,  that  the  ancient 
fathers  used  the  word  regeneration  for  baptism ;  but  the  misfortune  is, 
that  by  regeneration  they  did  not  mean  what  he  means.  They  believed 
that  the  heart  was  changed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  time  when  baptism 
was  administered,  and,  therefore,  that  remission  of  sins  was  then  secured. 
This  is  not  what  he  means  by  regeneration.  But  I  am  not  concerned  to 
go  into  an  investigation  of  the  opinions  of  those  fathers ;  for  though  they 
were  excellent  witnesses  as  to  matters  of  fact,  I  agree  with  Mr.  Campbell 
in  saying,  they  were  rather  poor  theologians.  He  has  told  us,  that  with 
him  their  authority  is  worth  little;  and  with  me  it  is  worth  no  more. 
The  papists  alone,  I  believe,  feel  bound  to  regard,  as  infallible,  their 
"unanimous  consent." 

My  friend  discovers  in  Pedo-baptists  a  singular  eccentricity.  He  says, 
they  refuse  to  receive  a  positive  precept — baptism  in  order  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  yet  baptize  infants  without  a  positive  precept.  But  this 
eccentricity  entirely  disappears  when  facts  are  known.  I  produced  a  posi- 
tive precept  for  putting  the  children  of  believers  into  the  church  by  the 
initiatory  rite;  and  he  was  unable  to  find  any  thing  like  a  precept  for  ex- 
cluding them.     This  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact. 

But,  is  it  true  that  we  refuse  a  positive  precept  in  regard  to  the  design 
of  baptism  ?  No !  our  eccentricity  consists  in  this :  we  refuse  to  take 
Mr.  CamphelVs  interpretation  of  a  positive  precept.  We  refuse  to  inter- 
pret Peter's  language  as  he  interprets  it.  And  have  we  not  as  good  rea- 
son to  charge  him  with  refusing  to  regard  a  positive  precept,  because  he 
differs  from  us  as  to  its  meaning,  as  he  has  to  make  a  similar  charge 
against  us  for  differing  from  him,  because  we  cannot  acknowledge  him 
infallible,  and  agree  to  see  with  his  eyes  ? 

I  have  a  remark  or  two  to  make  concerning  obeying  the  gospel.  Mr. 
Campbell  says,  the  first  act  of  subordination  to  Christ  is  called  obedience 
to  the  gospel.  But  where  in  the  New  Testament  is  baptism  called  obe- 
dience to  the  gospel  ?  The  gentleman  commenced  his  reformation  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  repudiating  what  he  called  "  the  language  of  Ash- 
dod,"  and  of  speaking  of  Bible  truths  in  Bible  language — but  you  perceive, 
that  when  the  language  of  the  Bible  does  not  suit  him,  he  is  quite  willing  to 
employ  language  of  his  own  selection.  Being  baptized  is  never,  in  the 
Scriptures,  called  obeying  the  gospel ;  not  an  instance  can  be  found  of  any 
such  language.  The  very  first  command  of  the  gospel,  to  all  who  hear  it, 
is  to  believe;  and  the  exercise  of  faith,  and  not  being  baptized,  is  the  first 
act  of  subordination.  Christ  commands  all  to  believe  the  gospel.  Then 
when  I  do  believe,  do  I  not  obey  the  gospel?  He  commands  all  to  repent. 
When  I  repent,  do  I  not  obey  the  gospel  ?  I  obey  the  gospel  in  the  act 
of  believing  and  repenting ;  and  if,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says,  the  first  act  of 


538  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

subordination  to  Christ  secures  remission  of  sins,  it  is  certain  that  faith  and 
repentance  secure  this  blessing;  and  if  so,  his  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of 
baptism,  in  order  to  remission,  is  false. 

But  he  tells  us,  pardon  is  an  act  performed  by  God  at  a  certain  moment, 
and  there  must  be  some  reason  for  performing  that  act,  which  did  not  pre- 
viously exist. 

What  better  reason  can  there  be,  than  that  the  individual,  under  a  deep 
sense  of  his  guilt,  falls  into  the  arms  of  his  compassionate  Redeemer, 
and,  like  Peter,  says — "Lord  save,  or  I  perish  ?"  If  he  receives  Christ 
as  his  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption,  this  is  rea- 
son enough  why  his  sins  should  be  blotted  out.  But,  says  my  friend, 
surely  there  ought  to  be  a  seal  of  remission.  We  contend  that  bap- 
tism is  the  sign  and  the  seal ;  but  we  deny  that  it  is  the  procuring 
cause  of  remission.  What  is  the  design  of  a  seal  ?  An  instrument  ad- 
mitted to  record  is  just  as  valid  as  showing  the  intention  of  the  parties 
before  the  seal  is  added,  as  afterwards  ;  so  a  man's  sins  are  pardoned 
when  he  believes,  and  the  seal  is  applied  afterwards.  A  seal  is  intended, 
not  to  give  validity  to  the  instrument,  but  to  give  it  notoriety. 

I  did  not  say,  that  the  members  of  Mr.  C.'s  church  are  taught,  that 
they  have  nothing  to  do  after  baptism.  I  said,  they  are  taught  to  believe 
that  they  were  pardoned  when  they  were  immersed ;  and  if  it  should 
turn  out,  as  I  solemnly  believe  it  will,  that  such  is  not  the  truth,  they 
are  fatally  deceived.  They  believe  they  are  pardoned,  when  they  arE 
yet  in  their  sins.  This  is  the  delusion  of  which  I  spoke.  I  am  under  a 
dangerous  delusion,  if  I  believe  that  I  am  pardoned,  when  in  truth  I  am 
condemned. 

My  friend  institutes  a  comparison  between  his  teaching  and  ours,  viz : 
whether  his  is  more  delusive  than  that  of  those  who  teach,  that  the  sins 
of  infants  are  remitted  in  baptism.  We  teach  no  such  doctrine,  as  he 
ought  to  know.  He  says,  he  understands  Presbyterianism.  Now  I 
make  the  unqualified  assertion,  that  he  cannot  produce  one  respectable 
Presbyterian,  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  who  ever  taught,  that  infants 
had  their  sins  remitted  in  the  act  of  baptism.  No  child  is  taught  so.  I 
never  saw  a  Presbyterian  writer,  nor  heard  a  Presbyterian  preacher  who 
tlius  taught.  If  I  knew  a  minister,  in  our  church,  who  entertained  such 
views,  I  should  be  prepared  to  table  charges  against  him  before  his  pres- 
bytery. I  am  sorry  1o  discover  that  my  friend  knows  so  little  of  Pres- 
byterianism. 

As  I  have  only  one  more  speech  upon  this  proposition,  you  will  allow 
me  now  to  give  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  arguments.  Let  us  place  be- 
fore our  minds  distinctly  the  point  in  debate.  This  is  the  more  impor- 
tant, inasmuch  as  I  believe  it  is  impossible  to  determine,  from  what  my 
friend  has  said,  what  he  really  believes.  The  question  is  not,  whether 
one  who  contemns  the  ordinance,  or  wilfully  refuses  lo  be  baptized,  can 
be  saved  ?  for  he  who  deliberately  refuses  to  obey  any  command  of 
Christ,  proves  that  he  has  not  true  faith  or  piety.  Nor  is  the  question, 
whether  we  can  become  members  of  the  visible  church  without  baptism? 
for  neither  of  us  maintains  that  we  can.  Nor  yet  is  it,  whether  baptism 
is  a  sign  and  seal  of  regeneration  and  of  remission  of  sins  ?  This  is  admit- 
ted. But  the  question  is  this:  whether  a  penitent  believer  is  condemned 
till  he  is  baptized,  and  is  actually  forgiven  only  in  the  act  of  being  bap- 
tized ?     This  proposition  my  friend  affirms,  and  I  deny. 

According  to  his  doctrine,  every  man  has  his  sins  upon  him  through 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  539 

life  and  in  death,  if  he  has  not  submitted  to  baptism,  and  that  administered 
by  immersion.  That  this  is  his  faith  on  the  subject  before  us,  I  have 
proved  by  his  own  writings. 

My  Jii'st  argument  against  this  doctrine,  is,  that  it  flatly  contradicts  the 
plain  and  positive  declarations  of  our  Savior  and  the  apostles.  What 
says  our  Savior  on  this  subject  ?  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  con- 
demned." To  this  important  passage,  which  of  itself  is  an  unanswer- 
able refutation  of  his  doctrine,  I  have  not  been  able  to  arrest  the  attention 
of  my  friend ;  and  I  am  afraid,  he  will  not  see  it :  I  have  again  and  again 
presented  it  before  him,  but  he  cannot  see  it.  His  doctrine  (which  direct- 
ly contradicts  the  declaration  of  our  Savior,)  is — that  he  that  believes  is 
condemned,  unless  he  have  been  immersed !  He  says,  however,  that 
faith  is  a  principle  in  the  heart — (he  is  getting  quite  orthodox) — that  this 
faith  would  lead  to  obedienice,  and  thus,  in  obeying  by  being  immersed,  the 
sins  of  believers  are  remtted.  But  he  has  also  said,  that  an  angel  might 
mistake  the  meaning  of  a  command ;  and  though  a  believer  should  sin- 
cerely desire  to  obey  every  command  of  Christ,  and  should  fail  to  be 
immersed  only  through  a  mistake  of  the  head,  or  the  impossibility,  under 
existing  circumstances,  of  being  immersed ;  this  will  not  save  him  from 
eternal  death.  But  the  glorious  Redeemer  taught  a  very  different  doc- 
trine. He  said.  Whosoever  believes,  is  not  condemned  ;  every  such 
person  is  justified.  There  is  no  qualification  of  the  language  ;  and  it 
requires  no  criticism  or  comment — it  cannot  be  misunderstood.  Again  : 
"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life."  He  now  has  life 
in  actual  possession.  But  see  how  variously  the  Savior  expressed  him- 
self upon  this  subject  1  as  if  it  were  known  to  him,  as  certainly  it  was, 
that  some  would  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  his  language.  In 
John  vi.  29,  we  read,  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them.  This  is  the 
work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent."  Again,  35th 
verse  :  "And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life  :  he  that  com- 
eth  to  me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
thirst."  The  conclusiveness  of  my  argument  depends  not  upon  the 
word  hath,  in  the  passage  "  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting 
life."  The  Savior  varied  his  mode  of  expression,  and  said,  "And  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst."  He  shall  receive  abundantly 
the  water  of  life.  But  Mr.  C.  teaches,  that  he  that  believeth  shall  thirst, 
unless  he  have  also  been  immersed  !  These  plain,  unequivocal  and  pos- 
itive declarations  of  our  Lord,  will  stand  against  all  the  criticism  the 
gentleman  can  bring  to  bear  upon  the  subject.  Our  doctrine  is  fully  sus- 
tained by  more  than  one  positive  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  He  may 
appeal  to  all  the  critics  and  translators,  but  he  cannot  refute  it. 

My  second  argument  is  the  fact,  that  all  who  are  begotten  of  God, 
do  enjoy  remission  of  sins.  The  gentleman  admits,  that  every  believer, 
before  baptism,  is  begotten  of  God  ;  and  John  the  apostle  says — "  Who- 
soever is  born  [or  begotten,  as  Mr.  C.  would  read  it]  of  God  doth  not 
commit  sin  ;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because 
he  is  born  of  God,"  (John  iii.  9.)  Every  one  who  is  begotten  of  God, 
has  ceased  to  be  a  sinner,  is  holy  in  heart  and  in  life.  Are  such  persons 
condemned  ?  But  in  the  very  next  verse  those  begotten,  are  said  to  be 
children  of  God.  "  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the 
children  of  the  devil :  whoever  doeth  not  righteousness,  is  not  of  God," 
&c.  But  if  they  are  children  of  God,  they  are  "  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ,"  (Rom.  viii.  17.)     Their  sins  are  remitted.     Here 


540  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

we  have  no  need  of  criticism  on  the  word  eis,  or  any  other  disputed  term. 
The  language  is  perfectly  plain. 

Again — "  Every  one  that  liveth  is  born  [or  begotten]  of  God,  and 
knoweth  God"  (1  John  iv.  7.)  Compare  this  with  the  gospel  by  John, 
eh.  xvii.  3,  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  knotv  thee  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  Every  one  who  loves,- 
is  begotten  of  God,  and  knows  God ;  and  every  one  that  knoivs  God, 
has  eternal  life.  His  sins  are  remitted.  Again — "  Whoever  is  born  of 
God  overcometh  the  world ;  and  this  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the 
world,  even  our  faith,"  (1  John  v.  4.)  What  are  the  promises  made  to 
those  who  overcome?  "  To  him  that  overcometh,  will  I  give  to  set  with 
me  in  my  throne,  even  as  I  overcame,  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father 
in  his  throne."  "  He  that  overcometh  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second 
death,"  (See  Rev.  ii.  and  iii.)  The  sins  of  such  persons  are  remitted. 
Again — "  He  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself,  and  that  wicked 
one  toucheth  him  not,"  vs.  18.  Look  at  all  these  plain  and  positive  dec- 
larations concerning  those  who  are  begotten  of  God,  and  those  glorious 
promises  to  them,  and  tell  me,  whether  they  do  not  enjoy  remission 
of  sins. 

Once  more — (1  John  v.  1,)  "Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  is  born  [or  begotten]  of  God  :  and  every  one  that  loveth  him  that 
begat,  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  him."  Every  believer  is  begot- 
ten of  God,  and  is  a  child  of  God.  Mr.  C.  will  not  immerse  an  individ- 
ual until  he  professes  to  believe,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ;  and  if  he  does 
believe,  John  says,  he  is  begotten  of  God,  and,  of  course,  enjoys  all  the 
blessings  and  promises  just  mentioned.  Mr.  Campbell  cannot  get  him 
into  the  water,  on  his  principles,  until  he  is  begotten  of  God,  and  conse- 
quently enjoys  remission  of  sins.  One  such  plain,  unequivocal  declara- 
tion of  inspiration,  is  worth  a  thousand  criticisms  on  eis,  or  any  other 
disputed  word. 

My  tklrd  argument  is  this:  All  who  are  born  of  God  do  enjoy  the 
remission  of  sins ;  and  the  new  birth  is  in  no  sense  essentially  connected 
with  baptism.  That  all  who  are  born  of  God,  are  pardoned,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell admits,  as  you  will  see  by  the  following  declaration  in  his  Christi- 
anity Restored,  p.  208. 

"  Those  who  are  thus  begotten  and  born  of  God,  are  children  of  God.  It 
would  be  a  monstrous  supposition  that  such  persons  are  not  freed  from  their 
sins.  To  be  bom  of  God,  and  born  in  sin,  is  inconceivable.  Remission  of 
sins  is  as  certainly  granted  to  '  the  born  of  God,''  as  life  eternal  and  deliver- 
ance from  corruption  will  be  granted  to  the  children  of  the  resurrection, 
when  born  from  the  grave." 

Now  that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  the  new  birth,  I  have  proved  by  a 
number  of  plain,  incontrovertible  facts :  I.  When  the  new  birth  is  first 
spoken  of,  (John  i.  11 — 13)  water  is  not  mentioned  at  all.  Believers  are 
said  to  have  been  "  born  of  God.'''  Surely  if  water-baptism  had  been 
essential,  it  would  have  been  alluded  to,  when  the  new  birth  is  first  men- 
tioned. 

H.  When  the  conversation  occurred  between  our  Savior  and  Nicode- 
mus,  (John  iii.)  christian  baptism  had  not  been  instituted.  How,  then, 
can  it  be  proved,  that  our  Savior  had  reference  to  an  ordinance  not  then 
in  existence  ?  Certainly  if  he  had  such  allusion,  Nicodemus  could  not 
be  expected  to  understand  him.  Moreover,  by  the  same  mode  of  argu- 
mentation adopted  to  prove,  that  the  Savior  referred  to  christian  baptism, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  541 

the  papists  have  attempted  to  prove,  that  in  John  vi.  he  spoke  of  his  sup- 
per, because  he  makes  the  eating  of  his  flesh  and  the  drinking  of  his 
blood  essential  to  salvation ;  and  thus  they  attempt  to  sustain  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation. 

III.  My  third  fact  is,  that  when  christian  baptism  was  instituted,  it  was 
never,  by  the  inspired  writers,  called  a  birth.  Not  an  instance  of  such  a 
mode  of  expression  can  be  found.  Then  it  is  fair  to  conclude,  that  it  is 
not  a  birth. 

IV.  The  reason  given  by  our  Savior  why  men  must  be  born  again, 
proves,  that  the  new  birth  is  a  change  of  heart,  wrought  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  not,  as  Mr.  C.  teaches,  a  change  of  state  effected  by  baptism. 
What  is  the  reason  given  ?  "  For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ; 
and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  (John  iii.  6.)  The  word 
^esh,  when  employed  with  reference  to  moral  character,  as  in  this  pas- 
sage, as  I  have  proved,  signifies  depravity.  The  Savior's  meaning, 
therefore,  is — that  by  the  natural  birth  we  are  like  our  parents — sinful; 
and  by  the  spiritual  birth  we  are  like  the  Spirit — holy.  The  new  birth 
is,  therefore,  a  change  from  sinfulness  to  holiness,  from  the  image  of 
man,  to  the  image  of  God,  and  not,  as  Mr.  C.  strangely  imagines,  a  pass- 
ing through  water  from  a  state  of  condemnation  to  a  state  of  justification. 

V.  That  the  Savior  had  no  reference  to  baptism  as  essential  to  the  new 
birth,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  reproved  Nicodemus  for  not  under- 
standing the  doctrine — "Art  thou  a  master  [^teacher]  of  Israel,  and  know- 
est  not  these  things  ?"  This  reproof  shows,  that  the  new  birth  is  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament,  of  which  Nicodemus  was  a  professed  expounder, 
and  which  he  ought  therefore  to  have  understood.  Baptism  in  order  to 
remission  of  sins  is  not  there  taught,  but  the  doctrine  of  a  regeneration  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  is.  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you."  It  is,  therefore,  clear,  that  the  new  birth  is  a 
change  of  heart,  not  a  change  of  state. 

VI.  '1  fie  mystery  connected  with  the  new  birth,  proves  that  it  is  not  a 
change  of  state  eff'ected  by  baptism.  Nicodemus  objected  to  the  doctrine 
as  mysterious.  The  Savior  admitted  that  it  is  so,  but  proved  that  this  is  no 
valid  objection  against  it ;  because  even  the  blowing  of  the  wind  is  equal- 
ly mysterious — "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth ;  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  or  whither  it  goeth : 
so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Now,  if  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
C.  be  true,  this  illustration  from  the  blowing  of  the  wind  is  entirely  inap- 
propriate ;  for  there  is  no  mystery  in  the  fact,  (if  it  be  a  fact,)  that  God 
has  said,  he  will  pardon  those  who  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and 
are  immersed.  It  is  one  of  the  simplest  things  imaginable.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  or,  as  Mr.  Campbell  strangely  translates 
it,  the  breathing  of  the  Spirit^  is,  therefore,  out  of  place.  But  if  the 
doctrine  for  which  I  contend  is  true,  the  allusion  was  most  appropriate  ; 
for  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  is  as  mysterious  as  the 
blowing  of  the  wind. 

VII.  It  is  a  fact,  that  the  inspired  writers  weifl  constantly  in  the  habit 
of  connecting  the  emblem  and  the  thing  signified — the  water  and  the  Spi- 
rit. The  Savior  was  speaking  to  a  Jew  who  was  familiar  with  all  the 
ablutions  of  the  I3W  ;  and,  therefov-e,  he  illustra^d  the  nature  of  the  new 
birth  by  reference  to  water,  the  embJem  of  purification. 

VIII.  That  the  new  birth  is  a  change  of  heart,  and  not  a  change  of  state, 
is  proved  by  the  scnptural  evidence  of  persons  having  been  born  again — 

2Z 


542  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of 
God,"  Rom.  viii.  14,  All  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  whose 
hearts  and  lives  conform  to  the  gospel,  are  the  children  of  God.  The 
apostle  does  not  say,  they  who  have  been  baptized  are  the  children  of 
God.     See,  also,  1  John  iii.  9.  10. 

These  plain,  incontrovertible  facts  and  arguments  prove  conclusively, 
that  the  new  birth  is  a  change  of  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God — not  a  change 
of  state,  effected  by  baptism.  Consequently,  when  a  man's  heart  is 
changed  so  that  he  loves  God  supremely,  and  believes  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  he  is  born  of  God,  is  a  claild  of  God,  and  an  heir  of  eternal  life ; 
his  sins  are  remitted,  and  he  may  approach  God  as  his  Father,  and  may 
rationally  rejoice  in  the  certain  anticipation  of  the  bliss  of  heaven. 

M-Y  fourth  argument  against  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  is — that  the  lan- 
guage used  by  Peter  in  Acts  ii.  38,  does  not  teach  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  But  I  have  not  time  now  to  proceed 
further. — [Time  expired. 

Mr.  Campbell  said,  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  get  through  with  his 
argument  in  one  speech  of  half  an  hour. 

Mr.  Rice.    How  much  time  will  you  need? 

Mr.  Campbell.    Two  half  hour  speeches  will  be  sufficient. 

Mr.  Rice.    Very  well,  sir. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—7  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  ninth  address.] 

Mr.  President — My  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  and  myself  have  not  been 
taught  in  the  same  school,  nor  studied  under  the  same  masters.  I  com- 
menced in  the  Presbyterian  school,  but  he  has  continued  longer  in  it  than 
I  did.  One  of  the  first  discoveries  I  made,  of  real  and  abiding  advantage 
to  me,  was  the  licentious  manner  in  which  the}''  quote  and  apply  the 
Scriptures  in  their  pulpits,  and  in  their  books.  I  see  they  have  not  im- 
proved much  since  I  left  them,  if  Mr.  Rice  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  Presby- 
terians that  now  are.  When  I  commenced  preaching  it  was  usual  to 
quote,  in  a  single  sermon,  almost  a  hundred  texts  of  Scripture.  Each 
head  of  discourse  had  its  own  list  of  authorities.  In  my  youthful  salliea 
I  was  accustomed  to  quote  ten  texts,  as  we  called  them,  for  one  I  now 
cite.  There  is  no  greater  delusion  than  an  array  of  verses,  torn  out  of 
their  respective  contexts,  and  arranged  in  a  new  connection  in  support 
of  some  view  or  tenet,  that  was  not  before  the  mind  of  the  inspired 
author,  whose  words  we  thus  take  without  his  consent,  to  illustrate  or 
prove  that  which,  were  he  present,  he  would  most  explicitly  repudiate 
and  disallow.  The  number  of  parallel  texts,  like  synonymous  words,  is 
much  smaller  than,  perhaps,  any  one  of  us  would  allow.  There  is  some 
shade  of  difference,  some  little  peculiarity,  more  striking  and  appreciable 
than  the  difference  between  consubstantiation  and  transubstantiation,  both 
of  which  dogmata  are  sometimes  proved  by  the  same  texts. 

Mr.  R.  has  quoted  various  passages  in  development  of  the  phrases 
"  begotten,"  and  "  born  of  God."  His  object  was  to  shew  the  attributes 
of  these  subjects.  Now,  mark  it  well,  as  respects  this  debate,  every  one 
of  those  texts  have  been  perverted  and  misapplied,  for  one  fact,  which  all 
who  think  must  perceive,  viz.  that  all  those  persons  had  been  baptized 
of  whom  the  apostle  spake.  Hence  the  subject  of  John's  proposition 
was  one  born  both  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  while  the  subject  of  Mr. 
Rice's  proposition  is  one,  as  he  conceives,  born  of  the  Spirit  only;  con- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  543 

sequently  his  reasonings  are  most  fallacious  and  deceitful.  There  was  no 
such  ecclesiastic  personage  in  those  days.  To  illustrate  and  confirm  this 
we  shall  attend  to  John's  discriminating  mode  of  address.     He  says : 

"  I  have  written  to  you,  little  children,  young  men,  and  fathers.  To 
you,  little  children,  because  your  sins  are  forgiven  you,  on  account  of  his 
name."  If  baptism  had  not,  in  those  days,  been  regarded  as  a  pledge  of 
remission,  in  reason's  name,  how  could  John  have  said  that  the  least  in 
years,  in  the  christian  church,  had  their  sins  forgiven  07i  account  of  his 
name!  !  No  man  can  explain  these  words,  but  upon  the  admission  of  my 
premises.  It  is  as  if  John  said,  you  have  only  been  baptized — you  have 
just  been  born  of  water  and  Spirit.  They  had  as  yet  formed  no  charac- 
ter, on  account  of  which  he  could  commend  them.  And  to  the  next 
class  :  "I  have  written  unto  yon,  young  men,  because  you  are  strong,  and 
the  Word  of  God  abidelh  in  you,  and  you  have,  [in  the  heat  of  youth 
and  passion,]  overcome  the  world."  To  the  fathers  he  says,  "I  write 
unto  you,  fathers,  because  you  have  known*him  [the  Messiah]  from  the 
beginning."  You  still  hold  on  your  way  and  acknowledge  him.  If 
these  views  of  this  beautiful  and  instructive  passage  needs  any  other  con- 
firmation, you  have  it  in  the  Hiphil  or  Hebrewistic  form  of  the  verb 
know,  which  is  equivalent  to  acknowledge,  or  make  known.  I  have 
written  to  you,  little  children,  he  says  a  second  time,  because  you  have 
acknowledged  the  Father — which,  of  course,  all  did  in  baptism.  In  a 
very  wholesale  way  the  gendeman  makes  quotations,  and  in  this  whole- 
sale way  do  I  dispose  of  them.  The  proof  now  given  of  the  apostolic 
style  in  this  case  of  being  begotten  and  born,  on  which  he  has  been  occa- 
sionly  entertaining  us  for  two  days,  takes  from  him  his  whole  premises, 
and  exposes  thes  perfect  nudity  of  his  position. 

My  friend  has  repeatedly  objected  to  our  mode  of  designating  persons 
by  representing  them  as  having  obeyed  the  gospel.  I  will  only  add  on 
this  subject,  that  in  using  it  in  this  style,  we  are  perfectly  evangelical. 
In  the  apostolic  age  they  were  thus  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  baptized. 
How  soon  after  Pentecost  it  got  into  use  we  may  learn  from  the  fact,  that 
we  have  the  conversion  of  the  priests  set  forth  in  this  language:  "A 
great  company  of  the  priests  became  obedient  to  the  faith."  After  the 
people  left  the  priests,  the  priests  followed  them.  They  have  seldom,  in 
great  companies,  obeyed  the  truth,  until  deserted  by  the  people.  When 
the  people  are  converted  in  great  numbers,  there  is  much  reason  to  expect 
a  large  conversion  of  the  clergy.  Speaking  of  the  gospel,  Paul  says,  it 
is  made  known  to  all  men,  "for  the  obedience  of  faith;"  and  to  the 
Romans,  speaking  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  he  says,  "  they  have  not 
obeyed  the  gospel,"  &c.  But,  of  the  brethren,  he  says,  "  you  have 
obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine,  [the  gospel]  delivered  to 
you."  We  are  then  in  good  company,  though  not  with  Mr.  Rice,  in  so 
speaking  of  the  converted. 

I  have  already  said,  perhaps,  enough  on  the  tendency  of  our  respective 
systems  towards  delusion.  The  Scriptures  say,  "  with  the  mouth  con- 
fession is  made  unto  salvation" — "  with  the  heart  man  believes  unto  jus 
tification  ;  but  with  the  lips  confession  is  made  to  salvation."  Infants 
cannot  confess  to  salvation,  nor  can  they  believe  in  the  heart  to  justifica- 
tion. Paul  never  contrasts  the  head  and  the  heart,  as  modern  preachers 
do.  He  contrasts  the  mouth  and  the  heart,  which  modern  preachers  do 
not.  Now  we  ask  for  both — a  belief  in  the  heart  and  a  confession  with 
the  mouth,  as  necessary  to  salvation,  in  the  ordinary  dispensations  of 


544  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Providence.  This  public  oral  confession  is  a  very  strong  defence  against 
imposition  and  delusion,  compared  with  carrying  in  our  bosoms  sleeping 
infants  to  receive  holy  baptism,  and  to  put  on  Christ.  As  many  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ  in  old  times,  had  put  on  Christ.  I  have  just  as 
much  reason  to  speak  of  the  soul-ruining  doctrines  of  Pedo-baptism,  as 
he  has  to  speak  of  the  evil  tendencies  of  mine. 

Again :  we  assail  not  the  passions.  We  address  the  understanding,  the 
conscience,  the  affections.  We  assail  the  intellectual  powers  and  moral 
feelings  of  our  nature.  Animal  excitement,  and  all  the  fleshly  appliances 
of  the  present  age,  we  abjure.  We  regard  every  invention  of  that  sort  as 
human,  and  not  divine — a  new  device  in  Christianity.  It  was  as  perfect 
as  the  sun  at  first ;  and,  like  its  Divne  Author,  "  it  is  the  same  yesterday, 
to-day,  and  forever."  Our  system  of  conversion  is  in  this  .point  freer  from 
delusion  than  any  other  known  to  me.  Still  I  preach  to  all  professors, 
"  Examine  yourselves,  whether  you  be  in  the  faith.  Know  you  not  that 
Christ  is  in  you,  except  you  be  reprobate  ?" 

Touching  the  quotations  from  Mr.  John  Wesley,  I  presume  they  spake 
his  sentiments  when  he  wrote  them.  I  desire  not  to  tax  the  large  and 
respectable  denomination  that  has  risen  up  under  his  auspices,  with  any 
views  which  they  disallow.  Both  Messrs.  Clark  and  Wesley  have  at 
times  crossed  their  own  paths,  and  each  other's  paths,  very  palpably,  on 
this,  as  well  as  on  some  other  points.  The  book  from  which  those  ex- 
tracts were  read,  was  printed  not  more  than  eighteen  years  ago,  by  au- 
thority of  the  denomination,  and  was  then  judged  worthy  of  their  patron- 
age. Eighteen  years,  however,  now-a-days  produce  great  revolutions; 
for  much  light  has  gone  forth  into  the  land.  Mr.  Wesley,  it  will  be  re- 
membered, has  said  on  Paul's  conversion,  that  "  baptism  is  both  a  means 
and  a  seal  of  pardon,"  and  that,  in  the  primitive  age,  it  was  the  ordinary 
way  of  receiving  remission.  .Tohn  AVesley's  mother,  an  admirable  lady, 
said,  "  Sinners  obtain  remission  by  baptism,  and  christians  by  confession." 

The  references  to  Wall,  on  the  use  of  the  word  regeneration,  do  not 
authorize  Mr.  Rice  in  saying,  or  in  insinuating,  that  I  have  given  any 
change  or  coloring  whatever  to  his  views  touching  the  universality  of  bap- 
tism for  remission,  or  as  equivalent  to  "being  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,"  amongst  all  the  ancients.  I  believe  that  almost  all,  if  not  abso- 
lutely all,  the  fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  used  regeneration  and  baptism  as 
representative  of  the  same  action  and  event.  I  do  not,  however,  approve 
the  phraseology  used  by  them  on  this  subject.  I  call  baptism  "  the 
washing  of  the  new  birth,"  rather  than  the  new  birth  itself.  So  I  think 
Paul  most  learnedly  denominates  it. 

But  our  opponents  have  done  us  a  great  deal  of  injustice,  in  represent- 
ing us  as  pleading  for  "  water  regeneration.''''  They  have  endeavored 
to  preach  us  down,  and  sing  us  down,  and  write  us  down,  by  holding  us 
up  to  public  reprobation,  as  advocates  of  a  mere  baptismal  regeneration ; 
but  they  have  not  succeeded,  nor  can  they  succeed,  with  any  who  will 
either  hear  us  or  read  us  on  these  subjects.  No  man  believes  more  cor- 
dially, or  teaches  more  fully,  the  necessity  of  a  spiritual  change  of  our  af- 
fections— a  change  of  heart — than  I  do.  I  have  said  a  thousand  times, 
that  if  a  person  were  to  be  immersed  twice  seven  times  in  the  Jordan  for 
the  remission  of  his  sins,  or  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  would 
avail  nothing  more  than  wetting  the  face  of  a  babe,  unless  his  heart  is 
changed  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God.  I  have  no  confidence  in  any 
instrumentality,  ordinance,  means,  or  observance,  unless  the    lieart  is 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  545 

turned  to  God.  This  is  the  fundamental,  the  capital  point ;  but,  with 
these,  every  other  divine  ordinance  is  essential  for  the  spiritual  enlarge- 
ment, confirmation,  and  sanctification  of  the  faithful. 

Mr.  Rice  says  I  sometimes  use  the  language  of  Ashdod.  No  doubt 
of  it.  When  communicating  with  those  who  do  not  understand  the  lan- 
guage of  Canaan,  we  must  accommodate  our  style  to  their  education. 
There  is  no  scriptural  authority  for  calling  a  change  of  heart,  the  nevf 
birth,  or  regeneration. 

I  doubt  not  that  all  the  intelligent  and  conscientious,  when  their  hearts 
are  first  turned  to  the  Lord,  unless  deluded  into  the  belief  that  they  have 
been  baptized,  desire  baptism.  It  is  as  natural  for  those  who  read 
the  book,  to  desire  baptism,  as  it  was  to  the  eunuch  to  exclaim,  "See, 
here  is  water  :  what  doth  hinder  my  being  baptized  ?"  All  whose  hearts 
are  touched  from  above,  pant  for  baptism.  They  long  for  it — they  de- 
sire it.  It  is  only  after  they  have  been  prevailed  upon  to  believe  that 
they  have  been  baptized,  that  they  can  give  up  the  anticipated  plea- 
sure. Many  of  them,  too,  give  it  up  with  reluctance  ;  and  I  do  know 
so  much  of  human  nature,  and  of  the  human  heart,  too,  that  no  one 
sprinkled  in  perfect  infancy,  or  who,  on  the  testimony  of  some  friend, 
believes  he  was,  is  ever  so  well  satisfied,  so  perfectly  pleased  with  him- 
self and  at  rest,  as  he  that  on  his  own  confession  has  voluntarily  placed 
himself  under  the  Lord  by  a  baptism  unto  his  death.  A  striking  proof  of 
this  has  occurred  in  death-bed  scenes,  in  the  numbers  which  I  have  seen 
and  of  which  I  have  heard.  No  one  has  been  found,  as  I  believe,  peni- 
tent or  grieved  in  the  immediate  prospect  of  death,  because  he  had  been, 
on  his  own  confession,  buried  with  the  Lord  in  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  his  sins ;  but  many  of  those  who  only  believed  that  they  had  been 
sprinkled  in  infancy,  on  some  other  person's  faith  than  their  own,  have 
died  overwhelmed  with  unavailing  penitence.  Again  I  say,  no  death-bed 
penitent  has  ever  lamented  that  he  obeyed  the  Lord  for  himself. 

I  will,  in  reply  to  various  vague  generalities,  Avhich  cannot  be  easily 
grouped  under  any  one  category,  read  a  few  passages,  with  a  few  re- 
marks, from  a  name  dear  to  many  good  Presbyterians  in  this  city,  not 
only  inscribed  upon  a  monumental  church  in  the  neighborhood,  but  em- 
balmed in  the  memory  of  many  yet  living  in  the  midst  of  us.  I  need 
scarcely  add,  I  am  about  to  read  a  few  extracts  from  the  Reverend  James 
McCord.     We  shall  commence  with  a  passage  on  page  162. 

'*  That  is,  in  other  words,  if  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ  deserves  con- 
eideration,  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  without  the  limits 
of  the  church  of  God. 

I  know  that  the  statement  of  such  a  sentiment  is  far  from  flattering  to 
those  who  wish  to  be  saved,  but  in  a  way  and  upon  principles  very  different 
trorn  those  to  which  the  page  of  inspiration  points  us.  And  I  expect  to  be 
assailed  at  once  with  questions  from  all  quarters — '  What,  then,  will  the 
heathen  AoV  '  What  must  become  of  many  amiable  and  deserving  people, 
who  act  in  a  way  decidedly  superior  to  many  christian  professors,  although 
they  are  not  of  the  church  !'  '  Wliy  do  you  attach  so  much  importance  to 
mere  externals,  when  every  body  knows  that  tlie  essence  of  true  religion 
consists  in  the  dispositions  of  tlie  heart  1'  We  have  not  leisure  to  answe'r 
all  these  questions :  nor  do  we  deem  an  answer  necessary." — Last  Appeal^ 
p.  162. 

Is  not  this  writer  as  uncharitable  as  a  reformer?     Complain  not,  my 
Presbyterian  friends,  of  our  uncharitableness,  since  one  of  your  most  gift- 
ed, and  pious,  and  exemplary  preachers,  speaks  as  strongly  and  as  uncom- 
35  2z2 


546  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

promisingly  as  any  staunch  reformer  in  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky. 
He  lells  you,  that  there  is  to  you  who  have  the  Bible  "  no  reasonable 
prospect  of  salvation  but  in  connection  with  the  church  of  Christ.  There 
is,"  he  adds,  "  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  without  the  precincts 
of  the  christian  church."     But  let  us  hear  him  on  baptism. 

"  You  will  not,  therefore,  deem  it  an  unreasonable  statement,  that  there 
is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  without  the  precincts  of  the  christian 
church,  if  once  we  can  clearly  make  it  out  to  you,  that  the  churcli  is  the 
great  mean  of  etlecting  man's  salvation. 

This  is  not  one  of  those  questions  that  are  only  to  be  settled  by  long'  and 
difficult  argument.  It  is  a  question  of  fact ;  and  you  will  find  the  decision 
vvritten  as  with  a  sunbeam  in  every  page  of  Scripture.  Wlien  the  Savior 
gave  commandment  to  his  apostles  to  proclaim  his  great  salvation  to  all 
people  under  heaven,  what  was  the  declaration  that  accompanied  this  com- 
mandment? 'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  When 
those  apostles  made  the  first  proof  of  their  ministry,  in  the  city  of  .Jerusa- 
lem, on  the  memorable  day  of  Pentecost,  what  was  their  answer  to  the  ago- 
nized multitudes  who  felt  convicted  of  the  sin  of  crucifying  God's  own  Mes- 
siah, and  cried  out  in  horror,  '  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  dol'  '  Re- 
pent and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Thia 
was  their  answer  to  the  eager  inquiry.  When  the  apostles  went  abroad 
among  the  gentile  nations,  what  other  prescription  did  they  ever  give  for 
attaining  to  God's  salvation  !  '  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ :'  '  believe 
and  be  baptized:'  'the  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy 
heart — that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be 
saved.  For  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  ;  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation.'" — Last  Appeal,  pp.  165,  166. 

"And  this  is  harshness  1  The  God  of  immensity  tenders  you  salvation; 
and  you  say  you  would  gladly  have  it.  But  he  tenders  it  in  connection  with 
that  great  society  of  which  his  own  Messiah  is  the  liead  and  king  ;  and  you 
say  you  do  not  wish  to  be  connected  with  his  churcii.  He  tenders  you  his 
Spirit  with  the  water  of  his  baptism  ;  and  you  say  you  liad  rather  be  saved 
without  that  baptism.  He  tenders  you  salvation,  if  yon  will  submit  to  all 
his  government,  if  you  will  wear  his  yoke,  if  you  will  learn  of  him  ;  and 
you  refuse  to  learn  of  him,  you  refuse  to  wear  his  yoke.  You  must  be  saved 
in  your  own  way,  not  in  God's  way.  You  must  be  saved  when  it  suits  you 
to  submit  to  his  appointments,  and  not  just  when  he  invites  you.  And  it  is 
cruel  in  God's  Messiah  to  withhold  his  great  salvation  from  the  little,  piti- 
ful, short-sighted,  but  self-suliicient  being,  who  refuses  to  seek  for  it  in  the 
way  he  has  directed  ?  And  it  is  harsh  in  me  to  tell  you,  that  in  acting  thus 
perversely  you  trifle  with  your  peace  !" — pp.  170,  171. 

"  Incense,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  a  symbol  of  the  prayers  of  the 
saints.  It  is  only  in  the  true  spiritual  church  that  such  prayers  are  offered; 
and  they  are  symbolized  by  the  incense  burnt  upon  the  golden  altar  in  the 
holy  place." — p.  184. 

Could  any  one  accustomed  to  hear  our  brethren  speak,  distinguish  this 
address  from  those  which  they  are  often  accustomed  to  hear  from  them 
in  their  discourses  upon  the  gospel  ?  He  tliat  could  distinguish  them, 
must  have  a  more  discriminating  ear  than  I  have.  The  second  of  the 
Acts,  and  the  third  of  John,  passed  through  his  hands  as  diversely  from 
the  comments  of  Mr.  Rice,  as  Mr.  Rice's  comments  differ  from  ours. 

But  Mr.  R.  makes  his  grand  defence  of  his  interpretation  of  John  iii.  5, 
on  a  very  singular  assumption,  viz.,  that  as  christian  baptism  was  not  then 
instituted,  our  Savior  could  have  no  allusion  to  it.  He  could,  then,  during 
his  whole  ministry,  have  no  allusion  to  anything  not  then  actually  exist- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  547 

ing,  if  the  principle  be  sound.  Our  Lord  spake,  both  in  figure  and  without 
figure,  prospectively  of  his  death,  burial,  resurrection,  kingdom,  and  cause 
in  the  world;  and  even  ordained  the  supper  prospectively.  Mc(Jord,  in  his 
Last  Appeal,  reprobates  these  views  of  Mr.  Rice,  and  corroborates  mine. 

But  look  for  a  moment  at  the  style.  ''Yoii  must  be  born  its^ahi''' — as 
introductory  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  Again,  and  in  the  same  discourse, 
he  says,  "  the  Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up,''  &c.  Now  Mr.  Rice  will 
admit,  that  '^  must  be''  in  this  case  indicates  what  was  then  prospectively 
future:  and  why  not  admit  that  the  same  style,  I'rom  the  same  speaker, 
and  in  the  same  conversation,  may  not  also  mean  what  was  then  pros- 
pectively future  ?  In  the  original,  the  word  and  construction  are  iden- 
tically the  same,  in  verses  7  and  14.  Evident,  then,  it  is,  as  almost  all  truly 
learned  men  agree,  that  the  whole  discourse  wiUi  Nicodemus  was  prospec- 
tively delivered.  If  time  admitted,  it  were  easy  to  give  much  more  evi- 
dence of  this  sort.  What  I  have  stated,  cannot  easily  be  refuted.  If  Mr.  R. 
however,  will  not  hear  the  Westminster  divines,  and  his  friend  Dr.  Hall, 
he  would  not  be  persuaded  though  I  gave  a  hundred  other  proofs. 

I  read  these  passages  from  Rev.  McCord,  not  so  mucli  to  corroborate 
either  my  views  of  .lolin  iii.  5,  or  Acts  ii.  38,  or  of  Mark  xvi.  10,  as  to 
shew  how  exceedingly  incongruous  is  the  ciiarge  of  uncharitable  ccnsori- 
ousness,  so  frequently  and  so  pertinaciously  exhibited  against  us  by  our 
opponents.  If  Presbyterianism  were  to  be  redeemed  from  its  humilia- 
tion in  this  commonwealtii,  by  arraigning  our  piety  or  our  benevolence — 
more  vigorous  and  resolute  attempts  to  represent  us  as  opposed  to  a 
change  of  heart,  or  as  so  exclusive  in  our  views  and  feelings,  as  to  deny 
the  possibility  ot  salvation  beyond  our  own  communion — could  not  have 
been  devised  or  prosecuted,  than  on  the  present  occasion.  To  fasten 
these  imputations  upon  us,  rather  than  discuss  the  doctrinal  issues  be- 
tween us,  seems  to  be  the  great  desideratum  of  my  respondent.  And  to 
me  the  marvel  is,  that  a  denomination  the  most  exclusive  in  all  the  com- 
munity, if  its  standards  are  to  be  relied  on,  should  presume  to  accuse  us 
of  views  excessively  exclusive,  while  seeking  at  other  times  to  reproach 
us  with  the  most  indefinite  latitudinarianism. 

Indeed,  McCord's  views,  before  expressed,  are  but  a  development  of  one 
or  two  passages  in  the  cotdession.   I  have  time  but  for  tlie  two  followmg: 

"  Others  not  elected,  altiiough  they  may  be  called  by  tlio  ministry  of  the 
word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  liie  Spirit,  yet  tliey  never 
truly  come  to  Christ,  and  thcrotbre  cannot  bo  saved  ;  nmoli  less  caii,  men  not 
proje.isviff  the  cfirisliim  religiuii  bo  saved  in  any  other  way  whatsoever,  be 
they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  tlie  liglit  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion  tliey  do  profess:  and  to  assort  and  maintain 
that  they  may,  is  very  pernicious  and  to  be  detested." — p.  (>5.  sec.  4. 

"  The  visible  church,  which  is  also  catliolic  or  universal  under  the  gospel, 
(not  confined  unto  one  nation  as  before  under  the  law,)  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  tiie  world  that  profess  tiie  true  religion,  together  with  their  child- 
ren ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  tiie  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  chosen  family  of  God, 
out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation." — p.  I'M.  sec.  '2. 

This  is,  to  say  the  least,  quite  as  uncharitable  as  any  thing  we  have 
said  or  written  on  the  subject.  Especially,  as  we  know  that  those  whose 
confession  this  is,  pretend  to  regard  and  represent  us  in  this  community 
as  not  professing  the  true  religion.  Presbyterians,  like  my  friend,  of  the 
true,  genuine  color,  never  change.  They  are  all  immutable.  These  sen- 
timents, then,  are  essential  to  them  all  ;  and,  of  course,  they  can  neither 
blame  nor  censure  us,  on  the  ground  of  uncharilableness. 


548  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

I  can  neither  advert  to  all  the  peculiar  absurdities  of  the  system  I  op- 
pose, nor  respond  to  every  thing  foreign  to  the  question,  deduced  from 
my  own  writings  or  any  other  source,  in  the  time  allotted  us  ;  but  I  must 
notice  the  singular  caprice  that  gives  an  ordinance  to  one  because  one  of 
his  parents  is  a  professor,  and  withholds  it  from  a  child  whose  parents 
are  more  virtuous  and  benevolent  than  he,  though  not  professors  in  their 
sense  of  the  word — especially  if  they  regard  the  ordinance  of  any  salu- 
tary efficacy  whatever. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24— 7^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[yiR.  rice's  ninth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — The  gentleman  seems  to  abound  in  matter  of  one 
kind  or  another.  I  had  expected  to  close  the  argument  on  this  subject 
this  morning ;  but,  as  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  so  on  the  design,  he  was  so 
far  from  having  proved  his  doctrine  to  his  own  satisfaction,  that,  at  his 
request,  I  agreed  to  continue  the  discussion  tivo  hours  this  evening ;  and 
yet  he  calls  for  more  time  ! ! '.  Well,  I  have  given  him  another  speech,  for 
I  wish  him  to  have  full  time  to  deliver  himself  on  this  whole  subject.  I 
desire  it  to  be  understood  and  known,  that  the  clergy  are  not  afraid  of  the 
light  which  he  can  throw  around  them ;  we  are  willing  to  meet  his  argu- 
ments in  their  undminislied  strength. 

He  pretends,  that  the  passages  I  quoted  from  the  epistle  of  John,  prov- 
ing that  all  who  are  begotten  of  God,  enjoy  remission  of  sins,  are  all  misap- 
plied, because  those  tilings  are  spoken  concerning  baptized  persons.  It 
is  truly  astonishing,  that  any  man  should  be  willing  to  expose  himself  by 
assuming  a  position  so  perfectly  untenable  and  absurd.  No  one  who  will 
read  those  passages,  can  doubt  that  John  was  giving  general  descriptions 
of  christian  character — pointing  out  the  peculiar  character  of  true  chris- 
tians. Let  us,  for  a  moment,  examine  those  passages:  " AVhosoever  is 
born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin."  The  expression  is  absolutely  univer- 
sal, not  limited  to  those  immersed,  or  baptized.  Again,  verse  10:  "In 
this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil."  In 
what  are  they  manifest?  Not  in  the  fact,  that  the  one  class  have  been 
baptized,  and  the  other  not,  but  in  the  fact,  that  the  children  of  God  do 
righteousness  and  love  their  brethren.  All,  therefore,  who  work  right- 
eousness, are  the  children  of  God,  baptized  or  not.  Again,  1  John  iv.  7 : 
"Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another,  for  love  is  of  God;  and  every  one 
THAT  LovETH  is  bom  of  God,  and  knovVeth  God."  Again,  chap.  v.  1  : 
"Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God;  and 
EVERY  ONE  that  loveth  him  that  begat,  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of 
him."  Now  what  shall  we  speak  of  the  interpreter  of  God's  word,  who 
will  gravely  tell  us,  that  these  universal  expressions  are  to  be  confined  to 
those  who  had  been  immersed? 

The  expression  '  whosoever,''  and  '  every  one,'  are  as  universal  as  any 
terms  in  any  language  can  be.  "  JJliosoever  will,  let  him  take  the  water  of 
life  freely."  Yet  Mr.  Campbell,  to  sustain  his  cause,  feels  obliged  to  de- 
clare, that  these  expressions  are  to  be  limited  to  those  who  had  been  immer- 
sed !  Sorely,  indeed,  must  the  cause  be  pressed,  that  cannot  sustain  itself, 
without  resorting  to  perversions  of  God's  word  so  glaring  and  so  reckless  ! 
I  called  on  the  gentleman  to  produce  a  passage  of  Scripture,  which 
represents  being  baptized,  as  obeying  the  gospel.  He  refers  us  to  Acts 
vi.  7:  "  And  a  great  company  of  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith."  And 
what  has  this  passage  to  do  with  the  question,  whether  being  baptized  is 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  549 

called  obeying  the  gospel  ?  Does  he  expect  us  to  take  it  for  granted,  that 
baptism  is  meant,  where  it  is  not  even  distantly  alluded  to  ?  The  inspired 
historian  says,  the  priests  became  obedient  to  the  faith — but  he  says  not  a 
word  about  baptism.  The  gentleman  asserted  most  boldly,  the  other  day, 
that  the  promise  in  Galatians  iii.,  referred  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  though 
Canaan  is  not  mentioned  in  the  whole  epistle  ;  and  why  should  he  not  find 
baptism  where  it  is  not  even  hinted  at? 

He  has  found  another  passage  in  Rom.  vi.  17  :  "  But  God  be  thanked 
that  we  were  the  servants  of  sin  ;  but  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  that 
form  of  doctrine  which  was  delivered  you."  Here,  strange  to  tell,  he 
thinks  that  to  obey  the  form  of  doctrine  delivered  to  them,  though  it  is  just 
the  opposite  of  serving  sin,  is  to  be  immersed  !  Obedience  to  the  form  of 
doctrine  taught  by  Paul,  is  immersion;  obedience  to  the  faith  is  immer- 
sion; the  name  of  the  Lord  refers  to  immersion;  sanctification  is  immer- 
sion ;  every  thing  in  the  New  Testament  is  immersion  !  !  What  a  watery 
affair  he  would  make  the  gospel ! 

By  the  way,  he  still  keeps  up  the  old  song  about  infant  baptism.  Now 
if  he  is  really  suffering  under  the  conviction  of  having  been  defeated  in  his 
war  against  infant  baptism,  we  will  give  him  another  trial ;  but  I  am  not 
disposed  to  discuss  two  subjects  at  once. 

But  he  finds  another  passage  in  Rom.  x.  10,  v/here  baptism  is  called 
obeying  the  gospel ;  it  is  this  :  "  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness  Qhat  is,  unto  justification,  which  is  obtained  by  faith]  ;  and 
with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  Yes,  confession  with 
the  mouth  means  immersion!  Why,  the  question  is  not  any  longer, 
what  passages  speak  of  immersion,  but  where  are  any  that  do  not! 

Having  read  from  Wesley's  sermon  on  justification  his  real  views,  I 
leave  Mr.  Campbell  to  make  what  capital  he  can  by  claiming  him.  He 
must  be  in  great  need  of  arguments,  or  he  would  not  drag  in  those  whose 
views  are  precisely  the  opposite  of  his.  Even  Calvin  cannot  escape, 
although  he  said  in  so  many  words,  that  Cornelius  first  obtained  remission 
of  sins,  and  was  afterwards  baptized,  "  not  with  a  view  to  obtain  by  bap- 
tism a  more  ample  remission  of  sins;"  and  again,  that  baptism,  though 
mentioned  by  Peter  before  remission,  really  succeeds  it !  After  all,  we 
are  to  believe,  that  Calvin  agrees  perfecdy  with  Mr.  Campbell,  who  main- 
tains that  remission  of  sins  is  actually  obtained  in  baptism,  not  before  ! 
The  gentleman  tell  us,  he  believes  in  a  change  of  heart.  We  shall  have 
occasion,  in  a  short  time,  to  inquire  into  his  views  on  that  subject.  For 
the  present,  therefore,  I  pass  it  without  particular  remark. 

Every  believer,  he  informs  us,  will  be  immersed,  unless  beguiled  by 
some  one  to  believe  that  sprinkling  is  baptism.  Who  would  not  sympa- 
thize with  such  men  as  Calvin,  Luther,  Owen,  Scott,  and  a  multitude 
like  them,  who  spent  their  lives  in  the  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
and,  at  last,  were  beguiled  into  the  belief  that  sprinkling  is  baptism  ? 
They  wished  to  know  and  do  their  duty  ;  but  somebody,  it  would  seem, 
beguiled  them.  The  Scriptures,  we  are  told,  do  most  clearly  teach,  that 
nothing  but  immersion  is  baptism ;  but  such  men  as  those,  could  not  see 
it.  They  were  beguiled  !  !  !  When  I  hear  men  uttering  such  sentiments, 
I  am  disposed  to  think,  they  prove  very  conclusively,  that  they  have  an 
€xalted  opinion  of  their  own  wisdom,  and  not  much  correct  knowledge 
of  human  nature. 

The  gentleman  says,  he  was  a  Presbyterian,  till  he  was  twenty-one 
years  of  age;  and  he  imagines,  tliat  he  understands  the  whole  s^'slem  q£ 


550  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Presbyterianism.  Many  young  men,  at  that  age,  think  themselves  quite 
profound  theologians.  He  retains  the  recollection  of  those  youthful  con- 
ceits ;  and  seems  still  to  think  that  he  had,  at  that  early  period,  made 
himself  a  rallier  uncommon  divine  !  But  I  am  constrained  still  very 
much  to  doubt,  wheliier  he  ever  knew  mucli  of  Presbyterianism. 

But  he  says,  he  has  met  with  numbers  who,  on  their  death-beds, 
regretted  that  they  had  not  been  baptized  on  their  own  responsibility. 
This  is  indeed  news  !  He  is  the  first  man  I  ever  heard  say,  that  he  had 
met  with  even  one  case  of  the  kind.  I  have  visited  the  death-beds  of  a  good 
many ;  and  I  am  acquainted  with  many  ministers  who  have  been  in  the 
ministry  longer  than  Mr.  C.  had  lived,  when  he  left  the  Presbyterian 
church,  at  twenty-one  ;  and  I  have  never  heard  from  any  of  them  of  even 
one  such  case.  Yet  Mr.  Campbell  has  met  with  numbers  !  Well,  he 
has  seen  strange  things,  and  met  with  singular  people  in  this  world  ! 

He  quotes  McCord  as  saying,  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation out  of  the  church.  I  have  no  objection  whatever  to  this  doctrine. 
For  he  who  refuses  to  become  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ,  know- 
ing that  God  has  commanded  him  to  do  so,  gives  evidence,  clear  and 
decisive,  that  he  has  no  true  piety,  and,  of  course,  cannot  be  saved. 
But  did  McCord  say,  that  the  sins  of  believers  are  remitted  only  in  bap- 
tism ?  He  did  not.  The  gentleman's  running  after  helps  so  perfectly 
flimsy,  shows  how  well  he  understands  Presbyterianism,  and  how  deeply 
he  feels  that  his  cause  is  sinking.  These  remarks  are  a  sufficient  answer 
to  his  comments  on  the  language  of  our  confession  of  faith. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  if  he  really  desires  to  discuss  it,  I  will 
meet  him  at  a  proper  time,  and  give  him  a  fair  opportunity  to  demolish 
it.  I  will  not  now  be  diverted  from  the  subject  before  us  ;  but  if  he 
wishes  a  discussion  of  that  subject,  he  shall  have  it. 

He  still  magnifies  his  charity.  Let  me  give  you  some  little  evidence 
of  the  liberality  and  charity  he  exliibits  :  Christianity  Restored,  p.  240; 
"Infants,  idiots,  deaf  and  dumb  persons,  innocent  pagans,  wherever  they 
can  be  found,  wiili.  all  the  pious  Pedo-baptists,  we  commend  to  the 
mercy  of  God."  Again,  an  objection  is  presented  and  answered  as  fol- 
lows: "But  do  not  many  of  them  [unimmersed  persons]]  enjoy  the 
present  salvation  of  God?"  Mr.  C.  answers,  "  How  far  they  may  be 
happy  in  the  peace  of  God,  and  the  hope  of  heaven,  I  presume  not  to 
say.  And  we  know  so  much  of  human  nature  as  to  say,  that  he  that 
imagines  himself  pardoned,  will  feel  as  happy  as  he  that  is  really  so» 
But  one  thing  we  do  know,  that  norie  can  rationally,  and  ivith  cer- 
tainty, enjoy  the  peace  of  God,  and  the  hope  of  heaven,  but  they  who 
intelligently,  and  in  full  faith  are  born  of  water,  or  immersed  for  tlie 
remission  of  their  si/js." 

The  gentleman  is  quite  charitable  indeed,  and  pious  too;  for  he  com- 
mends pious  Pedo-baptists,  infants,  idiots  and  pagans  to  the  mercy  of 
God  !  But  he  tells  us,  the  pious  Pedo-baptists  cannot  rationally  and 
with  certainty  enjoy  the  hope  of  heaven!  'J'iiere  is,  it  seems,  no  cer- 
tainty that  their  sins  are  remitted.  Like  "his  holiness,"  the  pope,  he  is 
disposed  to  admit  the  possible  salvation  of  the  incorrigibly  ignorant! 
The  great  ignorance  of  some  may  put  them  in  a  liopeful  condition  !  If 
this  is  liberality  and  charity,  he  is  welcome  to  the  credit  of  it. 

He  has  read  to  you  some  extracts  from  Witsius  on  the  covenants.  I 
subscribe  very  cordially  to  the  views  expressed  by  Witsius.  He  tells 
us,  that  baptism,  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  binds  those  who  receive  it,  ta 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  551 

a  holy  life — that  it  is  a  significant  ordinance,  pointing  to  spiritual  bless- 
ings, the  putting  off  the  old  man,  spiritual  resurrection,  (fee.  But  does 
he  say,  as  Mr.  C.  says,  that  the  sins  of  the  baptized  are  actuaUij  re- 
mitted in  the  act  of  being  baptized?  He  does  not — he  believed  no  such 
thing.  The  gentleman  must  be  in  trouble,  or  he  would  not  attempt  to 
sustain  himself  by  the  authority  of  men  whose  views  were  the  antipodes 
of  his,  and  whose  writings  are  regarded  in  all  our  theological  seminaries  as 
standard  works.  The  simple  truth  is,  there  is  just  as  great  (Utference  be- 
tween his  views  and  theirs,  as  there  is  between  actual  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  remission. 

I  will  now  resume  the  recapitulation  of  the  argument.  I  have  proved, 
that  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  of  baptism  in  order  to  remission  of  sins,  Hatly 
contradicts  the  repeated,  clear,  and  unequivocal  declarations  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles.  I  have  proved  it  false  by  the  fact,  that  all  who  are  begotten 
of  God  do  enjoy  remission  of  sins.  The  gentleman  admits,  that  all  who 
believe  are  begotten  of  God — that  they  must  be  begotten  before  they  are 
baptized.  But  John  the  aposde  teaches,  that  every  one  that  is  begotten 
of  God,  does  know  God,  overcome  the  world,  and  has  the  promise  of 
eternal  life.  They  are,  therefore,  pardoned  before  he  can  get  them  into 
the  water. 

I  have  disproved  his  doctrine  also,  from  the  fact,  that  all  who  are  born 
of  God  do  enjoy  remission  of  sins;  and  the  new  birth,  as  1  have  proved, 
is  not  essentially  connected  with  baptism,  but  is  a  change  of  heart.  This 
has  been  proved  by  a  number  o^ facts  which  he  has  not  attempted  to  deny. 
He  has  said,  and  reiterated,  that  the  confession  of  faith  makes  John  iii, 
5,  refer  to  baptism  ;  and  he  charges  me  with  abandoning  the  creed  I 
have  solemnly  adopted.  But  does  the  confession  say,  that  this  passage 
means  christian  baptism  ?  Not  a  word  of  it.  In  the  chapter  on  baptism 
it  does  refer  to  this  passage,  as  illustrating  the  connection  between  the 
emblem  and  the  thing  signified.  But  in  the  same  chapter  it  refers  to 
Rom.  iv.  2,  "  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had — being  yet  uncircumcised,"  &c. 
£Mr.  Campbell.  It  is  not  in  the  same  section.]  I  care  not  what  sec- 
tion he  read.  He  asserts,  that  the  confession  makes  John  iii.  5,  rel'er  to 
baptism,  because  in  the  chapter  on  baptism  this  passage  is  quoted ;  but  I 
prove,  that  in  the  same  chapter  on  baptism,  the  confession  refers  to  Rom, 
iv.  2,  where  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  circumcision.  So,  according  to 
the  gentleman's  logic,  the  confession  makes  circumcision  mean  baptism  ! 
The  argument  is  as  conclusive  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

But,  if  he  had  been  as  familiar  with  Presbyterianism  as  he  would  have 
us  believe,  he  would  have  known,  that  in  adopting  the  confession  of  faith 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  we  do  not 
say,  that  every  reference  to  Scripture  is  precisely  appropriate.  AVe  adopt 
its  doctrines  as  true,  but  not  every  reference  as  correct.  I  fear  the  gen- 
tleman will  lind  it  necessary  to  go  over  his  theological  training  again,  be- 
fore he  will  understand  Presbyterianism. 

It  is,  then,  clear,  that  the  new  birth  is  not  at  all  essentially  connected 
with  baptism — that  it  is  a  change  of  heart;  that,  when  the  heart  is  re- 
newed, the  individual  is  born  of  God,  is  a  child  of  God,  and  an  heir  to 
the  heavenly  inheritance.     His  sins  are  remitted. 

My  fourth  argument  is,  that  the  language  of  Peter,  in  Acts  ii.  38, 
does  not  teach  the  necessity  of  baptism  in  order  to  remission.  Peter 
said  to  the  inquiring  Jews,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 


552  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Lord  Jesus  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Mr.  Campbell  has  said  in  his 
Christianity  Restored,  that  "immersion  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was 
the  command  addressed  to  these  believers;"  but  this  is  a  very  great  mis- 
take. Peter  commanded  repentance  and  baptism.  Now  the  question 
arises,  whether  repentance  or  baptism  secures  remission,  or  whether  both 
are  equally  necessary.  To  determine  this  question,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  examine  several  other  passages.  We  will  suppose,  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  Peter  meant  to  say,  be  baptized  for  or  into  (eis)  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  Does  the  word  eis,  translated  for,  mean  in  order  to  ? 
Mr.  Campbell  affirms  that  it  does.  I  admit,  cheerfully,  that  it  sometimes 
has  this  meaning,  but  such  is  by  no  means  its  uniform  signification. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  another  passage  in  which  we  find  a  precisely 
similar  expression;  Matt.  iii.  11,  •'  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  inta 
(eis)  repentance."  I  asked  the  gentleman  whether  he  believed,  that 
John  baptized  tlie  Jews  in  order  that  they  might  repent — be  sorry  for 
their  sins  1  He  says,  no — but  he  baptized  them  in  order  to  reforma- 
tion. But  here  he  meets  an  insuperable  difhculty,  making  John  and 
Peter  contradict  each  other.  John,  he  says,  baptized  the  Jews  in  order 
to  reform.ation ;  and  Peter  commanded  them  first  to  reform,  in  order  tO' 
receive  baptism  !  Did  John  and  Peter  thus  contradict  each  other  ?  If 
they  did  not,  Mr.  Campbell's  exposition  of  their  language  is  certainly- 
most  erroneous.  Our  interpretation  of  their  teaching  makes  them  per- 
fectly harmonize.  John  baptized  the  Jews  into  repentance.  They 
came  to  him  confessing  their  sins,  and  professing  repentance ;  and  into 
that  professed  repentance  he  baptized  them.  So  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
the  converted  Jews,  hearing  tlie  offer  of  remission  of  sins  through  Jesus 
Christ,  and  professing  to  believe  ihe  proclam.ation  and  to  receive  Christ 
as  their  Savior,  were  baptized  into  this  faith,  received  the  sign  and  seal 
of  that  remission,  obtained  simply  by  faith. 

But  there  is  another  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Mr.  C.  If,. 
as  he  says,  the  word  translated  repentance  means  reformation,  and  John 
said,  I  l^aptize  you  unto  reformation,  how  are  we  to  understand  Peter's 
second  discourse,  in  which  he  says — '■'■Reform  and  be  converted?"  I 
have  called  on  the  gentleman  to  tell  us,  (but  I  apprehend,  he  never  will 
do  it,)  what  is  the  difference  between  reformation  and  conversion?  In. 
his  translation  he  has  it — "  reform,  and  be  converted."  I  hope  he  will 
endeavor  to  tell  us  the  difference  between  reformation  and  conversion. 
We  wish  to  know,  whether  Peter  said  in  efiect,  reform  and  be  reformed  ; 
or,  convert  and  be  converted.  Such  are  some  of  the  iivsuperable  diffi- 
culties attending  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C. 

I  have  also  presented  for  your  consideration  a  sixth  argument  against 
his  doctrine  and  against  his  interpretation  of  Peter's  language,  viz  :  Faith,, 
repentance,  and  conversion  mutually  imply  each  other;  and,  therefore^ 
remission  of  sins  is  promised  indiscriminately  to  each  of  these  graces.  It 
is  impossible  that  any  one  should  have  repentance — a  change  of  mind — 
without  conversion — a  change  of  life;  and  it  is  impossible  that  there 
should  be  true  faith  without  repentance  and  conversion.  In  a  word,, 
where  there  is  repentance,  there  is  faith ;  and  where  there  is  repentance 
and  faith,  there  is  conversion.  These,  then,  like  faith,  hope,  and  charity^ 
are  uniformly  found  in  the  same  heart.  I  have  asked  the  gentleman^ 
whether  they  can  exist  separately  ;  and  he  pretends  not  to  say,  they  can. 

Then,  inasmuch  as  faith,  repentance,  and  conversion  uniformly  exist 
together,  remission  of  sins  may  with  perfect  propriety  be  promised  to 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  553 

either,  or  to  all  of  them.  Accordingly,  we  do  in  fact  find  the  inspired 
writers  promising  remission  to  every  penitent,  to  every  converted  person, 
to  every  believer.  In  the  following  passages,  the  remission  of  sins  is  pro- 
mised to  repentance:  Luke  xxiv.  46,  "Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it 
behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  and  that 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among 
all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  Again — Acts  v.  31,  "Him  hath 
God  exalted  with  his  right  hand,  to  be  a  prince  and  a  Savior,  for  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins. ^^  Again — Acts  xi.  18, 
"  When  they  heard  these  things,  they  held  their  peace,  and  glorified  God, 
saying.  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  lifeJ'^ 
In  each  of  these  passages,  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  or  repent- 
ance and  life,  are  connected  together;  so  that  every  penitent  may  be  assu- 
red that  his  sins  are  remitted.  Remission  of  sins  is  also  promised  to  con- 
version. Matt,  xviii,  3,  "Except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little 
children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Every  one, 
then,  who  is  converted,  will  enjoy  the  blessings  of  God's  kingdom. 

The  fact  that  repentance,  faith  and  conversion,  mutually  imply  each 
other,  and  are  always  found  associated,  explains  the  reason  why  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  promised  indiscriminately  to  each  of  these  graces.  It  also 
reconciles  most  fully  the  different  directions  given  to  inquiinng  minds  by 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles.  In  Peter's  first  discourse  (Acts  ii.)  he 
promised  remission  to  those  who  repented.  In  his  second,  (Acts  iii.) 
preaching  to  another  company  of  inquirers,  and,  of  course,  telling  them 
all  the  conditions  of  remission  of  sins,  he  said,  "  Repent  and  be  converted, 
that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Here  baptism  is  not  mentioned,  nor 
is  it  necessarily  implied  in  repentance  and  conversion,  more  than  any 
other  duty.  Hence  the  conclusion  is  most  obvious,  that  Peter  did  not 
regard  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  remission  of  sins.  The  jailor 
(Acts  xvi.)  was  commanded  simply  to  believe,  and  on  this  one  condition 
salvation  was  ])romised.  It  is,  then,  clear,  that  forgiveness  of  sins  is 
promised  indiscriminately  to  repentance,  conversion,  and  faith  ;  but  bap- 
tism is  never  mentioned  as  a  prerequisite  to  remission. 

When  Peter  preached  to  Cornelius,  he  said  not  a  word  about  baptism 
in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  On  the  contrary,  he  declared  in  the  most 
unqualified  terms,  "  In  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh 
righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him  ;"  and  again — "  To  him  give  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall 
receive  remission  of  sins,"  (verses  35,  43.)  Did  the  prophets  testify, 
that  remission  of  sins  should  be  enjoyed  through  immersion  ? 

From  the  first  discourse  of  Peter  to  the  end  of  the  New  Testament, 
you  cannot  find  one  word  about  baptism  in  order  to  remission  of  sins. 
As  John  baptized  into  a  profession  of  repentance  for  remission  of  sins  ;  so 
did  Peter  baptize  into  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ  for  remission  ;  and 
both  John  and  Peter  directed  the  faitli  of  the  baptized  to  Christ. 

But  Ananias'  language  to  Paul  is  brought  forward  to  sustain  Mr.  C 
•'  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins."  But  this  language  is 
fully  explained  by  the  fact  staled  and  proved,  that  the  inspired  writers, 
both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament,  constantly  connect  together 
the  emblem  of  sanctification  with  the  grace  of  sanctification — water  with 
the  work  of  the  Spirit.  This  fact  aff'ords  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  all 
the  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  which  have  been  supposed  to  favor 
the  doctrine  I  am  opposing. 

3A 


554  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

My  seventh  argument  against  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  is  this:  If  it  be  true, 
multitudes  of  the  most  pious  and  godly  persons  live  and  die  condemned, 
and  are  forever  lost.  None  but  immersed  persons,  he  most  unequivocally 
teaches,  can  have  rational  evidence  of  remission.  Sins,  according  to  him, 
are  remitted  only  in  baptism.  He  does,  indeed,  express  the  opinion  that 
some  unimmersed  persons,  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God  here,  may 
enter  the  kingdom  of  glory  in  heaven.  But  this  opinion  is  perfectly  ab- 
surd. The  Scriptures  no  where  teach,  that  any  whose  sins  are  not  remit- 
ted in  this  life,  will  be  pardoned  in  the  next.  I  say,  then,  if  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's doctrine  be  true,  hell  will  be  full  of  the  most  godly  people  who 
have  lived  on  earth  I 

We  have  often  stood  by  the  dying  beds  of  those  who,  according  to  Mr. 
C.'s  views,  were  never  baptized;  and  we  have  witnessed  their  calmness 
in  immediate  view  of  death,  the  heavenly  peace  which  passeth  under- 
standing, the  joyful  anticipation  of  speedily  beholding  their  Redeemer's 
face  without  a  veil  to  obscure  his  glory.  We  have  seen  them  in  this 
happy  frame  of  mind,  bid  adieu  to  all  they  loved  below,  and  sweetly  fall 
asleep  in  Christ.  But  if  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  be  true,  all  this  was  delusion ; 
for  their  sins  were  yet  upon  them,  and  their  hopes  were  speedily  blasted  ! 
This  doctrine  is  most  palpably  contradictory  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
every  where  promise  eternal  life  to  all  the  righteous,  and  threaten  des- 
truction only  to  the  wicked. 

My  eighth  argument  is — that  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  ascribes  an  unscriptural 
importance  and  efficacy  to  an  external  ordinance.  The  Scriptures,  as  I 
have  proved,  every  where  declare,  that  the  religion  of  the  heart  is  the  one 
thing  needful,  and  the  only  thing  essential  to  salvation.  On  this  point  I 
quoted  a  number  of  passages,  to  which  the  gentleman  has  attempted  no 
reply.  Circumcision  was  once  delayed  for  forty  years  with  the  approba- 
tion of  God,  and,  therefore,  was  never  considered  essential  to  salvation. 
Mr.  Campbell  has  but  fallen  into  the  common  error  of  human  nature.  The 
religion  of  all  pagans  consists  chiefly  in  forms  and  ceremonies.  The 
Jews  lost  sight  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  to  which  their  bloody  sacrifices 
pointed  them,  and  clung  to  the  mere  shadow.  They  denied  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  their  ablutions  were  but  emblems,  and  fondly 
imagined  that  by  their  multiplied  washings  they  might  be  acceptable  to 
God.  They  were  assiduous  in  cleansing  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the 
platter,  leaving  the  inside  polluted  and  defiled. 

It  is,  I  say,  the  error  of  human  nature.  Our  Savior  never  found  it 
necessary  to  reprove  the  Jews  for  undervaluing  external  rites ;  but  often 
did  he  condemn  them,  for  ascribing  to  them  an  efficacy  they  did  not  pos- 
sess. The  christian  church  was  filled  with  corruption  by  the  same  error. 
The  bread  and  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper,  designed  to  be  a  memorial 
of  his  death,  were  supposed  to  have  attached  to  them  some  mysterious  effi- 
cacy ;  the  partaking  of  them  was  deemed  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and, 
finally,  men,  in  the  perfection  of  their  folly,  imagined  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  actually  changed  into  the  body,  blood,  soul  and  divinity  of 
Christ!  They  lost  sight  of  the  cross  and  the  atonement;  and  their  faith 
terminated  on  the  mere  symbols. 

By  a  similar  process  and  from  a  similar  cause  baptism  began  to  be 
thought  essential  to  salvation ;  then  an  efficac)^  was  ascribed  to  it  in  secu- 
ring the  purification  of  the  soul  from  sin  ;  and  to  add  to  its  virtue,  water  was 
consecrated,  that  the  ordinance  might  be  administered  with  holy  ivater. 
Such  is  the  progress  Rome  has  made  in  making  a  Savior  of  external  rites. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  555 

I  have  been  surprised,  in  looking  through  Mr.  Campbell's  writings,  to 
discover,  how  large  a  portion  of  the  New  Testament  he  makes  to  speak 
of  immersion,  and  what  efficacy  he  ascribes  to  it.  In  his  debate  with 
McCalla  he  declares,  tliat  the  immersed  believer  comes  up  out  of  the  wd- 
ter,  pure  as  ait  angel!  And  in  looking  over  his  Christianity  Restored, 
I  happened  to  notice  liis  remarks  on  Heb.  x.  14,  "  For  by  one  offering 
he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified,"  and  I  found  him  para- 
phrasing it  thus:  "By  one  offering  up  of  himself,  he  has  perfected  the 
conscience  of  the  iinmersed  or  sanctified!''''  p.  247.  Yes — he  has  per- 
fected forever  the  immersed!  ! !  Sanctification  means  immersion,  and 
indeed,  with  him,  every  thing  seems  to  run  into  the  water  ! — [Time  ex- 
pired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—8  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  tenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — This  is  my  last  address  on  this  proposition,  and 
having  to  touch  upon  numerous  topics,  I  must,  therefore,  touch  upon 
them  lightly.  Most  of  the  important  matters  have  been  repeatedly  ad- 
verted to,  and  are  gone  to  record;  therefore  little  need  be  said  upon  them. 
Whatever  replies  have  been  made  to  my  regular  arguments,  if  I  have  not 
adverted  to  them,  it  is  because  I  have  not  noted  them  down,  or  supposed 
them  to  be  worthy  of  any  special  attention.  On  this  question,  as  generally 
before,  we  have  had  no  real  debate.  The  main  points  op  which  I  relied, 
stated  in  my  first  speech,  and  in  some  of  the  others,  are  unreplied  to,  and 
some  of  them  almost,  if  not  altogether,  unnoticed.  My  friend  sometimes 
assumes  to  be  facetious,  and  sometimes  acrimonious  ;  but  in  his  last  essay 
has  addressed  himself  rather  to  your  liumor,  than  to  your  judgment  or 
conscience.  The  following  items  have  been  repeatedly  adverted  to,  or 
hinted  at,  during  the  investigation  of  this  question 

1.  While  we  regard  immersion,  or  christian  baptism,  as  a  wise,  bene- 
volent, and  useful  institution,  we  neither  disparage,  nor  underrate,  a  new 
heart,  repentance,  or  faith ;  nay,  we  teach  with  great  clearness  and  defi- 
niteness,  that  unpreceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  it  is  of  no  value  what- 
eoever.  These  two  constitute  a  change  of  heart,  a  mental  conversion  ; 
for  all  believing  penitents  have  a  new  heart,  and  are  prepared  for  being 
born  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

2.  But  in  the  second  place,  we  insist  upon  the  essential  importance  of 
baptism,  as  a  divine  institution,  because  Jesus  Christ  enacts  no  superflui- 
ties. In  his  religion  there  is  not  one  ordinance  tliat  is  not  essential  for 
some  purpose  ;  all-important  to  christian  life,  health,  or  usefulness.  Not 
one  of  them,  therefore,  can  with  safety  be  dispensed  with.  Who,  then, 
think  you,  acts  more  rationally  ;  he  that  practically  maintains  faith,  re- 
pentance, and  baptism  ;  or  he  that  dispenses  with  any  one  of  them,  as, 
in  his  judgment,  unnecessary  or  inexpedient?  The  strongest  argument 
for  any  thing,  and  the  best  reason  for  doing  any  thing,  is,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  commanded  it.  A  sound  discretion,  and  a  sound  judg- 
ment, give  to  every  thing  its  proper  place,  and  no  more.  Neither  faith, 
nor  repentance,  nor  baptism,  severally,  nor  altogether,  are  every  thing  in 
religion.  But  each  one  of  them  is  indispensable,  and  no  one  of  them  can 
be  a  substitute  for  another.  A  person  is  not  to  be  justified  nor  saved  by 
faith  alone.  No  man  can  trifle  with  baptism,  so  long  as  he  remembers 
that  Jesus  said,  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
What  God  has  joined  together,  let  no  man  separate. 

During  the  controversy  on  the  design  of  baptism,  up  to  this  moment. 


556  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

we  have  not  heard  of  any  benefit  whatever  which  it  confers  upon  an  in- 
fant. While  I  have  been  elaborating  the  important  design  of  baptism,  I 
had  hoped  that,  if  my  opponent  would  not  accede  to  my  views  on  that 
subject,  he  would,  at  least,  give  us  a  clear  numerical  statement  of  the 
practical  benefits  resulting  to  his  subjects  of  baptism.  He  has  not  been 
able  to  mention  one  benefit  which  baptism  confers  upon  his  true  and  pro- 
per subjects  of  it;  for  baptism,  to  an  unconscious  babe,  imparts  neither 
knowledge,  nor  faith,  nor  repentance,  nor  forgiveness,  nor  health,  nor 
I'iches,  nor  long  life,  nor  any  good  thing,  temporal,  spiritual,  or  eternal. 
In  the  name  of  common  sense  and  reason,  then,  what  has  this  controver- 
sy been  about?  If  my  friend  triumphs,  who  has  gained  any  thing?  It  re- 
cognizes a  right ;  but  then  the  right  is  there,  whether  recognized  or  not 
It  is  born  in  the  church,  and,  therefore,  baptism  is  not  a  door  into  any 
thing — and  what  are  all  church  birthrights  to  it !  They  guaranty  nothing. 
It  is  a  grand  superlative  nullity.  I  do  beseech  and  implore  the  gentle- 
man to  stand  up  to  his  task  now,  and  tell  us  what  are  the  advantages,  be- 
nefits, and  privileges  of  infant  baptism  ?  When  he  recounts  them,  fellow- 
citizens,  mark  them  down,  and  ponder  them  well. 

4.  "  Them  that  honor  me,"  says  Jesus,  "  I  will  honor."  Now  there  is 
a  pleasure,  an  ineffable  pleasure,  in  obeying  Jesus  Christ.  In  magnifying 
his  institutions  we  honor  him,  and  we  are  honored ;  in  magnifying  them 
we  cannot  err.  It  was  "  his  meat  and  his  drink  to  do  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  him."  One  of  the  benefits  of  the  institution  is,  that  it  affords  a  person 
a  fine  opportunity  to  honor  the  Lord.  The  more  shame,  reproach,  and 
contumely,  the  better.  And  if  there  be  none  of  these,  then  there  is  the 
pure,  unalloyed  joy  of  sincere  personal  consecration ;  of  giving  one's 
self  away  to  the  Lord  ;  of  entering  into  a  solemn  and  everlasting  covenant 
with  the  Lord.  Millions  of  ages  to  come,  there  will  be  millions  in  para- 
dise who  will  be  delighted  to  revert  to  some  river,  or  pool,  or  fountain,  in 
which  they  put  on  Christ,  and  vowed  eternal  allegiance  to  him. 

5.  Mr.  Rice  says,  many  good  and  pious  persons  live,  die,  and  go  to  hell, 
on  my  principles.  On  his  own  fallacious  inferences,  he  should  have  said. 
This  is,  truly,  an  astonishing  conclusion.  It  is,  certainly,  the  result  of  a 
morbid  state  of  the  system.  I  should  prescribe  medicine,  rather  than  ar- 
gument, in  this  case.  We  send  none  to  perdition  but  those  who  disbe- 
lieve and  reject  the  gospel.  And  is  it  an  unfavorable  aspect  of  our  reli- 
gion, that  it  does  not  promise  eternal  life  to  those  who  disbelieve  and 
disobey  it! 

No  good — no  religious,  moral,  or  virtuous  man,  can  perish  through 
our  views  or  principles.  Our  theory  thunders  terrors  to  none  but  the 
self-condemned.  Human  responsibility,  in  my  views  and  doctrines,  al- 
ways depends  upon,  and  is  measured  by,  human  ability.  It  is  so,  cer- 
tainly, under  the  gospel.  The  man  born  blind  will  not  be  condemned 
for  not  seeing,  nor  the  deaf  for  not  hearing.  The  man  who  never  heard 
the  gospel,  cannot  disobey  it;  and  he  who,  through  any  physical  impos- 
sibility, is  prevented  from  any  ordinance,  is  no  transgressor.  It  is  only 
he  who  knows,  and  has  power  to  do,  his  Master's  will,  that  shall  be  pun- 
ished for  disobedience.  None  suffer,  in  our  views,  but  those  who  are 
wilfully  ignorant,  or  negligent  of  their  duty.  Natural  ability,  time,  place, 
and  circumstances,  are  all  to  be  taken  into  the  account ;  and  none  but 
those  who  sin  against  these,  are,  on  our  theory,  to  perish  with  an  ever- 
lasting destruction,  "from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory 
of  his  power."     Infants  dying,  need  neither  faith,  repentance,  nor  bap- 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  557 

tism,  in  order  to  their  salvation,  according  to  the  Bible.  They  died  in 
the  first  Adam,  but  the  second  Adam  died  for  them,  and  they  shall  live 
with  him. 

6.  Great  men  often  believe  great  nonsense.  St.  Peter's  church  is  filled 
with  the  busts  of  a  thousand  saints  who  were  learned  and  pious  teachers 
of  transubstantiation,  auricular  confession,  and  purgatory ;  who  prayed  to 
the  Virgin  Mary  and  to  dead  men.  There  are  learned  Protestants,  and 
there  are  learned  Papists,  but  the  latter  are  more  numerous  than  the  for- 
mer; consequently,  neither  learning,  nor  genius,  nor  talent,  nor  numbers, 
are  tests  of  truth,  or  a  proof  that  any  tenet,  custom,  or  tradition  is  ca- 
nonical or  useful. 

7.  Another  particular  observation  in  this  summary  which,  I  presume, 
you  have  made,  and  which  I  am  sorry  to  be  constrained  to  make,  is  the 
manner  of  proof  adopted  by  Mr.  Rice.  He  and  I  calculate  very  differ- 
ently on  the  audience.  I  have  been  accustomed  to  give  scriptural  and 
rational  proof  of  every  proposition  to  those  who  wait  on  my  ministra- 
tions ;  but  it  appears  that  he  is  accustomed  to  inform  his  audience  that 
he  has  proved  his  proposition,  and  seems  to  regard  the  phrases  "it  is 
so  "  and  "  it  is  not  so,"  as  most  satisfactory  evidence.  Can  any  of  you, 
my  friends,  recollect  a  proposition  agreed  upon,  which  he  attempted  to 
prove  by  any  regular  train  of  reasonings  or  facts  ;  or  any  one  of  mine, 
that  has  been  assailed  by  him  in  any  other  way  than  by  assertions  and 
denials  ?     If  you  do,  I  must  say  I  do  not  remember  it. 

8.  I  need  not  attempt  a  recapitulation  of  the  arguments  offered  on  this 
occasion.  It  would  be  to  reiterate  much  of  my  first  address,  as  well  as 
portions  of  others.  Of  the  fourteen  arguments  advanced  on  this  subject, 
not  one  has  been  formally  assailed.  A  few  of  them  have  been  noticed  in 
an  allusive  manner,  but  perhaps  one  half  of  them  has  not  been  even  allu- 
ded to.  Assumed  contradictions  in  my  writings  and  Mr.  R.'s  theory  of 
Uie  new  birth,  matters  wholly  foreign  here,  left  but  little  time  for  the  pro- 
per business  of  my  respondent.  I  made  the  precepts  and  positive  decla- 
rations of  the  New  Testament,  the  basis  of  all  my  arguments.  Several 
of  them  were  direct  precepts — each  of  them  a  formal  "  thus  saith  the 
Lord."  The  first  of  these,  introduced  by  the  Holy  Spirit  himself  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  is  itself  alone  sufficient,  when  all  its  circumstances  are 
maturely  considered.  The  solemn  precept,  obeyed  by  three  thousand  in 
one  day,  has  itself  alone  satisfied  many  myriads  now  living  and  millions 
dead.  And  had  it  been  proclaimed  to  all  the  world  and  been  believed, 
would  not  the  result  have  been  the  same  ?  Peter  inseparably  connected 
repentance  and  baptism,  as  necessary  to  a  plenary  remission  of  sin.  It  is 
still  the  same  as  at  the  beginning — the  law  has  not  been  changed. 

9.  The  Messiah  himself,  too,  connected  faith,  baptism,  and  salvation 
together  in  the  commission,  as  reported  by  John  Mark.  Is  he  not 
paramount  authority  ?  What  better  guaranty  than,  "//e  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved?''''  Who  can  ask  more.  The  heavens 
will  fall  before  the  Lord's  word  will  fail.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  "jHe 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved^ 

10.  This  is  a  saying  for  which  Mr.  R.  has  yet  had  no  use.  Peter's 
sayings  and  those  of  the  Lord  Jesus  are  not  for  one  age,  nation,  or  condi- 
tion of  men  ;  but  for  all  nations,  ibr  all  ages,  for  the  human  race.  Jesus 
commanded  this  annunciation  to  be  made  to  every  creature — preach  the 
tame  gospel  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  world. 

11.  When  Jesus  sent  Ananias  to  Saul  of  Tarsus,  he  also  instructed 

3a2 


558  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

him  to  say  to  the  anxious  and  inquiring  Paul,  "Arise  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins,  caUing  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Does  not  this 
also  indicate  a  clear  fixedness  of  plan,  a  Divine  uniformity  in  administer- 
ing remission  and  salvation  in  the  gospel  age  ? 

12.  But  take  one  more,  and  leave  all  the  other  arguments.  Take  the 
aged,  venerable,  authoritative  Peter  in  the  prospect  of  soon  seeing  the 
Lord.  Peter,  in  his  catholic  epistle,  does  more  than  John  the  apostle. 
John  only  alludes  to  the  subject  of  baptism,  but  Peter  strongly  maintains 
his  Pentecostal  address.  He  says,  speaking  of  Noah's  salvation  in  water 
and  by  water,  that  we  are  saved  in  water  and  by  water,  as  Noah  in  the 
ark  was  saved  through  the  deluge.  To  which  salvation,  neither  to  the 
ark  nor  to  the  water  alone,  baptism  corresponds  as  an  antitype  to  a  type, 
in  saving  those  who  enter  the  water  as  Noah  entered  the  deluge,  relying 
upon  God's  promises — thus  seeking  and  obtaining  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God  ;  always  the  effect  of  remission,  through  faith 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead.  He  who  cannot  find  a  good 
foundation  on  such  authorities  as  these,  to  name  no  other,  is  not  to  be 
reasoned  with  by  moral  arguments. 

Neither  Peter  nor  the  Messiah  was  afraid  of  any  unfavorable  inferences 
from  their  use  of  the  word  saved.  Some  have  wondered  why  our  Lord 
did  not  place  some  of  the  social  virtues  immediately  in  association  with 

faith,  when  he  said,  "  He  that  believeih  and ,  &c.,  shall  be  saved." 

None  of  our  opposing  cotemporaries  would  have  supplied  the  blank  with 
the  words  "  and  is  baptized."  Peter,  then,  and  his  Master,  sustain  our 
use  of  this  style  of  address,  and  authorize  our  conclusions  also. 

Should  I  err  in  following  such  authorities,  I  place  between  me  and  my 
Lawgiver  and  Judge  the  fact,  that  I  stand  behind  all  the  apostles.  What  I 
say  to  my  hearers,  I  have  caught  from  the  lips  of  those  inspired  pillars  of 
the  christain  temple.  When  any  one  asks  me  ivhat  he  must  do  to  be 
saved?  so  soon  as  I  ascertain  his  position,  whether  he  be  a  believer,  an 
unbeliever,  or  a  penitent,  I  tender  to  him  some  one  of  the  answers  given 
by  the  authority  of  the  Lord.  I  do  not  give  the  same  answer  to  every 
inquirer,  because  the  apostles  did  not.  Their  respective  characters  call 
for  answers  suited  to  them.  To  every  believing  querist,  I  give  the  answer 
that  Peter  gave  on  the  ever-memorable  Pentecost,  believing  that  if  the 
whole  world  had  then  been  present,  and  joined  in  the  same  query,  he 
would  have  given  the  same  answer  to  all. 

Men  had  better  take  care  how  they  handle  coals  of  fire.  The  word  of 
God  is  not  to  be  misapplied  with  impunity.  Has  he  said,  and  shall  he 
not  do  it  ?  Has  he  spoken,  and  shall  it  not  come  to  pass  ?  The  heavens 
and  earth  may  pass  away,  but  his  word  will  never  pass  away.  I  should 
become  a  Presbyterian  before  to-morrow's  dawn,  if  the  book  of  God  com- 
manded me.  My  religion  changed  me  once,  and  it  would  change  me 
ten  times,  if  I  could  only  find  one,  ''thus  saith  the  Lord''''  for  it.  I  set 
out  to  know  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  to  obey  it  in  all  things.  I 
have  consecrated  myself  to  its  maintenance,  and  vowed  to  follow  where  it 
leads  the  way. 

13.  As  to  our  charity — what  an  insulted  word!  As  to  our  charity! 
Then,  if  charity  consist  in  firmly  and  affectionately  stating  the  truth  to 
those  who  design  to  know  it,  we  are  most  charitable.  But,  if  charity 
mean  flattery — saying  to  all,  you  are  right — you  are  in  the  way  to  bles- 
sedness, whether  or  not,  then  are  we  most  uncharitable,  for  we  will  not 
say  so.     And  if  charity  mean  hoping  all  things,  I  am  willing  to  say,  that 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  559 

I  do  sincerely  rejoice,  that  simple,  honest  mistakes,  where  they  are  not 
the  result  of  corruption  of  heart,  will  not,  in  my  opinion,  preclude  any 
Pedo-baptist  from  heaven,  although  on  earth  he  should,  through  his  mis- 
takes, never  enjoy  the  full  reign  of  heaven  in  his  soul.  The  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  will  do  right.  I  circumscribe  not  the  Divine  philanthropy — the 
Divine  grace.  I  dare  not  say  that  there  is  no  salvation  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  or  in  that  of  Constantinople ;  though,  certainly,  Protestants  do  not 
regard  them  as  churches  builded  upon  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  pro- 
phets, Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief  corner-stone.  In  all  the  Protestant 
parties  there  are  many  excellent  spirits,  that  mourn  over  the  desolations  of 
Zion — that  love  the  gospel  and  its  author  most  sincerely.  My  soul  re- 
joices in  the  assurance  that  there  are  very  many  excellent  spirits  groaning 
under  the  weight  of  human  tradition  and  error,  who  are  looking  for  re- 
demption from  these  misfortunes  before  a  long  time.  I  do  not  believe  that 
pagans  or  infants  will  be  condemned  for  not  believing  the  gospel.  Nay, 
my  exposition  of  that  document,  given  in  this  debate,  confines  it  only  to 
those  who  hear  it.  Still,  I  must  say,  that,  in  my  full  conviction,  and  as- 
surance of  faith,  it  is  only  the  man  who  believes  and  obeys  the  original 
gospel,  who  repents  of  his  sins,  and  is  immersed  for  the  remission  of 
them,  that  can  enter  into  the  full  and  true  enjoyment  of  the  reign  of  God 
within  the  heart. 

14.  I  said  nothing  on  the  subject  of  election,  to  call  for  any  expression 
on  the  form  of  a  challenge  for  the  discussion  of  that  question.  The  gen- 
tleman has,  I  think,  enough  on  hand  at  present,  without  the  burthen  of 
Calvinian  election.  His  proposition  to  debate  that  subject  was  wholly 
gratuitous  and  uncalled  for. 

15.  There  are  yet  one  or  two  points  that  I  shall  touch  very  lightly. 
There  is  one  good  effect  in  christian  baptism,  on  which  1  have  not  dwelt. 
It  is  its  direct  influence  upon  the  baptized.  It  gives,  indeed,  a  very  strong 
impulse  to  the  intelligent  subject  of  it.  He  feels  a  solemn  transition  from 
one  state  to  another.  It  is  most  solemnly  impressive,  inasmuch  as  he  feels 
himself  voluntarily  putting  on  the  Lord  and  Savior  of  the  world  ;  he  feels 
himself  partaking  with  the  Savior  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  and 
giving  himself  away  to  the  Lord  for  time  and  for  eternity — an  event  wor- 
thy of  everlasting  remembrance.  It,  therefore,  gready  exercises  the  faith, 
hope,  love  and  zeal  of  every  intelligent  and  conscientious  subject  of  it.  I 
would  not  deprive  my  son,  or  my  daughter,  by  my  ofRciousness,  from  this 
most  sublime  pleasure,  for  all  the  honors,  emoluments  and  privileges  of 
the  Roman  hierarchy.  I  will  teach  them  its  meaning,  its  importance,  its 
rich  and  liberal  blessings  ;  I  will  then  leave  it  to  themselves  to  act,  to 
choose  the  time,  and  the  place,  and  the  circumstances.  I  will  tell  them  of 
that  preparation  of  heart  necessary  to  a  proper  reception  of  it,  and  of  the 
sweet  peace,  and  joy,  and  love,  which  follow  in  its  train,  and  then  leave 
them  to  the  Lord  and  themselves. 

My  time,  almost  expired,  admonishes  me  to  say  a  word  upon  the 
catholicity  of  our  views.  We  have  an  eye  single  to  the  union  of  all  chris- 
tians on  the  old  foundations.  I  would  not  hold  an  heretical  or  schis- 
matical  tenei  for  any  consideration  that  could  be  presented  to  me.  Now 
it  so  happens,  that,  although  my  very  worthy  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  would 
represent  me  as  most  exclusive  in  my  views  and  feelings ;  nay,  as  con- 
signing to  perdition  all  who  are  not  immersed  !  I  am,  on  the  whole 
doctrine  of  baptism,  action,  subject,  and  design,  much  more  catholic 
in  every  respect  than  he. 


660  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Suppose  now,  one  great  convention  of  the  christian  world  had  met 
to  fix  upon  some  basis  of"  union  and  communion,  and  that  they  had  agreed 
upon  one  single  point,  viz : — that  wliatever  views  were  most  generally- 
believed,  and  first  those  that  were  universally  believed,  should  be  accept- 
ed and  incorporated,  instead  of  those  believed  by  a  minority. 

Baptism  comes  before  the  convention:  the  question  is  first  upon  the 
action ;  a  part  vote  for  sprinkling,  as  valid  baptism,  a  part  for  pouring, 
but  all  agree  that  immersion  is  valid  baptism.  It  is,  therefore,  put 
down  as  catholic,  and  the  other  two  as  sectarian. 

Next  comes  the  subject  of  baptism :  a  part  admit  that  an  infant,  without 
faith,  is  a  proper  subject,  but  only  a  part.  But  when  the  question  is  put, 
Is  a  professed,  penitent  believer,  a  proper  subject,  all  the  world  says,  Yes. 
This,  then,  is  catholic;  while  an  infant,  as  a  subject,  is  sectarian. 

Finally,  the  design  of  baptism  is  canvassed. 

Some  say  it  is  a  door  into  the  church  ;  others,  a  recognition  that  one  is  a 
member  of  the  church ;  a  third,  that  it  is  for  the  sake  of  christening, 
or  giving  a  name.  In  none  of  these  is  there  any  approach  to  catholicity. 
But  when  its  being  for  a  "  pledge  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  our  in- 
grafting into  Christ,"  is  offered,  the  whole  world,  Greek,  Roman, 
and  all,  unite  in  that  view  of  it.  This,  then,  is  catholic,  and  the  others 
sectarian. 

Are  we  not,  then,  most  catholic  on  this  subject?  Why  not,  then,  sacra- 
fice  that  which  is  so  sectarian,  and  unite  in  one  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one 
immersion  ? 

Finally,  fellow-citizens,  it  is  the  immediate  duty  of  all  who  have  not  been 
immersed,  to  be  immersed  into  the  sacred  name,  for  this  richest  of  heaven's 
blessings,  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  new  kingdom  and  constitu- 
tion. It  is  a  matter,  if  neglected,  sometimes  of  long  and  bitter  repentance, 
but  when  submitted  to  in  faith,  it  is  never  to  be  repented  of.  No  one  has 
yet  said,  on  a  dying  bed,  that  he  regretted  his  having  been  immersed,  while 
thousands  have  repented  at  last,  that  they  had  not  so  honored  the  Lord. 
I  have  time  only  to  add  my  unfeigned  desires,  that  you  may  solemnly 
weigh  all  that  you  have  heard  on  the  present  occasion,  bring  it  all  to  the 
solemn  and  ultimate  judge  of  all  controversies,  that  holy  Oracle,  and 
speedily  decide  for  yourselves,  what  you  ought  to  do.  It  is  all-important 
that  you  know  the  truth — that  you  obey  the  truth — and  that  you  send  it, 
with  your  commendations,  to  all  your  friends,  neighbors,  and  fellow- 
citizens,  and  that  this  be  done  immediately.  All  of  which  I  submit,  with 
my  kindest  wishes,  for  your  individual  happiness,  temporal  and  eternal. 
[Time  expired. 

Friday,  Nov.  24—85  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  concluding  reply. 1 

Mr.  President — It  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  Aings  imaginable  to 
nnswer  an  exhortation.  Indeed  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  to 
answer  the  gentleman's  exhortation  to  us,  not  to  pervert  the  Bible.  It 
was  well  enough,  only  very  much  out  of  place.  Who  claims  the  right 
to  pervert  the  Bible,  or  to  alter  what  God  has  said  ?  His  pathetic  exhor- 
tation certainly  implies,  that  every  one  is  guilty  of  the  awful  sin  of  per- 
verting the  Bible,  who  ventures  to  demur  to  his  interpretation  of  it. 
This,  I  presume,  is  not  quite  true.  I  think  it  within  the  bounds  of  pos- 
sibility, that  a  man  might  ditTer  from  him  on  some  important  points,  and 
yet  be  not  guilty  of  wresting  the  Scriptures.  I  have  preached  so  much 
•gainst  the  infallibility  of  uninspired  men,  that  I  cannot  now  consent  to 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  561 

place  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  in  St.  Peter's  chair.  I  denounce  no  man  be- 
cause he  does  not  think  precisely  as  I  think,  and  teach  just  as  I  teach. 
"To  his  own  Master  he  standeth  or  falleth."  Nor  do  I  intend  to  make 
an  exhortation  which  would  imply  such  a  charge.  On  this  occasion,  I 
prefer  argument  to  declamation. 

Mr.  Campbell  commenced  his  speech  by  asking,  which  is  the  safer 
course,  to  take  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism,  or  to  say  that  baptism  is  a 
matter  of  no  importance  ?  This  question,  if  it  has  any  pertinency,  im- 
plies, that  we  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  indiiference,  whether  persons  sub- 
mit to  baptism  or  not.  But  does  not  every  body  know,  that  such  is  not 
the  fact?  What  says  our  confession  on  this  subject?  "Although  it  be 
at  great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salvation 
are  not  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it,  as  that  no  person  can  be  regenera- 
ted or  saved  without  it,"  &c.  Do  we  maintain,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  in- 
difference ?  Have  I  not  repeatedly  said,  that  the  man  who  wilfully  ne- 
glects the  ordinance  of  baptism,  proves  thereby  that  he  is  destitute  of 
piety,  and  cannot  be  saved  ?  Why  does  the  gentleman  indulge  in  repre- 
sentations so  contrary  to  our  known  views  ?  What  does  he  expect  to 
gain  by  it  ? 

Faith  alone,  he  'says,  never  secured  pardon  to  any  one.  If  by  faith 
alone  he  means  faith  that  produces  no  obedience,  we  hold  to  no  such 
faith.  Our  confession,  as  I  have  proved,  says,  that  faith  is  never  alone, 
but  is  ever  accompanied  by  other  graces,  and  leads  to  good  works.  By 
faith  we  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  as  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctifica- 
lion,  and  redemption ;  and  repentance  and  conversion,  as  I  have  proved, 
universally  accompany  faith.  "  This  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the 
world,  even  our  faith."  .1  have  said  nothing  about  faith  alone,  but  faith 
that  works  by  love,  and  leads  to  uniform  obedience.  I  can  conceive  of 
no  reason  for  such  representations  as  the  gentleman  has  made,  unless  it 
be,  that  he  has  no  arguments  to  offer. 

But  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  he 
breaks  out  in  a  pious  strain,  and  tells  us,  that  he  cannot  honor  his  Mas- 
ter too  much  by  magnifying  the  value  of  his  ordinances.  True,  he  can- 
not honor  Christ  too  much;  and  we  are  not  at  all  sensible  that  we  dis- 
honor liim,  when  we  differ  from  Mr.  C.  concerning  the  relation  baptism 
sustains  to  the  plan  of  salvation. 

Allow  me  to  illustrate  the  force  of  his  pious  remarks.  An  architect  is 
erecting  a  splendid  building.  The  materials  are  all  collected  together; 
and  the  building  is  going  up.  One  of  the  workmen  insists  on  making  a 
pillar  of  a  piece  of  timber  intended  for  a  rafter.  Another,  better  skilled 
in  the  science  of  architecture,  remonstrates  against  this  course;  but  his 
zealous  fellow-lal)orer  replies — 'I  cannot  honor  my  employer  too  much. 
He  is  a  wise  and  good  man;  and  the  more  importance  I  give  this  piece 
of  timber,  the  more  I  shall  honor  him.'  The  reasoning  of  the  misguided 
architect  would  be  just  as  good  as  that  of  my  friend.  We  are  trying  to 
ascertain  the  place,  in  tlie  temple  of  trulli,  which  baptism  was  designed, 
by  the  Great  Master,  to  occupy ;  but  my  pious  friend  is  disposed  to  in- 
dulge his  good  feelings,  and  he  exclaims — '  Oh,  I  cannot  honor  my  Mas- 
ter too  much.  The  greater  the  importance  and  the  efficacy  we  ascribe  to 
it,  the  move  we  shall  honor  him  !'  Such  appeals  may  work  on  the  minds 
of  the  weak,  but  they  are  not  argument,  nor  do  they  prove,  that  we  lienor 
our  Savior  by  assigning  to  baptism  a  place  he  did  not  design  it  to  occupy. 
The  gentleman  tells  us,  he  knows  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of 
36 


562  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Presbyterianism.  He  may,  on  this  occasion,  have  learned  something  of 
its  strength:  but  I  doubt  whether  he  has  discovered  its  weakness.  I  can 
scarcely  bring  myself  to  believe,  that  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  was 
so  profound  a  theologian  as  he  seems  to  imagine.  Doubtless  he  thinks, 
that  he  knows  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of  our  cause  ;  and  doubtless 
he  is  mistaken.  This  is  sufficiently  evident,  from  the  repeated  and  glar- 
ing misrepresentations  of  our  doctrine  he  has  made  during  this  discussion. 

He  intimates,  that  for  conscience'  sake  he  gave  up  a  very  flattering  re- 
ligion. I  will  not  charge  him  with  being  influenced  by  unworthy  mo- 
tives ;  but,  most  certainly,  he  has  gained  vastly  more  fame  and  applause, 
than  he  ever  could  have  secured,  had  he  become  a  Presbyterian  minister. 
Whether  he  was  seeking  fame,  is  not  for  me  to  decide ;  but  that  he 
has  adopted  the  very  best  plan  to  gain  it,  is  certain.  So  that,  as  things 
have  turned  out,  he  cannot  be  considered  a  martyr,  nor  even  accounted  a 
sufferer  by  his  change.  As  to  his  charity,  of  which  he  entertains  a  very 
exalted  opinion,  I  will  refer  the  audience  to  the  opinion  of  his  brother, 
Dr.  Fishback,  who  pronounces  his  views,  on  this  subject,  more  sectarian 
and  illiberal,  than  entertained  by  any  person  known  to  him  !  His  opin- 
ion is  entitled  to  consideration ;  for  he  is  not  under  the  influence  of  un- 
kind feelings  toward  Mr.  C.  If  I  had  expressed  such  an  opinion,  you 
might,  with  some  reason,  suspect  that  it  was  the  efiect  of  prejudice ;  but, 
when  it  is  expressed  by  an  intimate  friend,  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve it  to  be  well  founded.  I  make  against  him  no  heavier  charge,  than 
his  own  friends  prefer. 

It  is  admitted,  he  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  is  possible  for  some 
unimmersed  persons  to  be  saved ;  but  it  is  certain  that  his  doctrine  and 
his  opinion  are  contradictory — both  cannot  be  true.  His  doctrine  is,  that 
baptism  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  his  opinion  is,  that 
in  many  cases  it  is  not  necessary.  The  question  then  arises — i)i  what 
cases  is  baptism  necessary,  since  he  admits  it  is  not  necessary  in  all?  It 
would  certainly  be  difficult  to  decide.  I  cannot  reconcile  his  faith  and 
his  opinion ;  but  I  am  now  concerned  only  with  the  former. 

Peter,  the  gentleman  correctly  supposes,  would  have  preached  to  all 
the  world  the  same  doctrine  he  preached  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  True : 
but  he  did  not  always  or  ever  teach  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  remis- 
sion of  sins.  I  have  said,  and  I  think  I  have  proved,  that  the  Lord  never 
did  suspend  the  salvation  of  a  soul  upon  an  external  ordinance.  Ordi- 
nances are  important  in  their  place.  They  are  designed  to  be  means  of 
grace — aids  to  lead  to  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  But  it  will  scarcely  be 
denied,  that  persons  may  by  the  grace  of  God  be  sanctified  without  the 
privilege  of  participating  in  all  the  ordinances  appointed  for  the  edificati  !>n 
of  the  church.  And  if  the  end  be  secured  with  a  part  of  the  means 
which  might  assist  us,  who  shall  say  that  the  soul  will  be  lost  ? 

The  gentleman's  own  friends  have  proclaimed  him  inconsistent  in  hi? 
different  publications.  Some  time  since,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that 
there  were  some  christians  amongst  "  the  sects."  A  zealous  sister  in  his 
church  was  rather  disturbed  by  this  charitable  announcement,  and  forth 
with  wrote  to  him  for  an  explanation.  He  still  adhered  to  his  charitable 
view  ;  whereupon  a  number  of  his  friends  found  much  fault  with  him, 
and  charged  him  with  having  abandoned  his  former  ground  and  weakened 
their  efforts  in  the  good  cause  of  reformation.  They  continued  to  press 
him  rather  severely,  and  at  last  he  was  brought  so  nearly  to  what  they 
deemed  orthodoxy,  that  he  only  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  salvation  of 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  553 

unimmersed  persons  is  '■'■  possible  "  writing  the  word  in  italics!  His 
charity,  which  at  first  appeared  somewhat  expansive,  dwindled  down  to 
a  mere  point,  a  bare  possibility  !  !  ! 

He  says,  he  is  not  accustomed  to  make  assertions  without  proof,  and 
expect  the  people  to  believe  him.  It  was  very  important,  indeed,  that  he 
should  inform  the  audience  of  this  fact ;  for  very  many  are  of  opinion, 
that  he  has  abounded  in  unproved  assertions  during  this  discussion.  If 
he  had  not  informed  them  to  the  contrary,  they  would,  in  all  probability, 
have  concluded  that  such  is  his  general  practice  ;  and  indeed  if  it  is  not-, 
he  has  certainly  done  himself  injustice  on  this  occasion. 

Another  piece  of  information  which  was  much  needed,  is,  that  I  have 
not  answered  one  half  of  his  arguments.  I  am  quite  certain  that  a  large 
number  of  intelligent  persons  really  believed,  that  I  had  answered  the  whole 
fourteen  ;  though  I  did  not  number  them  one,  two,  three,  &c.  But  every 
passage  of  Scripture  on  which  he  relied  to  prove  his  doctrine,  I  think  I 
have  fairly  examined,  and  have  proved  that  it  will  not  sustain  his  ar- 
gument. 

He  has  relied  mainly  on  the  language  of  Peter,  (Acts  ii.  38 ;)  and  I 
have  proved,  as  I  think,  that  Peter  did  not  teach  that  baptism  is  necessary 
to  the  remission  of  sins.  I  maintain,  that  he  preached  the  same  condi- 
tions of  remission  in  his  second  discourse,  where  baptism  is  not  men- 
tioned, as  in  his  first;  and  the  same  to  Cornelius  as  to  those  at  Jerusalem. 
The  question  is,  not  whether  we  shall  believe  Peter,  but  ivhat  did  Peter 
say  ?  The  gentleman  seems  disposed  to  make  the  impression,  that  we 
are  refusing  to  believe  Peter's  doctrine.  What  did  Peter  say  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation,  he  made  baptism  as  necessary  as  repent- 
ance to  remission  of  sins — necessary,  of  course,  in  all  cases,  for  no  ex- 
ception is  intimated.  Then  if  we  are  to  take  Peter's  doctrine,  let  us  take 
all  that  he  taught.  But  this  Mr.  C.  will  not  agree  to  do;  for  whilst  his 
interpretation  of  Peter's  language  makes  baptism  necessary  to  remission 
in  all  cases,  he  now  declares  his  belief,  that  it  is  necessary  only  in  some 
cases,  and  in  others  it  is  not ! 

I  maintain  that  what  God  has  declared  without  qualification  to  be  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  is  necessary  in  all  cases.  Mr.  C  has  said,  that  God 
made  repentance  and  immersion  equally  necessary  to  remission  of  sins. 
But  if  immersion  and  repentance  are  equally  necessary,  how  can  he  now 
admit  that  the  former  is  necessary  only  in  some  cases,  and  not  in  all  ? 
Moreover,  in  his  debate  with  McCalla,  as  I  have  proved,  he  declared  his 
belief  that  Paul's  sins  were  really  pardoned  when  he  believed.  He  does 
not  profess  to  have  changed  his  views  on  this  subject.  He  has  admitted 
every  thing  for  which  I  am  contending,  and  yet  he  says  I  am  in  the  wrong, 
and  he  in  the  right !  I  cannot  reconcile  his  sayings  and  doings.  But  I 
quoted,  amongst  others,  one  passage  of  Scripture  which  is  of  itself,  if  there 
were  not  another,  a  full  and  complete  refutation  of  the  gentleman's  doc- 
trine ;  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  get  his  attention  to  it,  even  to  this  good 
hour.  Indeed,  I  had  but  little  hope  that  he  would  see  it,  for  none  are  so 
blind  as  he  who  will  not  see.  The  passage  is  this — "  He  that  beUeveth 
on  him  is  not  condemned," 

He  tells  us,  that  he  will  place  the  apostles  between  him  and  the  Judge, 
when  he  shall  account  for  the  doctrines  he  has  preached.  Such  language 
may,  perhaps,  be  an  evidence  of  his  sincerity  in  believing  them  ;  but  it  is 
no  argument  to  prove  them  true. 

He    reiterates  the    declaration,    that   when    John   the   apostle   says, 


564  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God,"  the 
word  whosoever  must  be  confined  to  the  members  of  the  church ;  that  is, 
whosoever  in  that  church  believed!  Let  me  read  one  passage  in  that 
episde,  that  you  may  judge  of  the  correctness  of  this  principle  of  inter- 
pretation. Chapter  iii.  10:  "In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest, 
and  the  children  of  the  devil :  whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  of 
God,  neither  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother."  That  is,  according  to  Mr, 
C.'s  interpretation,  whosoever  of  the  immersed  persons,  members  of  the 
church,  doeth  not  righteousness,  is  not  of  God  !  But  we  are  not,  accord- 
ing to  him,  to  apply  this  language  to  any  but  church  members  !  I  am 
truly  surprised  that  any  tolerable  scholar  should  attempt  to  put  such  a 
construction  upon  the  plainest  language.  -  When  I  say,  whosoever  takes 
arsenic  will  die,  I  do  not  mean  persons  in  Kentucky  or  America  simply, 
but  the  whole  human  race.  John  Avas  describing  christian  character,  and 
he  said,  whosoever  of  the  human  race  believes  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  God.  Whosoever — why,  it  is  the  most  comprehensive  ex- 
pression in  any  language.  And  this  is  the  only  method  he  coidd  devise, 
to  evade  the  force  of  the  fact,  that  all  who  are  begotten  of  God,  bap- 
tized or  not,  are  children  of  God,  and  enjoy  remission  of  sins,  a7id  pro- 
mise of  eternal  life  J  !  ! 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  seems  not  to  be  able  to  see  any  advantage  to  be 
derived  from  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  unless  it  be  necessary  to  secure  re- 
mission of  sins.  He  might  as  well  take  the  same  position  in  regard  to 
the  Lord's  supper.  I  might  ask  him,  of  what  use  is  the  Lord's  supper, 
if  remission  of  sins  can  be  obtained  before  partaking  of  it  ?  What  is  the 
use  of  prayer,  preaching,  and  other  appointed  means  of  grace  ?  Much  is 
to  be  done  for  us,  and  by  us,  after  our  sins  are  forgiven,  before  we  can 
be  prepared  for  heaven.  Baptism,  therefore,  may  and  does  answer  im- 
portant purposes,  both  to  adults  and  to  infants,  though  remission  of  sins 
is  not  obtained  in  the  act  of  receiving  it.  It  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace — a  pledge  to  infant  and  adult,  that  so  soon  and  so  long  as  the 
conditions  of  that  covenant  are  complied  with,  remission  of  sins  shall  be 
enjoyed.     It  is,  then,  a  means  of  confirming  and  strengthening  our  faith. 

I  must  now  notice  the  vote  proposed  by  the  gentleman  to  prove  the 
catholicity  of  his  principles.  As  he,  the  other  day,  engrossed  three  cov- 
enants in  two  ;  so,  on  this  occasion  he  has  engrossed  the  three  subjects  we 
have  discussed,  in  one.  He  tells  us,  if  the  question  be  put  to  all  Christ- 
endom— Is  pouring  or  sprinkling  right? — many  will  vote  in  the  negative  ; 
but  put  the  question — Is  immersion  right  ? — and  all,  he  says,  will  say. 
Yes.  I  do  not  think  they  would.  I  rather  think  that  there  are  vast  mul- 
titudes who  would  say,  No,  very  decidedly.  If  the  question  were, 
whether  remission  is  valid,  there  might  be  a  tolerably  unanimous  vote  ;  for 
many  would  vote  that  it  is  valid,  who  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  scrip- 
tural mode.  But  if  they  must  vote  whether  it  is  right  or  ivrong,  they 
will  vote  in  the  negative ;  and,  if  the  gentleman  would  convince  them  that 
the  mode  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  and  then  put  the 
question — Is  immersion  valid? — they  will  say,  No. 

Again,  he  puts  the  question.  Is  adult  baptism  right?  All,  as  he  truly 
says,  vote  in  the  affirmative.  But  I  do  not  like  the  form  of  the  question. 
Let  us  state  it  a  little  differently,  thus  :  Is  it  right  for  believing  parents  to 
neglect  or  refuse  to  have  their  children  baptized  ?  From  east,  west, 
north  and  south,  a  thousand  to  one,  they  ansAver,  No.  The  Greek  church, 
with  ten  thousand  tongues,  and  almost  all  the  christian  churches  on  earth, 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  ^Q^ 

say,  No.  Put  the  question  in  the  other  form — Is  it  the  duty  of  believing 
parents  to  have  their  chiklren  baptized  ? — the  same  immense  muhitude 
answer,  Yes.  Are  we,  then,  to  do  violence  to  our  judgment  and  our 
conscience,  to  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  what  we  believe  God  commands, 
in  order  to  bring  about  a  union  with  the  few  who  differ  from  us  ?  Shall 
the  consciences  of  the  thousand  yield  to  the  scruples  oi  one?  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  whether  adult  baptism  is  right ;  but  whether  it  is  the  solemn 
duty  of  believing  parents  to  give  their  children  to  God  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  ?  and  on  this  question,  we  shall  outvote  the  gentleman  by  an 
overwhelming  majority. 

The  third  question  was  put  as  unfairly  as  the  others.  He  would  have 
us  vote,  whether  a  baptized  believer  is  pardoned.  But  let  the  question 
be  stated  fairly.  It  is  this :  Is  a  penitent  believer  condemned  until  he  is 
immersed  ?  The  vote  will  be,  ten  thousand  to  one,  against  the  gentleman. 
Is  the  man  forgiven,  who  is  sincerely  penitent,  confesses  and  forsakes  his 
sins,  and  with  an  humble  faith  casts  himself  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and,  like 
the  publican,  prays — "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  ?"  Let  this  ques- 
tion be  put  to  vote,  and  from  east  and  west,  north  and  south,  all,  with  the 
exception  of  a  mere  handfuU,  who  profess  to  take  the  Bible  as  their  infal- 
lible guide,  will  vote  in  the  affirmative.  Present  the  case  of  the  man  who 
lies  on  his  sick  bed,  and  never  can,  or  never  will  be  immersed,  but  who 
exercises  an  humble  faith  in  Christ,  as  his  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanc- 
tification,  and  redemption,  and  ask  the  christian  world — those  whose  in- 
fallible guide  is  the  word  of  God,  whether  the  Scriptures  contain  a  pro- 
mise of  salvation  to  such  an  individual  ?  And  again  the  almost  unbroken 
voice  is  in  the  affirmative. 

And  this  decision,  let  it  be  noted,  is  not  given  as  an  opinion,  but  as 
the  clear  and  uniform  teaching  of  the  word  of  God.  The  hopes  of  such 
an  individual  are  based  on  promises  too  clear  to  be  misunderstood;  and 
though  he  cannot,  or  believes  he  should  not  be  immersed,  he  can  safely 
rest  on  those  promises,  and  rejoice  in  his  dying  hour.  Let  the  question 
be  fairly  stated,  and  we  are  ready  to  take  the  vote.  The  genUeman,  not- 
withstanding his  remarkable  catholicity,  will  be  found  in  a  very,  very 
small  minority. 

I  have  now  given  Mr.  Campbell  full  time  to  bring  forward  all  his  ar- 
guments. I  could  have  sustained  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend,  in  a 
shorter  time.  You  have  now  heard  him  at  length ;  and  the  plain  facts 
which  I  have  presented,  proving  his  doctrine  unscriptural,  are  before  you. 
It  certainly  contradicts  a  large  class  of  the  plainest  declarations  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles ;  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned." 
Every  believer  is  pardoned  and  justified.  Such  is  the  language  of  our 
Savior.  It  requires  no  criticism ;  it  admits  of  but  one  interpretation. 
Language  cannot  be  plainer.  The  book  of  revelation  is  like  the  book  of 
nature.  The  most  unlettered  man  can  learn  when  to  sow,  what  to  sow, 
and  when  to  reap  ;  and  how  to  protect  himself  and  his  family  from  the  in- 
clemency of  the  season.  So  in  the  word  of  God,  the  conditions  of  pardon 
and  salvation  are  presented  with  so  much  simplicity  and  clearness,  and 
are  so  variously  illustrated,  that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  unlearned, 
need  not  err.  When  persons  of  common  understanding,  not  blinded  by 
prejudice,  read  those  plain  declarations  of  our  Savior,  what  do  they  un- 
derstand him  to  mean?  "  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned." 
*'  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life."  "  He  that  believ- 
eth, shall  never  thirst,"     "He  that  believeth  hath  everlasting  life,  and 

3B 


566  DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life." 
These,  and  a  multitude  of  passages  like  them,  are  too  plain  to  be  misun- 
derstood. They  directly  contradict  the  doctrine,  that  baptism,  especially 
immersion,  is  necessary  in  order  to  receive  remission  of  sins. 

The  plain  facts  I  have  presented  before  you,  sustained  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  scriptures,  prove,  conclusively,  the  erroneousness  of  the  doctrine 
of  Mr.  Campbell.  The  period  is  not  distant  when  we,  speakers  and 
hearers,  shall  stand  before  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  to  give 
account  of  our  faith  and  our  lives.  I  desire  you,  my  friends,  to  examine 
this  subject,  as  for  eternity.  Your  eternal  interests  are  as  intimately  con- 
nected with  it,  as  mine.  I  leave  you  to  make  your  decision,  whether  the 
gentleman  has  proved,  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  secure  the  remission 
of  sins — whether  the  penitent  believer  is  condemned,  until  he  is  immers- 
ed ! — [Time  expired. 


^END   OF   THE   THIRD  PROPOSITION.] 


PROPOSITION    FOURTH. 

Baptism  is  to  he  Administered  only  by  a  Bishop  or  Ordained 
Presbyter.     Mr.  Rice  affirins.     Mr.  Campbell  denies. 

Saturday,  Nov.  24 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  proposition  for  discussion  this  morning,  is  the 
following:  Baptism  is  to  he  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or  ordained 
presbyter.     This  I  affirm,  and  Mr.  Campbell  denies. 

In  explanation  of  the  proposition,  allow  me  to  state,  that  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  we  regard  as  two  Scripture  names  for  the  same 
office.  The  word  episcopos,  translated  bishop  in  the  New  Testament, 
signifies  an  overseer ;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  used  to  denote  the  min- 
isterial office,  because  the  presbyters  or  ministers  of  Christ  are  required 
to  watch  over  the  interests  of  his  church  and  people.  The  proposition 
before  us  assumes,  that  presbyters  and  bishops  hold  the  same  office  in 
the  church. 

The  doctrine,  then,  for  which  I  feel  bound  to  contend,  is — that  the 
Scriptures  authorize  none  but  bishops  or  presbyters,  properly  ordained,  to 
adi«inister  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The  audience  perceive,  at  once, 
the  precise  point  in  debate.  Mr.  Campbell  maintains,  that  every  member 
of  the  church,  male  and  female,  young  and  old,  has  the  right  to  adminis- 
ter this  solemn  and  important  ordinance.  Against  this  latitudinarian  doc- 
trine I  enter  my  protest,  and  offer  my  reasons. 

As  we  have  agreed  to  occupy  but  a  single  day  in  the  discussion  of  this 
proposition,  I  design  to  present  very  briefly  the  arguments  which  appear 
to  me  to  sustain  the  proposition  I  affirm. 

The  baptism  of  an  individual,  especially  of  an  adult,  on  profession  of 
his  faith,  I  think  it  will  be  admitted,  is  an  important  event  in  his  life ; 
whether  considered  with  reference  to  himself,  or  with  reference  to  the 
interests  of  the  church  of  Christ.  Considered  with  reference  to  himself, 
it  is  important,  for  several  reasons  : 

1.  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  by  which  he  who  receives  it,  on  profession 
of  his  faith,  is  recognized  as  a  disciple  of  Christ,  and  admitted  to  a  stand- 
ing in  his  family.     If  he  be  a  true  christian,  his  spiritual  interests  are 

f»romoted  by  the  reception  of  the  ordinance ;  but  if  he  be  deceived,  he  is 
ikely  to  be  confirmed  in  his  error.  He  persuades  himself  that  he  has 
obeyed  an  important  command  of  the  Savior.  He  is  recognized  by  chris- 
tians as  a  brother.  His  conscience  ceases  to  warn  him  of  his  guilt  and 
danger;  his  fears  of  future  punishment  subside;  and  he  cherishes  a  delu- 
sive hope,  perhaps,  to  the  last  moment  of  his  life.  Or,  overborne  by  the 
temptations  and  unhallowed  influences  of  the  world,  he  turns  again  to  his 
former  course,  and  his  conscience  is  "  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron."  Such 
an  individual  has  received  an  irreparable  injury. 

2.  Baptism   introduces   the  professed   believer  to  privileges  in  the 

567 


568  '  DEBATE  ON  THE 

church  which,  without  true  piety,  he  cannot  enjoy  or  improve  to  his 
spiritual  edification.  Attendance  upon  the  ordinances  of  God's  house 
with  an  impenitent,  unbeUeving,  unrenewed  heart,  will  involve  him  in 
guilt  far  more  aggravated,  than  if  he  had  remained  in  the  world.  Of  the 
Lord's  supper,  to  which  of  course  he  approaches,  it  is  said — "  He  that 
eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  condemnation  to  him- 
self." Equally  true  is  it  of  all  other  privileges  enjoyed  by  the  church  of 
Christ,  that  they  prove  a  curse,  not  a  blessmg,  to  him  who  possesses  not 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

3.  As  baptism  introduces  the  professed  believer  to  privileges  which  an 
unbeliever  cannot  improve ;  so  it  devolves  upon  him  duties  which  none 
can  discharge,  but  they  who  have  been  born  again.  He  sustains  new 
relations  to  the  church  and  to  the  world ;  out  of  these  relations  arise  du- 
ties, the  proper  discharge  of  which  is  most  important.  Not  one  of  those 
duties  can  he  discharge,  unless  he  be  a  true  disciple  of  Christ.  Conse- 
quently he  is  involved  in  the  double  guilt  of  partaking  of  ordinances  he 
cannot  improve,  and  of  binding  himself  more  solemnly  to  the  duties  he 
cannot  perform.      He  is  greatly  injured. 

If  we  consider  the  baptism  of  a  professed  believer  with  reference  to  the 
interests  of  the  church  of  Christ,  it  is  an  important  matter.  For,  1st.  The 
Head  of  the  church  requires  that,  as  far  as  possible,  it  shall  be  kept 
pure — composed  of  worthy  members.  He  who,  whilst  an  unbeliever, 
seeks  and  obtains  admission  into  the  church,  not  only  involves  himself  in 
greater  guilt,  and  exposes  himself  to  an  aggravated  condemnation  ;  but  he 
contributes  in  no  small  degree  to  draw  upon  it  the  frowns  and  the  judg- 
ments of  God.  The  greatest  caution  which  human  wisdom  can  observe, 
will  not  preserve  the  church  entirely  free  from  unconverted  communi- 
cants ;  but  so  long  as  we  remember,  that  one  Achan  in  the  camp  of  Israel 
drew  upon  the  whole  body  the  severe  chastisements  of  God  ;  we  cannot 
but  feel,  that  it  is  alike  the  duty  and  the  interest  of  the  church  to  see  to 
it,  as  far  as  possible,  that  her  communicants  shall  be  true  believers. 

2d.  Baptism  identities  the  professed  believer  with  the  church.  He  is 
regarded  by  the  world  as  a  christian  ;  and  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  great  major- 
ity of  unconverted  persons  form  their  opinions  of  Christianity,  not  so 
much  from  what  they  hear  or  read  of  its  pure  and  sublime  truths,  as  from 
what  they  see  in  the  conduct  of  those  who  profess  to  have  embraced  it. 
They  are  expected  in  their  daily  conduct  to  illustrate  the  character  and 
spirit  of  the  gospel  on  which  they  profess  to  rely  for  salvation.  They 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  state  of  things  at  the  present  day,  must 
know,  that  no  one  cause  so  retards  the  progress  of  the  gospel,  as  the  un- 
godly lives  of  professors  of  religion.  Multitudes  of  men  are  disgusted 
with  religion,  and  confirmed  in  infidelity,  only  or  chiefly  because  they 
see  many  occupying  a  respectable  stand  as  members  in  real  or  pretended 
churches  of  Christ,  whose  conduct  is,  in  many  respects,  more  exception- 
able than  that  of  multitudes  who  make  no  pretensions  to  religion. 

These  things  being  so,  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  it  is  of  the  greatest 
moment  to  individuals,  to  the  church,  and  to  the  world,  that  as  far  as 
possible  the  doors  of  the  church  be  guarded,  so  as  to  exclude  all  unworthy 
persons. 

In  view  of  these  incontrovertible  truths,  the  importance  of  which  we 
cannot  now  fully  estimate,  I  emphatically  ask.  Is  it  probable  that  the  all- 
wise  and  benevolent  Savior  of  men  has  given  to  the  most  ignorant,  the 
most  superstitious,  and  the  most  rash,  as  well  as  to  the  wisest,  the  mo&i 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  569 

pioKS  and  prudent  members  of  his  church,  the  right  to  introduce  to  its 
felloivship  just  such  characters  as  they  may  choose  to  baptize?  Can  any 
one  for  a  moment  believe,  that  He,  who  regards  the  church  as  the  apple  of 
his  eye,  who  has  manifested  his  purpose  to  make  it  a  pure  church — a  light 
of  the  world — has  indeed  put  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  into  the  hands  of 
every  individual  who  may  have  been  admitted  to  its  fellowship,  however 
inexperienced,  ignorant  or  rash  ?  I  might  almost  venture,  without  further 
argument,  to  pronounce  the  idea  an  impossibility. 

What  must  inevitably  result  from  granting  such  authority  to  every 
member  of  the  church?  Can  it  be  otherwise,  than  that  the  church  will 
be  speedily  filled  with  unworthy  and  ungodly  persons,  who  cannot  be 
excommunicated?  A  single  rash,  ignorant,  or  unworthy  member,  may 
baptize  hundreds  like  himself,  or  still  worse.  These  persons  must  be 
recognized  as  members  of  the  church.  Consequently  its  spirituality  is 
gone ;  its  light  is  extinguished ;  and  the  curse  of  God  is  upon  it.  Is  it 
within  the  bounds  of  possibility,  that  our  Savior,  when  he  sent  forth  the 
apostles,  so  eminently  qualified  for  their  responsible  work,  to  baptize  and 
teach,  did  at  the  same  time  throw  wide  the  doors  of  his  church,  and 
commit  its  purity,  and  even  its  existence,  to  the  hands  of  every  man, 
woman,  and  child,  who  might  be  recognized  as  a  member  of  it? 

Do  civil  governments  proceed  upon  such  principles  ?  Have  they  not 
ever  found  it  absolutely  necessary  to  have  officers  properly  appointed 
to  perform  every  public  duty.  May  every  citizen  of  this  commonwealth 
take  it  upon  himself  to  act  as  sheriff,  mayor,  judge,  or  president,  as  he 
may  think  proper?  Have  not  all  civil  governments  found  it  necessary 
to  have  officers,  whose  qualifications  are  defined  by  their  constitution  and 
laws,  appointed  to  discharge  the  duties  appertaining  to  every  department  ? 
How  long  would  our  government  exist,  if  any  citizen  might,  on  his  own 
responsibility,  presume  to  act  as  sheriff,  judge,  president,  &;c.  ?  How 
long  would  it  be,  till  we  should  be  involved  in  anarchy,  war,  and  blood  ? 

If  civil  governments  cannot  subsist  without  offices,  and  officers  regularly 
appointed  to  discharge  the  duties  connected  with  them,  how  can  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  on  earth  prosper,  or  even  exist,  if  every  member  may,  on 
his  own  responsibility,  perform  the  duties  connected  with  its  most  impor- 
tant offices  ?  If  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell  be  true,  the  church  contains 
within  itself  the  elements  of  its  own  destruction.  The  doctrine  is,  that 
every  member  of  the  church  may  administer  bapfism.  A  child  of  six  or 
eight  years  of  age  may  believe  in  Christ,  and  be  admitted  to  membership 
in  his  church.  Now  for  a  moment  contemplate  the  possible  results  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman.  There  is  a  little  girl  ten  years  of  age, 
who  has  been  baptized,  and  is  a  member  of  the  church.  She,  according 
to  this  doctrine,  has  the  right  to  baptize  other  litde  girls  of  ten,  eight,  or 
six  years  of  age.  And  that  little  boy,  of  similar  age,  may  baptize  his 
comrades  of  the  same  age,  or  younger,  as  his  prudence  may  dictate  !  The 
servant,  who  was  baptized  last  sabbath,  though  profoundly  ignorant  of 
almost  the  alphabet  of  Christianity,  may,  on  the  next  sabbath,  baptize  as 
many  of  his  fellow-servants  as  he  can  induce  to  say,  they  believe  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God !  All  this  and  more  may  occur,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  without  the  violation  of  one  law  of  the  king- 
dom !  ! !  The  little  girl,  the  boy,  and  the  servant,  have  only  exercised 
their  inalienable  rights.  There  is  not  only  no  law  against  what  they 
have  done,  but  the  law  of  Christ  authorizes  it !  What  a  spectacle  the 
church  of  Christ  would  soon  exhibit,  if  this  doctrine  should  prevail ! 

3b2 


570  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Without  any  further  direct  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  we  may  venture  to 
say,  it  is  incredible,  absolutely  incredible,  that  our  Savior  should  have 
taught  such  a  doctrine — that  he  should  so  unnecessarily  have  exposed  his 
church  to  almost  certain  ruin. 

But  let  us  appeal  directly  to  the  law  and  the  testimony.  The  commis- 
sion given  by  our  Savior  to  his  apostles,  confines  both  baptizing  and 
preaching  to  them,  and  to  those  ordained  after  them,  to  the  ministerial 
office.  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen." — Matth. 
xxviii.  19,  20. 

This  commission  invested  the  apostles  with  the  most  important  and  re- 
sponsible office  ever  conferred  on  any  human  being.  They  were  author- 
ized to  ordain  others  properly  qualified  to  the  same  office.  Now,  it  is  a 
principle  universally  recognized,  that  whei-e  an  office  is  established,  and 
certain  specified  duties  annexed  to  it,  no  one  but  he  who  has  been  prop- 
erly appointed  to  fill  the  office,  can  discharge  any  one  of  its  duties.  This 
principle  is  recognized  by  all  civil  governments.  Suppose  a  private  citi- 
zen— one  of  the  wisest  and  most  respectable,  if  you  please,  should  un- 
dertake to  act  as  sheriff  for  a  few  days ;  or  suppose  he  should  take  the 
seat  of  the  judge,  even  though,  for  the  time  being,  vacant;  what  would  be 
the  consequences  ?  Why,  in  the  first  place,  all  his  acts  would  be  pro- 
nounced null  and  void.  No  human  being  would  be  bound  to  regard 
them.  In  the  second  place,  he  would  be  punished  as  a  violator  of  the 
laws  of  the  land.  Yet  there  is  no  law  forbidding  him,  in  so  many  words, 
to  do  what  we  suppose  him  to  have  done.  The  very  fact,  that  such  offi- 
ces exist,  and  that  particular  duties  are  assigned  to  those  who  fill  them^ 
constitutes  a  prohibition  of  all  other  persons  from  interfering  with  those 
duties. 

The  same  common-sense  principle  must  be  recognized  in  the  kingdom 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  sacred  office  of  the  ministry  has  been  established 
by  him,  for  the  edification  of  the  church.  The  qualifications  of  those  who 
are  to  be  invested  with  it,  are  detailed ;  and  certain  most  important  duties, 
on  the  proper  discharge  of  which  depend  the  purity  and  prosperity,  if 
not  the  existence,  of  the  church,  are  connected  with  the  office,  and  en- 
joined most  solemnly  on  those  who  fill  it.  Is  it  not,  theo,  perfectly  clear, 
according  to  the  principle  already  stated  and  universally  admitted,  that  the 
King  of  Zion  intended  to  confine  the  discharge  of  those  duties  to  the 
men  who  should  fill  the  office  ?  The  very  appointment  of  the  office,  and 
the  solemn  command  to  those  invested  with  it,  to  baptize  and  preach, 
constitute  a  law  against  lay-baptisin.  And,  as  in  civil  government,  so  in 
the  church  of  Christ,  he  who,  without  being  invested  with  the  office,  pre- 
sumes to  exercise  its  functions,  performs  acts  which  are  null  and  void, 
and  makes  himself  a  transgressor. 

Will  it  be  pretended,  that  the  Savior  was  less  wise  in  his  legislation, 
or  less  careful  to  preserve  the  peace  and  purity  of  his  church,  than  civil 
legislators ;  who  guard  against  the  evils  of  anarchy  and  oppression,  by 
establishing  offices  and  appointing  men  properly  qualified  to  transact  pub- 
lic duties  ?  Unless  the  gentleman  is  prepared  to  cast  upon  him  this  im- 
putation, he  must  abandon  the  doctrine,  that  every  member  of  the  church 
may  of  right  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

Let  me  here  present  distincdy  the  broad  principle  on  which  Mr,  Camp- 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  571 

bell  professes  to  have  set  out  in  his  reformation.  I  hope  that,  on  this 
occasion,  he  will  be  willing  to  act  in  conformity  with  it.  I  quote  from 
the  Christian  System,  p.  6 : 

"  A  deep  and  an  abiding  impression  that  the  power,  the  consolations,  and 
joys — the  holiness  and  happiness  of  Christ's  religion,  were  lost  in  the  forms 
and  ceremonies,  in  the  speculations  and  conjectures,  in  the  feuds  and  bick- 
erings of  sects  and  schisms,  originated  a  project  many  years  ago  for  uniting 
the  sects,  or  rather  the  christians  in  all  the  sects,  upon  a  clear  and  scriptu- 
ral bond  of  union — upon  having  a  '  thus  saith  the  Lord,'  either  in  express 
terms,  or  i?i  approved  precedent,  for  every  article  of  faith,  and  item  of  reli- 
gious practiced 

Now  observe,  the  gentleman's  reformation  started*  upon  the  principle 
of  having  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  every  article  of  faith  and  every 
item  of  practice.  I  now  call  upon  him  to  produce  a  "  thus  saith  the 
Loud,"  for  his  doctrine  of  lay-baptism.  Let  me  state  fully  his  doc- 
trine on  this  subject,  as  exhibited  in  the  Milennial  Harbinger,  (vol.  iii.  pp. 
236,  237.)  Here  I  find  some  seven  questions  propounded  by  a  correspon- 
dent, and  answered  by  Mr.  Campbell;  one  of  which  is  as  follows — "Are 
all  immersed  persons,  male  and  female,  to  be  so  considered  ?"  That  is, 
are  they  legal  administrators  of  baptism  ?  Another  is  as  follows — "  Can 
an  unimmersed  person  be  so  considered  under  any  circumstances  ?"  To 
these  and  other  questions,  Mr.  C.  replies  as  follows : 

"  Answers  to  questions  2,  3  and  4. — There  is  no  law  in  the  christian  Scrip- 
tures authorizing  any  one  class  of  citizens  in  the  christian  kingdom  to  im 
merse,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  class  of  citizens.  Apostles,  evangelists, 
deacons,  and  unofficial  persons,  are  all  represented  as  immersing  when  oc- 
casion called  for  it.  Paul,  though  not  sent  to  immerse,  yet  did  it  when  no 
other  person  was  present.  Philip  immersed  the  eunuch  ;  Ananias  immersed 
Paul ;  Peter's  deacons  or  attendants  from  Joppa  immersed  Cornelius  and  his 
friends.  So  that  if  we  have  no  law  enjoining  it  upon  one  or  any  class  of 
citizens,  we  have  examples  so  various  and  numerous  as  to  teach  us  that  any 
citizen  in  the  kingdom  is  an  acceptable  administrator  when  circumstances 
call  upon  him.  How  far  expediency  may  suggest  the  propriety  of  a  congre- 
gation making  it  the  duty  of  one  or  more  persons  to  attend  upon  such  as  are 
to  be  introduced  into  the  kingdom,  is  a  question  which  a  respect  to  circum- 
stances may  decide  ;  but  on  the  ground  of  scriptural  authority,  every  male 
citizen  in  the  kingdom  is  an  acceptable  and  authorized  administrator. 

As  to  female  citizens  immersing,  we  have  no  example  of  the  sort  on 
record.  But  as  in  the  kingdom  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  in  the 
Lord,  should  any  circumstance  require  it,  there  is  no  law  or  precedent 
which  would  condemn  a  sister  for  immersing  a  female  were  it  to  become 
necessary.  Even  the  church  of  Rome,  the  most  enslaved  to  priestly  suprem- 
acy and  official  holiness,  allowed  females  to  baptize  in  certain  cases.    *     * 

But  we  might  as  rationally  and  as  scripturally  talk  about  a  legal  admin- 
istrator of  prayer,  of  praise,  or  of  any  religious  service  which  one  can  ren- 
der to,  or  perform  for,  another,  as  for  baptism.  Expediency,  however,  may 
in  some  circumstances  decree  that  persons  may  be  appointed  by  a  congre- 
gation to  preach  and  baptize." 

According  to  the  gentleman's  doctrine,  you  perceive,  thsit  females  have 
a  right  to  administer  baptism  ;  and  yet  he  acknowledges,  that  for  this  he 
cannot  find  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  nor  a  precedent  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment! Even  persons  who  never  were  baptized,  he,  in  the  same  article, 
admits,  may,  in  certain  cases,  administer  the  ordinance ;  though  for  such 
a  practice  he  pretends  not  to  find  one  word  of  authority  in  the  Scriptures  ! 
Here  we  find  in  his  writings,  and  of  course  in  the  practice  he  encourages, 
a  most  glaring  departure  from  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  reforma- 


572  DEBATE  ON  THE 

tion !  The  principle  is,  to  have  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  so  many 
words,  for  every  item  of  faith  and  practice,  or  a  clear  and  certain  prece- 
dent. Yet  here  he  advocates  a  doctrine,  and  authorizes  a  practice,  for 
which  he  acknowledges  himself  unable  to  find  in  the  Scriptures  either 
precept  or  precedent ! — a  direct  and  palpable  departure  from  his  published 
principles. 

I  am  not  the  first  to  discover  the  inconsistency,  and  to  point  out  the 
danger  of  his  doctrine  on  this  subject,  as  you  will  see  by  a  letter,  from 
which  I  will  read  an  extract,  written  by  one  of  his  correspondents,  and 
published  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  (vol.  iii.  pp.  473,  474.)  The  wri- 
ter says : 

"  Now,  if  I  understand  you,  you  say,  there  is  no  law  making  it  the  duty 
of  one  to  immerse,  to  the  exclusion  of  others;  therefore,  no  disorder  for  any 
one  in  the  kingdom  to  immerse  :  and  it  is  also  to  be  understood  that  every 
immersed  person  is  in  the  kingdom.  Let  us  now  see  the  dilemma  to  which 
this  would  lead.  And  first,  let  it  be  noted  that  men,  women,  children,  and 
servants,  are  understood  to  be  in  the  kingdom.  Men,  women,  children,  and 
servants,  are  all  then  authorized  to  immerse  ;  yea,  they  are  commanded  to 
baptize,  one  as  much  as  anotlier,  and  this  command  is  directly  from  tlie 
King  himself.  No  disorder  then  for  Jane,  twelve  years  old,  who  was  bap- 
tized yesterday,  to  baptize  her  schoolmate  Mary,  eleven  years  old,  to-day  ; 
and  Mary,  to-morrow,  may,  without  disorder,  baptize  her  little  sister  Judy, 
nine  years  old  ;  and  the  day  following,  Judy  baptizes  Harriet,  six  years  old  ; 
and  Harriet  baptizes  all  the  little  girls  in  the  neighborhood,  that  she  is  able 
to  manage,  and  that  will  say  they  believe  in  the  heart,  &c.  All  this  is  per- 
fect order  in  the  kingdom,  if  there  is  no  law  authorizing  one  class,  to  the 
exclusion  of  another,  to  immerse.  I  think  it  unnecessary  to  carry  this  mat- 
ter further.  We  might  adduce  many  more  cases  into  which  such  an  order, 
or  rather  disorder,  would  run.  We  will  admit,  that  if  every  person,  so  soon 
as  baptized,  were  filled  with  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  prudence,  and  the 
understanding  of  men,  then  there  would  be  no  such  danger.  But  this  is  not 
the  case ;  nor  is  it  likely  ever  to  be  so.  As  long  as  baptism  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered, as  long  as  there  are  sinners  to  be  converted  and  baptized,  there 
will  be  found  babes,  young  men,  and  old  men,  in  experience,  prudence  and 
knowledge." 

The  writer  of  this  letter,  who  signs  himself  Barnabas,  is  Avell  spoken 
of  by  Mr.  Campbell,  and,  I  presume,  is  a  member  of  his  church.  Still, 
with  all  his  prejudice  in  favor  of  the  gentleman,  he  could  not  but  see  the 
dreadful  disorder  and  confusion  which  such  a  doctrine,  carried  out  in 
practice,  Avould  introduce  into  the  church  With  great  propriety  he  re- 
marks, that  if  every  one  became  wise  and  prudent,  as  soon  as  baptized, 
such  a  principle  might  be  tolerated.  But  little  boys,  girls,  and  servants, 
might  take  it  into  their  heads,  that  it  is  a  gi-eat  thing  to  be  engaged  in  mak- 
ing and  baptizing  converts  ;  and  they  can  do  so,  according  to  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, in  perfect  consistency  with  the  law  of  Christ ! 

Should  more  prudent  and  considerate  persons  object  to  having  the  ordi- 
nance administered,  and  members  introduced  into  the  church,  by  such 
children,  or  by  others  equally  ignorant  and  rash,  they  are  prepared  with 
a  very  conclusive  answer.  It  is  perfectly  certain,  they  might  say,  and  by 
all  admitted,  that  it  is  the  duly  of  some  persons  to  baptize.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell teaches,  that  no  one  class  of  members  of  the  church  is  authorized  to 
do  it,  to  the  exclusion  of  others.  Therefore,  say  they,  it  is  as  truly  our 
duty  as  yours,  to  administer  the  ordinance.  Consequently,  every  member 
of  the  church,  old  and  young,  ignorant  and  wise,  boys,  girls,  and  serv- 
ants, may  go  to  work^  and  immerse  all  around  them  who  will  submit  to 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM,  573 

the  operation! ! !  I  now  call  on  my  friend  Mr.  C.  to  produce  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  or  a  clear  precedent  for  such  a  practice.  If  he  can  find 
the  one  or  the  other,  it  is  contained  in  a  portion  of  the  New  Testament 
which  I  have  entirely  overlooked. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  ascertain  the  cause  of  the  adoption  of  principles 
and  practices  so  unauthorized,  and  so  ruinous  to  the  church  and  to  the 
souls  of  men.  No  one,  taking  the  Bible  as  his  only  infallible  guide, 
ever  could  have  thought  of  adopting  them.  The  gentleman  is  a 
great  enemy  of  creeds.  Yet,  when  he  finds  his  system  laboring  under 
difficulties  for  which  the  Savior  did  not  provide,  he  will  make  such  addi- 
tions as  the  exigency  demands  ! 

Where  shall  we  look  for  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  and  the  practice  oilay- 
haptism?  It  originated  in  the  unscriptural  doctrine  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration. The  belief  became  common,  at  an  early  period  in  the  history 
of  the  church,  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation — that  all  who  died 
unbaptized,  would  be  lost.  In  consequence  of  this  error,  difficulties  im- 
mediately arose  ;  for,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  ordained  ministers  could  not 
be  found  to  administer  baptism  to  the  dying.  It  became  necessary,  con- 
sequently, to  provide  for  exigencies  which,  it  would  seem,  our  Savior 
never  saw ;  for  which,  at  any  rate,  he  made  no  provision,  and  for  the 
best  of  reasons,  viz :  they  grew  out  of  a  doctrine  which  he  never  taught. 
It  was,  therefore,  determined,  that,  in  cases  of  urgent  necessity,  when  a 
bishop  or  presbyter  could  not  be  obtained,  the  ordinance  might  be  admin- 
istered by  laymen.  It  was  thought  better  that  a  layman,  in  the  absence 
of  a  minister,  should  be  permitted  to  baptize,  than  that  a  soul  should  be 
lost.  As  yet,  however,  the  church  had  not  proceeded  quite  so  far  as  my 
friend  Mr.  Campbell.  They  were  not  prepared  to  permit  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  indiscriminately  to  baptize. 

The  false  principle  which  they  had  adopted,  however,  soon  carried 
them  further.  It  was  seen,  that  cases  might,  and  did  occur,  in  which  male 
members  could  not  be  present;  and  the  souls  of  many  might  be  lost,  for 
the  lack  of  an  external  ordinance.  Another  step  was  taken,  and  females 
were  authorized,  in  such  cases,  to  baptize.  This  practice,  however,  for 
some  time,  met  with  opposition. 

But  even  this  extension  of  the  privilege  of  administering  the  ordinance, 
did  not  entirely  compass  the  object,  for  cases  might  occur,  in  which 
neither  male  nor  female  members  of  the  church  could  be  present.  The 
church  of  Rome,  therefore,  in  the  boundlessness  of  her  cliarity,  decided, 
that  baptism  might  be  validly  administered  by  unbaptized  persons,  and 
even  by  Jews,  infidels  and  Turks,  providing  only  that  they  intended  to  do 
what  the  church  does  !  Such  was  the  origin,  and  such  is  the  history  of 
this  singularly  absurd  and  injurious  doctrine. 

The  same  opinions  which  originally  suggested  the  necessity  of  lay -bap- 
tism, I  doubt  not,  have  induced  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  to  incorporate 
it  in  his  creed. 

He  does  not  think  it  at  all  certain  that  persons  can  be  saved  without  bap- 
tism. He  desires,  of  course,  to  save  as  many  as  possible.  A  preaching 
brother  cannot,  at  all  times,  be  had  to  administer  immersion.  Sometimes 
it  may  occur,  that  a  male  member  of  the  church  cannot  be  obtained.  He 
has  been  charitable  enough,  therefore,  to  believe  and  teach  \\\2iX  females 
may  baptize,  and  that  it  is  the  right  of  all  members  of  the  church,  little  and 
big,  old  and  young.  Still,  the  difiicult  cases  were  not  all  provided  for. 
For  example,  there  is  a  man  who  has  repented,  and  believed,  and  desires 


574  DEBATE  ON  THE 

baptism,  but  no  person,  who  has  been  immersed,  can  be  found  to  admin- 
ister the  ordinance  to  him.  In  such  cases,  my  friend  believes  that  an 
unimmersed  person  may  officiate,  and  the  baptism  will  be  valid.  With 
this  last  provision,  however,  he  is  not  quite  satisfied ;  yet  it  will  answer. 

The  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell  on  this  point  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of 
the  church  of  Rome ;  and  with  him,  as  with  "holy  mother,"  it  originated 
in  another  unscriptural  tenet,  viz  :  that  the  soul  without  baptism  is  in  dan- 
ger of  being  lost.  Their  common  faith  placed  them  in  a  common  dilemma. 
They  must  either  leave  souls  of  even  penitent  believers  in  danger  of  being 
lost,  because  they  could  not  receive  an  external  ordinance,  or  they  must 
authorize  a  practice,  for  which  they  could  find  neither  precept  nor  example 
in  the  word  of  God.  The  principle  on  which  it  is  based,  is  false.  Our 
Savior  did  not  authorize  it.  If  the  principle  be  not  false,  how,  I  ask,  did 
it  happen  that  He  and  his  apostles  never  provided  for  these  cases  ?  Such 
emergencies  must  have  occurred  more  frequently  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, than  at  the  present  time ;  for  their  doctrine  spread  rapidly,  and  there 
were  but  few  ministers.  How  did  it  happen,  then,  that  they  gave  no  inti- 
mation that  unordained  persons,  and  even  females,  might  validly  baptize  ? 
Evidently  no  such  difficulties  were  known  to  them.  If  the  doctrine  be 
true,  it  is  most  marvellous,  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  find  not  a  trace  of  it.  If  such  emergencies  do  really  exist, 
it  is  passing  strange  that  our  Savior  made  no  provision  for  them.  My 
friend  has  been  engaged  in  providing  for  emergencies  which  the  Bible  did 
not  contemplate — endeavoring  to  remove  difficulties  the  Savior  never  dis- 
covered. Yet  he  proclaims,  that  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants  I  Now  I  go  for  the  Bible,  and  I  am  prepared  to 
acquiesce  in  the  administration  of  baptism  by  males  and  females,  boys  and 
girls,  if  he  will  give  me  a  "  Thus  saith  tlie  Lord,"  for  it. 

In  his  reply  to  the  letter,  from  which  I  read  an  extract,  the  gentleman 
states,  that  deacons  and  unofficial  persons,  in  the  apostolic  age,  adminis- 
tered baptism.  I  hope  he  will  adduce  some  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  de- 
claration. I  have  found  no  example  of  the  administration  of  baptism  by  a 
deacon,  or  an  unofficial  person.  There  is,  indeed,  an  example  of  a  man 
baptizing  who  had  once  been  a  deacon,  but  was  afterwards  an  evangelist 
But,  even  if  at  the  time  he  administered  the  ordinance,  he  was  only  a  dea- 
con, still  he  was  an  officer  in  the  church  of  Christ.  But  I  find  not  an  in- 
stance in  all  the  New  Testament,  in  which  deacons,  or  other  unordained 
persons,  ever  baptized.  If  the  gentleman  can  enlighten  us  on  this  subject, 
I  hope  he  will  not  fail  to  do  it.  If  he  intends  still  to  adhere  to  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  his  reformation,  every  one  must  admit  that  he  is  bound 
either  to  abandon  his  doctrine,  or  produce  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  so 
many  words,  or  a  fair  precedent,  to  sustain  it.  I  am  prepared  to  yield  the 
question  in  a  moment,  if  he  will  show  me  his  authority. 

And  it  behooves  him  more  especially  to  be  careful  on  this  point ;  for  he 
believes  baptism  necessary,  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  If  I  believed 
that  all  who  are  not  validly  baptized,  are  in  danger  of  losing  their  souls, 
I  should  desire  to  be  very  certain,  that  I  encouraged  none  to  administer  or 
to  receive  a  baptism  which  is  not  scriptural.  Convince  me  that  a  man  is 
in  danger  of  losing  his  soul,  if  he  is  not  baptized,  and  I  will  be  very  care- 
ful whom  I  authorize  or  encourage  to  officiate  in  the  administration  of 
the  ordinance.  I  would  desire  the  authority  to  be  as  clear  as  language 
can  make  it.  We  know  that  an  ordained  minister  has  the  right  to  bap- 
tize.    To  this  all  agree.     But  if  you  put  the  question  to  Protestant  Christ- 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  575 

endom,  whether  laymen  have  the  right,  the  almost  unanimous  decision 
will  be,  that  they  have  not.  Then,  according  to  my  friend's  principles 
of  catholicity,  he  must  give  it  up.  I  never  would,  with  my  present 
views,  unite  Avith  a  body  of  professing  christians,  who  permit  all  their 
members — even  boys  and  girls — to  introduce  into  the  church  whom  they 
please.  If  the  gentleman  desires  christian  union,  he  will  find  it  necessary 
to  abandon  this  unscriptural  doctrine :  it  will  ever  be  a  stumbling  block  : 
the  great  majority  of  Bible  readers  cannot  be  persuaded  that  baptism  by 
a  layman  is  christian  baptism.  He  is  certainly  bound,  on  his  own  prin- 
ciples, to  sustain  his  views,  by  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or  a  fair  and  clear 
example,  or  abandon  them. 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  to  proceed  farther  with  this  argu- 
ment. The  doctrine  for  which  I  contend  is  so  obviously  correct,  that  it 
does  not  admit  of  much  discussion,  especially  if  we  confine  ourselves  to 
the  Bible.  I  know  that  my  friend  can  find  some  authority  for  part  of  his 
practice,  among  the  christian  fathers  of  the  third  and  following  centuries, 
and  that  he  can  find  some  episcopal  ministers  who  have  favored  lay-bap- 
tism ;  but  both  they  and  he  must  rely  for  support  on  tradition,  not  on 
the  New  Testament.  They  can  find  nothing  there  that  even  remotely 
hints  at  it.  The  whole  difficulty,  as  before  remarked,  originated  in  em- 
bracing first  an  unscriptural  doctrine,  and  then  founding  upon  it  an  un- 
scriptural practice.  Thus  one  error  leads  to  another,  and  that  again  to  a 
third.  He  who  tells  a  falsehood,  finds  it  necessary  to  tell  a  second  to 
conceal  the  first;  and  a  third  to  reconcile  the  second.  So  it  is  with  error: 
it  is  always  inconsistent.  The  first  step  in  the  path  of  error,  creates  a 
difficulty ;  then  a  second  is  introduced  to  remove  it ;  this  makes  the  diffi- 
culty still  greater,  and  a  third  becomes  necessary,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum. 
There  is  no  telling  where  this  downward  course  will  terminate.  False 
doctrines  necessarily  lead  to  unscriptural  practices ;  and  both  corrupt  the 
church,  and  ruin  the  souls  of  men.  My  friend  has  embraced  the  errone- 
ous doctrine,  and  is  now  defending  the  ruinous  practice  based  upon  it. 

[[Here  Mr.  R.  sat  down,  having  occupied  but  forty  minutes  of  the  sixty 
to  which  he  was  entitled.]) 

Saturday,  Nov.  25 — 1 1  o'clock,  Ji.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  first  reply.] 

Mr.  President — Mr.  Rice  is  quite  generous  this  morning.  He  has 
kindly  tendered  me  just  twenty  minutes  of  his  hour ;  rather,  I  presume,  as 
a  bonus  than  that  I  should  assist  him  in  proving  his  proposition.  The 
affirmative  does  not  suit  my  friend.  He  soon  gets  out  of  breath.  To 
deny  is  easy,  but  to  prove  is  hard:  hie  labor  hoc  opus  est.  Aye,  this  is 
the  drudgery,  this  is  the  toil.  The  onus  probandi  is,  to  some  minds,  a 
burdensome  afiair ;  especially  when  the  case  is  knotty  and  rugged,  as  at 
present.  It  is  rolling  a  large  rock  up  a  steep  hill.  He  proposes  to  prove  that 
the  administrator  of  baptism  must  always  be  an  ordained  elder  or  bishop. 

I  did  expect,  however,  the  form  of  argument,  the  appearance  of  proof; 
especially  as  this  has  long  been  a  darling  topic  to  the  priesthood,  to  the 
dergy,  descended  in  any  way  from  the  family  and  lineage  of  Gregory 
XVI.  I  need  not  tell  you,  my  friends,  that  the  failure  has  been  as  com- 
plete in  argument,  as  in  filling  up  his  time.  You  have  all  heard  the 
head  and  front  of  his  proof,  and  you  all  can  witness  that  he  has  not  ad- 
duced one  "  Thiis  saith  the  Lordf  one  precept  or  precedent  from  the 
Bible  in  proof  of  his  proposition.  That  the  gentleman  should  have  spo- 
ken to  you  forty  minutes  without  quoting  one  verse  in  proof  of  his  posi- 


576  DEBATE  ON  THE 

tion,  is  my  first  argument  that  tlie  ground  he  assumes  is  untenable,  whol- 
ly untenable.  He  has,  in  the  most  satisfactory  way,  disproved  his  pro- 
position. He  sought  to  fill  up  his  time,  and  to  amuse  you,  by  reading 
various  extracts  from  my  correspondents  and  my  writings.  But  it  did 
not  take.  The  amusement  was  all  in  his  own  imagination.  Whoever 
read  of  a  minor  child  baptizing  a  minor !  It  was  too  extravagant,  even 
to  amuse.  He  is  creating  a  phantom,  that  he  may  destroy  it.  Our  views 
have  done  no  such  mischief.  I  have,  indeed,  an  easy  task — nothing  to 
do  on  this  question ;  no  arguments  to  repel,  no  facts  to  oppose.  Still  I 
must  speak  for  an  hour ;  and  as  I  shall  not  find  very  much  claiming  my 
attention  in  what  was  said,  I  must  draw  upon  my  own  resources.  His 
observations  were  sometimes  just.  He  said  that  baptism  was  impor- 
tant to  the  subject  and  to  the  church.  It  adds  another  to  her  members, 
and  only  such  as  the  Lord  approves  should  be  admitted.  Well,  now,  if 
such  may  be  the  dangers  to  the  individual  and  the  church,  from  an  im- 
prudent and  unauthorized  administrator ;  if  both  parties  may  suffer  so 
much  from  an  improper  baptism,  how  does  this  reasoning  bear  upon  the 
former  questions  of  debate  ?  How  does  it  aflect  the  infant  and  the 
church  ?  The  gentleman  does  not  see  where  the  logic  strikes.  He  has 
wounded  his  own  cause  in  this  remark,  more  than  he  can  aid  this  assump- 
tion of  the  clergy.  He  argues,  that  the  mal-administration  of  baptism,  on 
the  part  of  some  novice,  may  subject  the  person  baptized  to  an  eternal 
injury.  Of  course,  that  must  arise  from  his  ignorance  and  unbelief. 
What  a  wound  has  he  thus  inflicted  on  the  whole  Presbyterian  church ! 
Had  I  said,  that  it  is  possible,  through  the  ignorance  and  unbelief  of  the 
subject,  to  subject  him  to  an  eternal  detriment;  I  might  have  been  accused 
of  the  want  of  charity.  But  when  Mr.  Rice  thus  admits  the  hazard  to 
the  individuals  and  the  church  from  the  baptism  of  improper  subjects, 
does  he  not  more  than  substantiate  all  that  I  have  said  against  infant  bap- 
tism, as  corrupting  to  the  church  and  injurious  to  the  child?  For  can 
there  be  any  person  less  qualified  for  baptism,  than  those  wholly  destitute 
of  knowledge  and  of  faith?  In  the  report  of  additions  made  to  the 
church  of  my  friend  last  year,  I  observed  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
infants  were  discipled.  Were  not  they  added  without  knowing  anything 
at  all  of  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance  ?  And  are  they  not  consequently 
exposed  to  the  danger  and  jeopardy  of  which  he  has  been  speaking? 
Now  I  contend,  that  inasmucii  as  the  ordained  elders  of  the  church  do 
tlius  injudiciously  administer  baptism,  they  are  fully  as  dangerous  to  the 
church  and  to  the  individuals  as  those  minors,  concerning  whom  the  gen- 
tleman drew  so  largely  upon  his  imagination,  who  should,  with  all  pre- 
sumption, administer  the  ordinance  to  improper  subjects.  His  argument, 
then,  in  this  case,  is  doubly  fatal :  it  is  fatal  to  the  cause  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and  fatal  to  the  ordained  eldership.  But  it  will  be  said,  the  gentle- 
man quoted  one  verse.  Yes — but  that  verse  was  not  to  the  point.  He 
quoted  a  verse  on  which  prelates  depend  for  their  glebes,  and  popes  for 
their  thrones.  A  verse,  indeed,  containing  a  commission  to  apostles,  but 
mentioning  neither  bishop,  elder,  nor  deacon  ;  consequently,  not  pointing 
out  any  of  their  duties.  The  gendeman's  logic  in  this  case,  resembles 
that  of  a  captain,  who,  when  asked  for  his  commission,  refers  to  that  of 
a  general.  By  what  kind  of  logic  does  a  captain's  commission  prove 
that  he  had  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  general  ?  Precisely  so,  our  friend, 
Mr.  Rice,  when  asked  for  a  commission  authorizing  him,  as  a  bishop,  to 
baptize,  throws  down  that  of  an  apostle. 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  577 

But  I  have  said  that  the  gentleman  has  not  quoted  a  verse  on  the  sub- 
ject before  him.  We  have  no  controversy  about  apostles,  but  we  have 
about  bishops,  deacons,  and  private  members.  He  must  show,  in  all 
logic  and  in  all  law,  a  commission  authorizing  bishops  or  elders  to  bap- 
tize, before  he  asks  for  a  commission  for  a  deacon  or  private  member  to 
baptize.  His  loose  declamations  aboiU  civil  officers,  and  the  necessity 
of  them,  &c.,  is  wholly  inapposite  and  inconclusive  here.  They  have 
commissions,  and  can  show  them.  This  apostolic  commission,  he  very 
well  knows,  has  been  claimed  by  the  popes ;  and  Protestants  have,  in  all 
times,  opposed  their  pretensions.  Now,  every  argument  urged  by  them 
against  the  lordly  pretensions  of  the  pontiffs,  equally  bears  against  his  as- 
8umpli(m.  They  argue  that  apostles  were  a  class  of  officers  not  designed 
nor  needed  to  be  continued ;  that  their  office  and  work  was  incommuni- 
cable, consequently  intransmissible  to  successors.  All  Protestants  agree 
that  aposdes  neither  had,  nor  could  have  successors.  They  derived  their 
commission  direct  from  heaven,  and  held  it  from  the  Lord  in  person.  I 
presume  and  hope,  that  I  shall  not  have  to  argue  this  question  here ;  and 
yet  it  would  seem  as  if  Mr.  R.  holds  his  claim  on  apostolic  grounds, 
olTering,  in  proof,  an  apostolic  commission.  If  he  persists  in  this,  we 
shall  require  of  him  to  show  that  apostles  could  have  successors  ;  whether 
they  were  needed;  and  then,  whether  we  have  any  possessed  of  plenipo- 
tentiary powers. 

Some  years  ago,  when  matters  were  in  their  incipiency  here,  I  deliver- 
ed several  discourses  on  the  subject  of  this  commission  ;  setting  forth 
the  important  fact — that  in  the  commencement  of  all  institutions,  extraor- 
dinary ministers  and  agencies  had  been  employed,  because  always  neces- 
sary. Creation  and  providence  are  different  works — essentially  different, 
and  fully  represent  what  we  mean.  Moses  and  the  apostles  were  crea- 
tors of  new  institutions.  But  other  classes  of  officers,  priests,  judges, 
ministers,  of  various  orders  and  courses,  preserve,  manage  and  direct 
them.  The  creators  have  no  successors — they  cannot  have.  Their  work 
is  soon  done.  God  created  the  present  heavens  and  earth  in  six  days ; 
but  how  many  agencies  have  been  employed  in  preserving  them  during 
six  thousand  years  ? 

Mr,  Rice  ought  to  have  set  the  matter  more  clearly  and  logically  be- 
fore us.  He  ought  to  have  shown  us  the  different  work  and  character 
of  ambassadors,  prime  functionaries,  ministers  extraordinary,  such  as 
law-givers,  apostles,  and  prophets,  in  contrast  with  the  work  and  offices 
of  ordinary  ministers,  such  as  bishops,  evangelists,  and  deacons;  calling 
them  by  scriptural  names,  and  opening  out  their  respective  duties.  Again, 
he  ought  to  have  shown  the  difference  between  what  is  requisite  to  the 
validity  of  ordinances,  and  what  is  merely  necessary  to  the  good  order  of 
christian  communities  ;  and  then,  perhaps,  there  would  not  only  have 
been  a  clearer  intelligence  of  the  question  in  issue,  but  also,  very  proba- 
bly, an  agreement  in  all  that  is  essential  to  the  prosperity  and  happiness 
of  the  church.  I  may  do  this  for  him,  perhaps,  by  reading  an  extract 
from  a  Presbyterian  paper,  the  Protestant  and  Herald,  of  his  own  church, 
under  date  of  October  26.  It  is  a  communication  from  a  Mr.  Smith. 
Under  the  caption  of  the  "  Ordination  of  Calvin,"  the  question  was,  and 
yet  is,  whether  John  Calvin,  one  of  the  founders  of  Presbyterian  power, 
was  ever,  himself,  ordained  to  the  office  of  an  elder  or  bishop  ?  a  ques- 
tion, by  the  way,  which  seems  highly  doubtful — much  more  so  than  I 
had  formerly  been  accustomed  to  think.  After  giving  the  views  and  doo 
37  3C 


878  DEBATE  ON  THE 

trines  of  several  Presbyterians  on  the  subject  of  ordination,  the  writer 
goes  on  to  show,  that  ordination  does  not  confer  vaUdity  on  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinances  and  observances  of  the  church  ;  but  is  simply 
necessary  to  secure  good  order  and  decency  in  the  observance  of  them. 
My  text  is  in  the  following  words :  "  Ordination  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  church  ordinances,  but  for  the 
regularity  and  good  order  of  the  christian  community."  [We  are  sorry 
to  say  that  we  have  lost  the  copy  of  the  above  newspaper,  from  which 
those  extracts  were  read,  and  can  therefore  only  give  the  substance,  from 
our  notes,  as  argued  in  the  debate.]  It  is  conceded,  that  whether  Calvin 
was  ordained  or  not,  is  entirely  immaterial;  that  ordination  is  not  neces- 
sary to  give  either  efficacy  or  validity  to  any  christian  ordinance.  It  is 
only  essential  to  having  the  ordinances  duly  kept,  and  properly  attended 
to ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not  a  question  at  all  affecting  validity,  but 
order  and  propriety  of  administration. 

As  we  desire  to  furnish  elements  of  thought  for  those  who  can  think, 
and  desire  to  think  for  themselves,  I  shall  treat  the  audience  to  a  more 
rich  and  valuable  extract  from  the  pen  of  the  aforesaid  good  Dr.  Carson, 
of  Tubermore,  Ireland  ;  from  wJiose  learned  Baptist  pen,  so  profoundly 
immersed  in  Grecian  lore  and  hoary  antiquity,  Mr.  Rice  has  learned  and 
quoted  so  much.  Mr.  Carson  is  a  good,  orthodox  Baptist  minister,  whom 
I  have  seen  and  heard  in  my  youthful  days.  He  is  the  pastor  of  a  country 
congregation  of  several  hundred  members,  who  practice  weekly  commu- 
nion, and,  also,  to  some  extent,  free  communion.  He  is  a  clear,  argu- 
mentative, and  vigorous  speaker ;  more  distinguished  for  acuteness  and 
profoundness,  than  for  eloquence.  He  is  so  orthodox  as  to  be  often 
called  upon,  on  great  occasions,  such  as  anniversaries,  pentecosts,  and 
jubilees,  by  the  Established  Church,  and  by  Dissenters  of  different  com- 
munions. I  believe  he  does  not  like  me  very  well,  because  he  took  it 
into  his  head  that  I  must  be  (from  various  evil  reports)  imbued  with  Uni- 
tarianism  ;  but,  on  this  point,  I  am  just  as  orthodox  as  he  is,  and  as  ver- 
acious and  unambiguous,  also.  He  is,  indeed,  a  paragon  of  orthodoxy  ; 
is  sometimes  annually  sent  for  to  preach  in  London  and  in  Edinburgh. 
But  here  comes  an  extract  from  a  jubilee  sermon : 

"  The  duty  of  exertion  to  propagate,  the  gospel  extends  to  all  christians 
without  exception.  Every  christian  is  a  soldier,  and  every  christian  soldier 
must  fight  to  put  his  Lord  in  possession  of  his  rightful  dominions.  More 
is  required  of  some  than  of  others,  but  something  is  required  of  every  one. 
The  great  body  of  christians  may  not  be  able  to  address  public  assemblies, 
but  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  may  not  tell  his  neighbor  the  way  to 
heaven.  Cannot  the  simplest  man  make  known  to  others  the  ground  on 
which  he  rests  his  own  hope  of  salvation'!  If  he  knows  the  truth  so  as  to 
be  saved  by  it,  he  may  declare  it  to  others  so  as  to  save  them.  What  can 
make  it  improper  for  an  uneducated  man  to  speak  to  his  companions  on  the 
one  thing  needful  ?  Can  he  speak  to  them  on  matters  of  worldly  business, 
and  can  he  not  speak  to  tliem  on  the  truth  that  saves  the  souH  Can  he 
teach  the  mysteries  of  his  trade,  and  can  he  not  teach  the  way  in  which 
God's  justice  and  mercy  harmonize  in  the  justification  of  the  ungodly  by 
fb.ith  in  Christ  Jesus'! 

Uneducated  christians,  even  the  poorest,  have  in  private  life  more  favora 
ble  opportunities  of  communicating  the  gospel  to  their  associates,  than  the 
most  learned  and  the  most  elevated  in  rank.  The  manners  of  the  world 
make  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  introduce  the  gospel  into  certain  cir- 
cles. When  the  rich  wish  to  preach  the  gospel,  they  must  in  general  go  to 
the  poor      They  seldom  have  actess  to  the  ear  of  their  own  circle.     Even 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  579 

the  highest  christian  nobility  will  find  their  efforts  impeded  by  innumerable 
obstacles  in  the  forms  of  life  in  the  upper  ranks.  When  God  designed  that 
Caesar  and  the  migiity  men  of  Rome  should  hear  the  gospel  of  Paul,  he  sent 
him  as  a  prisoner  to  stand  for  his  life  before  the  emperor.  Had  Paul  gone 
to  Rome  as  a  preacher,  though  he  had  been  a  Demosthenes,  he  might  never 
have  gained  a  hearing  from  Cajsar.  Priests  and  princes  would  have  repre- 
sented him  merely  as  a  fanatic,  and  the  ear  of  majesty  might  never  have 
heard  the  gospel  from  his  lips.  In  proportion  to  a  man's  elevation  in  rank 
is  he  shut  out  from  the  gospel ;  and  in  this  respect  tlie  poor  have  the  high- 
est privileges.  They  hear  and  are  saved,  while  the  rich  and  the  mighty 
perish  without  hearing  it,  though  it  may  sound  every  where  around  them. 
How  is  this  manifested  and  confirmed  by  town  missionaries  !  The  word  of 
life  can  be  sent  into  the  hovels  of  vice,  while  the  lordly  palace,  which  has 
perhaps  more  need  of  it,  must  be  passed  by.  The  poor  are  always  accessi- 
ble, and  the  poorest  christian  may  have,  every  day,  opportunities  of  declar- 
ing the  truth,  from  which  the  highest  christian  may  be  excluded.  If  the 
people  about  him  are  wicked,  still  he  may  find  means  to  gain  their  ear 
about  the  value  of  the  soul,  and  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ.  The 
poorest  and  weakest  member  of  a  church  may  have  access  to  innumerable 
persons  from  whom  the  pastor  is  entirely  shut  out,  and  will  be  heard  when 
the  pastor  would  give  intolerable  ofl^ence. 

The  deadly  heresy  which  confines  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  office 
cronveyed  by  a  certain  succession,  is  an  infernal  machine  for  destroying  the 
souls  of  men.  It  is  one  of  the  great  artifices  of  Satan  to  spike  the  cannon 
on  the  gospel  batteries.  What  can  more  effectually  serve  the  kingdom  of 
light]  But  it  is  as  unscriptural  as  it  is  irrational.  The  scriptures  know 
nothing  of  such  a  succession.  It  is  the  invention  of  the  man  of  sin,  calcu- 
lated to  extinguish  the  light,  and  promote  the  empire  of  darkness.  And 
whatever  may  be  the  mode  of  conveying  office,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
either  publicly  or  privately,  is  not  confined  to  office.  Every  christian  has  a 
right  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  according  to  his  opportunities  and  his  abili- 
ties it  is  his  duty  to  preach  it.  This  vile  dogma  of  Oxford  is  self-evidently 
false.  If  the  gospel  is  true,  can  there  be  any  danger  of  sin  in  proclaiming 
its  truths'?  If  the  gospel  is  salvation,  and  if  God  wills  the  salvation  of 
men,  can  it  be  sinful  to  tell  them  of  that  which  saves  from  helH  What 
would  you  think  of  a  senator  who  should  rise  up  in  the  British  senate  house, 
declaring  that  no  watchmen  ought  to  be  employed  in  the  city  of  London  but 
those  who  have  a  regular  succession  from  the  watchmen  who  lived  at  the 
foundation  of  the  city,  and  that,  though  the  city  were  fired  at  innumerable 
points,  no  man  had  a  right  to  cry,  'Fire!  fire!'  but  the  legal  watchmen  1 
It  is  only  in  religion  that  the  effusions  of  folly  and  absurdity  are  dignified 
as  wisdom." 

I  have  read  this  pithy  extract  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  from  which* 
there  are  so  many  excellent  things  read  you  by  my  worthy  friend — and 
in  which  there  are  many  other  good  things  to  be  read  by  others  as  well 
as  he  ;  and,  I  hope,  for  other  purposes.  The  doctrine  of  the  extract,  my 
readers  need  not  be  told,  is  mine.  I  subscribe  to  it  every  word,  and  have 
long  since,  even  in  the  days  of  the  Christian  Baptist,  expressed  them 
under  other  images. 

That  the  official  grace  and  jus  divinum  of  the  clergy,  is  a  gratuitous 
assumption,  I  believe  all  sensible  men  of  much  intelligence  very  well 
know.  I  do  certainly  know  it,  and  have  long  since  exposed  it :  still  I  am 
a  cordial  friend  of  good  order  and  of  a  christian  ministry.  As  Mr.  R. 
has  preceded  my  way  into  political  society,  I  will  take  a  little  excursion 
with  him,  and  endeavor  to  illustrate  my  position,  by  a  very  intelligible 
comparison  or  two. 

Man,  in  the  state  of  nature,  if  any  one  ever  saw  him  there,  is  a  very 


580  DEBATE  ON  THE 

free  and  sovereign  kind  of  a  dependent.  He  is  as  free  as  Ishmael, 
though  the  slave  of  a  hundred  wants  and  tyrannic  passions ;  but,  like 
the  deer  of  the  forest,  he  roams  at  large.  At  last,  tired  of  his  wanderings 
over  nature's  wilds,  he  courts  society,  and  would  fondly  purchase  it  at 
some  price.  He  is  asked  to  surrender  so  many  of  his  assumed  natural 
and  inalienable  rights  and  liberties,  for  the  sake  of  other  advantages  found 
in  the  fellowship  and  intercommunication  of  co-ordinate  beings.  He 
agrees  to  sell  so  many  rights  for  so  many  privileges.  The  bargain  is 
now  closed,  and  is  called  a  constitution.  From  the  day  it  is  signed,  he 
uses  those  surrendered  rights  no  more.  To  use  those  sold  rights,  would 
now  be  politically  wrong.  He  has  got  for  them  a  full  price,  and  there- 
fore they  are  no  longer  his.  He  still  reserves  the  right  of  looking  at 
the  sun,  of  breathing  the  air,  of  eating  and  drinking  earth's  bounties,  of 
walking  on  the  earth,  at  least  on  the  high-roads.  He  claims  as  much  of 
mother  earth  as  he  can  cover  with  his  person,  and  never  parts  with  the 
power  of  talking,  nor  sells  the  dear  liberty  of  speech.  But  the  law-giv- 
ing power,  with  the  power  of  judging  and  government,  he  has  sold  ;  aiKl 
therefore,  he  can,  of  right,  use  these  functions  no  more,  unless  they  are 
granted  to  him  by  the  persons  with  whom  he  has  identified  his  fortunes. 

From  the  moment  the  social  compact  political  is  formed,  society  being 
organized,  its  organs  dispense  all  its  special  privileges  according  to  law. 
Then  no  man  takes  upon  himself  any  honor,  office,  or  work,  without  a 
special  call  and  appointment.     Just  so  is  it  in  the  church. 

When  there  is  no  church,  but  disciples  of  Christ  scattered  abroad,  not 
organized,  there  can  be  no  officers.  When  then  any  one  desires  baptism, 
any  one  to  whom  he  applies  may  administer  it.  When  a  few  brethren 
in  one  family,  or  neighborhood,  organize  themselves  to  meet  once  a  week 
to  shew  forth  the  Lord's  death,  to  read  the  Scriptures,  sing  and  pray 
together,  having  no  ordained  officer  among  them,  they  appoint  one  of 
themselves,  to  break  "  the  loaf  of  blessings,"  and  to  distribute  "  the  cup 
of  salvation."  All  this  the  New  Testament,  reason,  common  sense 
approve.  But  when  societies  are  formed,  christian  communities  created, 
and  a  church  organization  established  by  agreement;  then,  indeed,  all 
offices  are  filled  by  the  voice  and  ordination  of  the  people.  When  that 
is  accomplished,  no  one  has  a  right,  either  inherent,  natural,  or  divine,  to 
discharge  social  duties,  without  a  call  and  appointment  from  his  compeers 
and  associates.  Do  not  Presbyterians,  sensible,  intelligent  Presbyterians, 
assent  to  these  views?  I  sincerely  think  they  do.  They  have  no  faith  in 
the  doctrine  of  hereditary  grace — of  official  power  transmitted  from  age  to 
age,  through  the  leaky  and  crazy  corporations  of  human  bodies.  Sup- 
pose a  solitary  Testament  was  borne  on  the  wings  of  the  wind  to  some 
savage  island,  filled  with  inhabitants.  A  first  picks  it  up,  reads,  under- 
stands it,  believes  it.  He  communicates  its  intelligence  to  B,  C,  and  D ; 
they  also  receive  it  with  joy.  Presently,  the  hills  and  dales  echo  with 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  They  tell  the  glad  tidings.  Hundreds  believe  ; 
they  baptise  them — consecrate  them.  They  all  decide  that  Christianity  is 
essentially  a  sooial  system  ;  that  its  tendency  is  to  form  a  grand  commu- 
nity— intelligent,  pure,  holy,  happy,  and  co-extensive  with  humanity. 
Soon  as  they  have  organized  and  understood  their  calling,  they  elect  and 
solemnly  devote  to  the  work  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
a  few,  appointed  by  the  many.  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  to  the  work  of  the  min- 
istry among  them,  in  whatever  departments  of  labor  they  may  require. 
Henceforth  all  public  social  duties  are  performed  by  this  ministry,  whom 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  581 

practice  makes  more  perfect  in  the  work.  These  persons  publicly 
preach,  baptize,  or  preside  in  their  assemblies,  teach  and  govern,  as  the 
case  may  be. 

I  aim  not  at  a  perfect  picture ;  I  only  give  a  sketch,  a  rude  outline, 
that  my  views  and  my  argument,  or  rather  objection,  to  the  position  of 
Mr.  R.,  may  be  appreciated.  I  do  not  say  his  arguments,  but  his  posi- 
tion ;  for  argument,  or  proof,  from  him  I  have  not  yet  heard. 

These  views  must  be,  perhaps  they  are  already,  approved  by  my 
Presbyterian  friends.  My  regular  readers  will  recognize  them,  as  hav- 
ing been  taught  by  me  from  my  firat  visit  to  this  commonwealth.  They 
are  held  in  various  forms  in  the  Christian  Baptist.  I  am  peculiarly  grat- 
ified to  say,  that  they  are  views  very  generally  diffused  throughout  this 
great  continent,  and  especially,  to  have  recently  read  them  from  the  pen 
of  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  the  age — and  a  very  high  functionary  in  the 
Episcopal  church  of  England — no  less  a  man  than  archbisliop  Whateley, 
of  the  province  of  Dublin;  whose  fame  as  a  scholar  is  in  all  our  colleges, 
and  as  a  nervous,  vigorous,  and  clear  writer,  has  few  superiors  at  the 
present  time.  I  shall  read  a  few  pages  from  his  recent  work  on  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  I  adopt  it  as  a  part  of  my  argument,  and  commend 
it  especially  to  my  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  friends  in  Kentucky,  and 
every  where. 

"  Suppose,  for  instance,  a  number  of  emigrants,  bound  for  some  colony,  to 
be  shipwrecked  on  a  desert  island,  such  as  afforded  them  means  of  subsist- 
ence, but  precluded  all  reasonable  hope  of  their  quitting  it:  or  suppose  them 
to  have  taken  refuge  there  as  fugitives  from  intolerable  oppression,  or  from 
a  conquering  enemy,  (no  uncommon  case  in  ancient  times) :  or  to  be  the 
sole  survivors  of  a  pestilence  or  earthquake  which  had  destroyed  the  rest  of 
the  nation :  no  one  would  maintain  that  these  shipwrecked  emigrants  or 
fugitives  were  bound,  or  were  permitted,  to  remain — themselves  and  their 
posterity — in  a  state  of  anarchy,  on  the  ground  of  there  being  no  one  among 
them  who  could  claim  hereditary  or  other  right  to  govern  them.  It  would 
clearly  be  right,  and  wise,  and  necessary,  that  they  should  regard  them- 
selves as  constituted,  by  the  very  circumstances  of  their  position,  a  civil 
community;  and  should  assemble  to  enact  such  laws,  and  appoint  such 
magistrates,  as  they  might  judge  most  suitable  to  their  circumstances. 
And  obedience  to  those  laws  and  governors,  as  soon  as  the  constitution  was 
settled,  would  become  a  moral  duty  to  all  the  members  of  the  community : 
and  this,  even  though  some  of  the  enactments  might  appear,  or  might  be 
(though  not  at  variance  with  the  immutable  laws  of  morality,  yet)  conside- 
rably short  of  perfection.  The  king,  or  other  magistrates  thus  appointed, 
would  be  legitimate  rulers;  and  the  laws  framed  by  them,  valid  and  bind- 
ing. The  precept  of  '  submitting  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  for  the  Lord's 
sake,'  and  of  '  rendering  to  all,  their  due,'  would  apply  in  this  case  as  com- 
pletely as  in  respect  of  any  civil  community  that  exists." — Wliateley's 
Kiiigdom  of  Christ,  New  York,  1843,  12mo.  p.  193. 

"  But  it  would  be  absurd  to  maintain,  that  men  placed  in  such  a  situation 
as  has  been  here  supposed  are  to  be  shut  out,  generation  after  generation, 
from  the  christian  ordinances  and  the  gospel  covenant  Their  circum- 
stances would  constitute  them  (as  many  as  could  be  brought  to  agree  in  the 
essentials  of  faith  and  christian  worship)  a  christian  community;  and  would 
require  them  to  do  that  which,  if  done  without  such  necessity,  would  be 
Gchismatical.  To  make  regulations  for  the  church  thus  constituted,  and  to 
appoint  as  its  ministers  the  fittest  persons  that  could  be  found  among  them, 
and  to  celebrate  the  christian  rites,  would  be  a  proceeding  not  productive, 
as  in  the  other  case,  of  division,  but  of  union.  And  it  would  be  a  compli- 
ance— clearly  pointed  out  to  them  by  the  providence  which  had  placed  them 
in  that  situation — with  the   manifest  will  of  our  Heavenly  Master,  that 

3c2 


582  DEBATE  ON  THE 

christians  should  live  in  a  religious  community,  under  such  officers  and  such 
regulations  as  are  essential  to  the  existence  of  every  community. 

To  say  that  christian  ministers  thus  appointed  would  be,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  real  legitimate  christian  ministers,  and  that  the  ordinances 
of  such  a  church  would  be  no  less  valid  and  efficacious  (supposing  always 
that  they  are  not  in  themselves  superstitious  and  unscriplural)  than  those 
of  any  other  church,  is  merely  to  say  in  other  words  that  it  would  be  a  real 
christian  church  ;  possessing  consequently,  in  common  with  all  communities 
of  whatever  kind,  the  essential  rights  of  a  community  to  have  officers  and 
by-laws  ;  and  possessing  also,  in  common  with  all  christian  communities, 
{i.  e.  churches)  the  especial  sanction  of  our  Lord,  and  his  promise  of  ratify- 
ing ('  binding  in  heaven')  its  enactments. 

It  really  does  seem  not  only  absurd,  but  even  impious,  to  represent  it  as 
the  Lord's  will,  that  persons  who  are  believers  in  his  gospel  should,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  circumstances  in  which  his  Providence  has  placed  them, 
condemn  themselves  and  their  posterity  to  live  as  heathens,  instead  of  con- 
forming as  closely  as  those  circumstances  will  allow  to  the  institutions  and 
directions  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  by  combining  themselves  into  a  chris- 
tian society,  regulated  and  conducted,  in  the  best  way  they  can,  on  gospel 
principles.  And  if  such  a  society  does  enjoy  the  divine  blessing  and  favor, 
it  follows  that  its  proceedings,  its  enactments,  its  officers,  are  legitimate 
and  apostolical,  as  long  as  they  are  conformable  to  the  principles  which  the 
apostles  have  laid  down  and  recorded  for  our  use  :  even  as  those  (of  what- 
ever race  '  after  the  flesh')  who  embraced  and  faithfully  adhered  to  the  gos- 
pel, were  called  by  the  apostle  '  x\braham's  seed,'  and  '  the  Israel  of  God.' 

The  ministers  of  such  a  church  as  I  have  been  supposing,  would  rightly 
claim  '  apostolical  succession,'  because  they  would  rightfully  hold  the  same 
office  which  the  apostles  conferred  on  those  '  elders  whom  they  ordained  in 
every  city.'  And  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  of  sound  mind  seriously  to 
believe  that  the  recognition  of  such  claims,  in  a  case  like  the  one  here  sup- 
posed, affords  a  fair  precedent  for  men  who  should  wantonly  secede  from  the 
church  to  which  they  had  belonged,  and  take  upon  themselves  to  ordain 
ministers  and  form  a  new  and  independent  church  according  to  their  own 
fancy." — p.  197. 

I  will  yet  read  two  other  extracts ;  one  showing  that  there  is  no  cer- 
tainty whatever  in  any  pretended  succession  from  the  apostles.  A  lay- 
man may  have  baptized  us  all,  for  any  thing  which  the  rolls  of  time  or 
the  annals  of  the  church  can  sliow.  It  is  a  proverb  incontrovertibly  true, 
"the  stream  can  rise  no  higiier  than  the  fountain."  Myriads  of  chil- 
dren, some  of  whom  became  priests  and  Levites,  deacons  and  bishops, 
were  sprinkled  by  private  men  and  women,  during  hundreds  of  years,  by 
the  Romanists.  There  is  not  a  man  in  Kentucky  can  trace  his  baptism 
back  to  any  thing  better  than  a  lay  origin,  if  archbishop  Whateley  told 
the  truth. 

"  If,  as  has  been  above  remarked,  a  man  is  taught  that  view  of  apostolical 
succession  which  makes  every  thing  depend  on  the  unbroken  series  between 
the  apostles  and  the  individual  minister  from  whom  each  man  receives  the 
sacraments,  or  the  individual  bishop  conferring  ordination,  (a  fact  which 
never  can  be  ascertained  with  certainty,)  and  he  is  then  presented  with 
proofs,  not  of  this,  but  of  a  different  fact  instead — the  apostolical  succession, 
generally,  of  the  great  body  of  the  ministers  of  his  church  ;  and  if  he  is 
taught  to  acquiesce  with  consolatory  confidence  in  the  regulations  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  church,  not  on  such  grounds  as  have  been  above  laid  down, 
but  on  the  ground  of  their  exact  conformity  to  the  model  of  the  ♦  ancient 
church,'  which  exact  conformity  is  in  many  cases  more  than  can  be  satis- 
factorily proved,  and  in  some  can  be  easily  disproved ;  the  result  of  the  at- 
tempt so  to  settle  men's  minds  must  be,  with  many,  the  most  distressing 
doubt  and  perplexity.    And  others  again,  when  taught  to  '  blend  with  Scrip- 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  583 

ture,'  as  a  portion  of  revelation,  the  traditions  of  the  first  three,  or  first  four, 
or  first  seven,  or  fifteen  centuries,  may  find  it  difficult  to  understand  when, 
and  where,  and  why  tliey  are  to  stop  short  abruptly  in  the  application  of  the 
principles  they  have  received:  why,  if  one  general  council  is  to  be  admit- 
ted as  having  divine  authority  to  bind  the  conscience  and  supersede  private 
judgment,  another  is  to  be  rejected  by  private  judgment ;  and  that  too  by  the 
judgment  of  men  who  are  not  agreed  with  each  other,  or  even  with  them- 
selves, whetlier  the  council  of  Trent,  for  instance,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
beginning  of  the  Romish  apostasy,  or  as  a  promising  omen  of  improvement 
in  the  church  of  Rome.  That  man  must  be  strangely  constituted,  \vh:  can 
find  consolatory  security  for  his  faith  in  such  a  guide  ;  who  can  derive  satis- 
factory confidence  from  the  oracles  of  a  Proteus  !" — King:  of  Christ,  p.  20.'i. 

*'  A  member  of  the  Anglican  church,  (I  mean  a  sincere  and  thoroughly 
consistent  member  of  it,)  ought  to  feel  a  full  conviction — and  surely  there 
are  good  grounds  for  that  conviction — both  that  the  reforms  they  introduced 
were  no  more  than  were  loudly  called  for  by  a  regard  for  gospel  trutii ;  and 
that  the  church,  as  constituted  by  them,  does  possess,  in  its  regulations  and 
its  officers,  '  apostolical  succession,'  in  the  sense  in  whicii  it  is  essential 
that  a  christian  community  should  possess  it,  viz.  in  being  a  regularly  con- 
stituted christian  society,  framed  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples taught  by  the  apostles  and  their  great  Master. 

Successors,  in  the  apostolic  office,  the  apostles  have  none.  As  witnesses 
of  the  resurreclixjn,  as  dispensers  of  miraculous  gifts,  as  inspired  oracles  of 
divine  revelation ,  they  have  no  successors.  But  as  members,  as  ministers,  aa 
governors  of  christian  communities,  their  successors  are  the  regularly  ad- 
mitted members,  the  lawfully  ordained  ministers,  the  regular  and  recog- 
nized governors,  of  a  regularly  subsisting  christian  church;  especially  of  a 
church  which,  conforming  in  fundamentals, — as  I  am  persuaded  ours  does, — 
to  gospel  principles,  claims  and  exercises  no  rights  beyond  tiiose  whicli 
have  the  clear  sanction  of  our  great  Master,  as  being  essentially  implied  in 
the  very  character  of  a  community." — pp.  240,  241. 

Here,  then,  is  indisputable  evidence  from  one  of  the  most  learned  pre- 
lates of  the  Church  of  England,  who  is  a  fair  exponent  of  the  accumula- 
ted intelligence  of  that  enlightened  community — a  community  as  well 
read  in  the  true  archeology  of  Christianity  as  any  church  establishment  in 
the  world,  that  ordination  descent  from  apostolic  limes  is  a  mere  figment 
of  the  human  brain,  and  that  no  such  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 
With  archbishop  Whateley,  we  say — "that  a  regularly  constituted  chris- 
tian society,  framed  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles  taught 
us  by  the  apostles,  and  their  great  Master,"  has  the  only  true,  real  apos- 
tolic succession  of  divine  authenticity,  and,  therefore,  we,  as  a  christian 
community,  have  it. 

Whenever,  then,  a  christian  community  legitimately  arises  out  of  such 
circumstances,  as  already  described,  sanctioned  by  the  New  Testament — 
that  is,  holding  the  same  doctrines  and  ordinances,  customs  and  usages, 
when  it  appoints  officers,  and  when  they  dispense  ordinances,  they  are 
as  divine  and  authoritative  as  any  other  ofiicers  and  ordinances  in  any 
christian  community  on  earth.  This,  we  regard,  as  our  true  position  as 
a  community  of  churches — and  all  those  passages  read  from  our  writings 
in  their  contextual  meaning,  do  neither  more  nor  less  than  set  forth  these 
views  with  a  reference  to  christian  society  and  its  various  circumstances. 

Among  the  eccentricities  of  orthodoxy,  I  am  called  to  notice  one  that 
is  not  among  the  least.  Mr.  Rice  said  something  about  graceless  men, 
wicked  knaves  or  hypocrites,  that  might  baptize  thousands  under  our 
system  of  operations.  Well ;  exaggeration  does  better  in  poetry  than  in 
prose,  and  in  florid  and  highly  impassioned  eloquence  than  in  a  frigid 


584  DEBATE  ON  THE 

and  dry  logical  analysis.  But  to  afford  the  gentleman  all  the  advantages 
of  his  hypothesis,  admit  some  persons  possessing  true  faith  were  baptized 
by  graceless  administrators  ;  what  then?  Would  official  grace,  his  eccle- 
siastic authority,  have  made  it  any  better?  And  more  important  still- 
would  the  faith,  piety,  and  benefit  of  the  subject,  be  either  injured  or  an- 
nihilated by  the  character  of  the  administrator  ! !  But  yet  the  eccentricity 
is  not  fully  stated  Ordained  men,  I  mean  in  Mr.  Rice's  own  views  of 
ordination,  are  sometimes  graceless  men.  And  private  members  are 
pometimes  men  of  unquestionable  piety  and  moral  worth.  Now,  sup- 
pose an  unordained  saint  baptize  A  B,  and  an  ordained  reprobate  baptize 
C  D,  why  should  the  want  of  ordination  on  the  part  of  the  saint  im- 
pair his  act ;  and  the  want  of  piety  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  not  impair 
his  act  ?  Is  not  that  to  place  official  grace  above  the  true  and  real  grace 
of  God  ?  Bring  up  the  case  before  judge  Orthodoxy,  and  he  will  decide 
for  the  official  against  the  real  grace  of  God,  so  far  as  the  act  of  officiation 
is  concerned  ;  and  hence  many  would  rather  take  the  eucharist  loaf  from 
the  hands  of  a  church  dignitary,  though  evidently  graceless,  than  from  the 
hands  of  a  saint  of  the  purest  excellence,  on  whose  pate  was  not  laid  the 
hands  of  some  prelate  or  presbytery.  Protestants  have  sometimes  said, 
that  as  christian  ordinances  receive  not  any  virtue,  neither  do  they  lose 
any  efficacy  or  spiritual  benefit,  from  the  hands  of  him  that  does  adminis- 
ter them.     So  I  teach. 

With  regard  to  the  extracts  I'ead  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  as  usual, 
they  are  misapplied.  The  very  commencement  of  them  indicates  that, 
viz  :  "  There  is  no  law  in  the  christian  Scriptures  authorizing  any  one 
CLASS  OF  CITIZENS  hi  the  christian  kingdom  to  immerse  to  the  exclusion 
of  any  other  class  of  citizens.  Apostles,  evangelists,  deacons,  and  un- 
official persons  are  all  represented  as  immersing,  when  occasion  called 
for  it."  Now,  the  question  here  is  not  about  adults  and  minors — nor 
about  males  and  females,  but  about  classes  of  persons.  It  is  not  sexes 
nor  ages,  nor  conditions,  but  classes  of  persons — apostles,  evangelists, 
deacons,  and  unofficial  persons.  We  affirm  that  there  were  no  classes. 
We  have  given  "  express  precedents'^  of  all  classes  baptizing,  and  that  is 
all  our  principles  call  for.  Whether  intentional  or  not,  a  person  may 
read  extracts  so  as  not  to  give  a  fair  representation  of  the  views  of  a  wri- 
ter. We  never,  by  word  or  action,  sanctioned  either  females  or  minors 
as  baptists.  These  come  not  under  the  head  of  those  classes  of  which 
we  were  writing.  We  spoke  of  official  classes.  We  have  laymen,  and 
deacons,  deaconesses,  elders,  evangelists,  pastors,  besides  apostles  and 
prophets.  There  is  no  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  precept  nor  precedent, 
conferring  baptism  to,  nor  enjoining  it  upon,  any  one  of  these  classes. 
Mr.  Rice  cannot  shew  a  case,  not  one  word  or  example  of  the  sort,  in  the 
whole  New  Testament.  I  challenge  him  to  produce  one  single  verse, 
containing  in  it  a  clear,  or  even  an  obscure  "  77ms  saith  the  Lord.''  I 
predict  he  will  not  even  make  the  attempt.  He  need  not  tell  you  it  is  not 
necessary,  for  it  is  necessary  ;  especially  in  the  case  of  a  bishop.  That  is 
essential  to  his  affirmation. 

I  call  upon  Mr.  Rice  to  furnish  any  precept  in  the  New  Testament 
authorizing  or  enjoining  a  bishop  or  an  elder  to  baptize  any  one.  I  call 
upon  him  to  produce  an  example  of  a  bishop  or  an  elder  baptizing,  as 
such,  officially,  if  he  pleases.  lie  cannot  do  it.  Now,  the  proposition 
which  he  has  undertaken  to  sustain,  calls  for  this.  He  affirms  that  an 
ordained  bishop  or  elder  has  a  right  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  bap- 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  585 

tism.  He  affirms  more  than  that — for  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  only 
he  has  a  right  to  baptize.  If  he  cannot  prove  the  first,  certainly  he  can- 
not prove  the  second.  Well,  now,  it  lies  upon  him  by  every  principle  of 
logic,  of  reason,  and  of  law  to  produce  their  commission.  I  will  admit 
that  such  a  commission  will  setde  the  matter,  if  it  only  says  in  effect — 
Let  the  elders  baptize.  1  have  said  he  can  produce  no  example  of  any 
bishop  baptizing  any  one  as  such  ;  nor  a  precept  so  enjoining  ;  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  they  only  have  a  right  to  baptize.  / 
care  not  about  views  of  expediency,  I  go  for  law.  But  he  delights  in 
forming  and  displaying  extreme  cases  of  the  extension  or  of  the  abuse  of 
a  principle.  He  will  have  boys  baptizing  men,  and  females  baptizing 
females,  as  the  result  of  a  universal  license.  We,  however,  neither  ac- 
knowledge nor  grant  such  licenses.  Yet  I  would  like  to  put  an  extreme 
case: — Here  is  a  father  of  fifty,  with  a  son  of  fifteen,  who  have  just 
escaped  to  a  desert  island  from  the  wreck  of  a  ship.  They  have  carried 
with  them  a  Bible.  The  son  had  been  baptized  and  was  a  member  of, 
church  one  year  before  he  was  taken  by  his  father  to  sea.  The  old  gen- 
tleman had  long  been  a  sceptic.  His  misfortunes  brought  him  to  reflect, 
and  called  his  attention  to  the  Bible.  His  daily  readings  and  the  conver- 
sation and  excellent  demeanor  of  his  son,  overcame  his  scepticism.  The 
Lord  opened  his  mind,  he  believed  the  gospel,  and  became  anxious  to  be 
baptized.  After  much  deliberation  and  painful  reflection  upon  his  cir- 
cumstances, he  one  day  asked  his  son  to  accompany  him  to  the  sea-shore 
and  baptize  him.     He  did  so.     Was  it  wrong? 

I  am  now  prepared  to  say,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances,  that  it  was 
right,  perfectly  right.  But  now  suppose  any  one  should  publish  through 
this  community  that  I  taught  that  boys  might  baptize  men,  and  sons  their 
parents  ;  and  that  I  said  that  persons  might  be  so  appointed  by  churches; 
would  that  person  do  me  justice  or  injustice?  would  he  publish  truth  or 
falsehood  ?  The  principle  involved  in  this  case  will  one  day  condemn 
many  for  their  very  injurious  calumnies  and  slanders,  based  on  still  more 
slender  and  unjustifiable  grounds. 

The  case  of  "Roger  Williams  and  eleven  others  with  him,  was  brought 
forward  the  other  day.  There  was  not  an  immersed  believer  in  all  Pro- 
vidence plantation,  in  all  the  district  of  country  known  to  any  of  this  lit- 
tle band  of  believers.  The  question  with  them  was,  "  What  shall  we 
do?  We  all  believe  the  gospel,  we  all  desire  to  be  baptized,  but  there 
is  no  one  to  baptize  us,  Shall  we  go  or  send  one  to  England  to 
be  immersed,  and  await  his  return,  or  now  immediately  baptize  each 
other  and  form  a  church  ?"  They  decided  to  obey  the  Lord  promptly. 
One  of  the  twelve  immersed  Roger  Williams,  then  Williams  immersed 
the  eleven.  So  commenced  American  immersion  !  Well,  now,  I  am  such 
a  radical,  and  yet  I  go  as  much  for  order  as  any  man ;  I  fearlessly  give 
my  opinion  that  they  did  right.  Mr.  Rice,  probably,  would  have  got  up 
a  mission,  and  despatched  one  of  the  company  to  Rome,  or  Constantino- 
ple, or  London,  and  imported  oflicial  grace!  They  obeyed  common 
sense  and  the  Bible,  and  left  behind  them  a  noble  triumph  of  mental  in- 
dependence. Had  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  or  the  pope  of  Rome, 
or  his  grace  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  been  present,  or  any  other 
ecclesiastic  in  the  world,  and  performed  the  service,  it  would,  to  say  the 
least,  have  been  no  better  done.  But  if  asked,  would  such  a  course 
of  things  be  orderly  or  christian-like,  at  this  lime,  in  this  country  ?  I  de- 
cidedly say,  No :  it  would  be  superlatively  incongruous  and  disorderly. 


586  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Simpletons  and  odd  fellows  always  argue  from  extreme  cases.  Supreme 
necessity  gives  law,  and  iucontrollable  circumstances  must  control  us.  Our 
method  is,  so  far  as  known  tome:  churches  appoint  all  their  officers, 
their  bishops,  deacons,  and  evangelists.  They  authorize  some  one  to  be 
the  baptist  for  the  congregation.  Sometimes,  generally  indeed,  he  is  the 
evangelist,  or  an  elder,  or  a  deacon  ;  he  is,  for  the  most  part,  some  one  of 
the  ministry  of  the  church.  Comes  it  not,  however,  with  an  ill  grace 
from  Mr.  R.,  to  be  fastidious  about  the  administrator  of  baptism ;  com- 
ing as  it  does  in  room  of  circumcision  ?  The  gentleman  adroitly  converts 
all  my  allusions  to  the  action  or  subject  of  baptism  into  a  proof  of  my 
not  being  satisfied  with  the  discussion  of  them.  This  is  to  prevent  the 
proper  use  of  them  as  illustrations,  and,  indeed,  as  part  of  the  evidence 
of  the  design  of  baptism.  I  have  not,  however,  exhausted  any  of  these 
subjects  by  a  great  deal.  Enough,  indeed,  has  been  said  to  meet  the  case 
and  dispose  of  all  that  Avas  alledged  on  the  opposite  side.  Such,  at  least, 
is  my  opinion. 

I  will,  then,  recur  to  circumcision  for  an  illustration  of  the  case  before 
us.  The  gentleman  will  have  baptism  in  place  of  circumcision.  Now, 
as  Zipporah  circumcised  the  son  of  Moses,  and  parents  generally  circum- 
cised their  children,  why  be  so  fastidious  about  the  administrator  of  bap- 
tism 1  So  complaisant  am  I,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  I  will  make  another 
extreme  case.  Suppose  two  ladies  in  a  foreign  land,  one  a  christian,  the 
other  not,  should  be  sold  into  slavery  among  Turks,  or  pagans  as  barba- 
rous as  they.  Their  misfortunes  soften  the  heart  of  the  non-professor, 
and  become  a  cause  of  her  devotion  to  the  Bible.  She  believes  and  re- 
pents. At  her  earnest  solicitation  her  companion  baptizes  her,  and  she 
assumes  the  christian  profession.  Certainly  Mr.  Rice,  with  mother  Zip- 
porah in  his  eye,  will  not  demur !  I  will  not  repudiate  even  this  extreme 
case.  I  am  of  the  opinion  it  was  all  right.  But  who  thence  infers, 
that  I  would  license  the  sisters  to  baptize,  does  me  no  more  justice  than 
Mr.  Rice. 

These  concessions  are  free-will  offerings,  uncalled  for ;  but  I  desire  to 
express  more  fully  than  on  any  previous  occasion,  my  liberty  in  the  gos- 
pel, and  also  my  devotion  to  the  most  perfect  good  order  in  the  christian 
community.  I  must  then  add,  that  those  things,  lawful  and  expedient  in 
extreme  cases,  would,  in  my  judgment,  be  both  unlawful  and  inexpedi- 
ent in  our  circumstances.  Still,  be  it  observed,  that  the  efficacy  arid 
salutary  power  of  ordinances  is  in  God  and  in  the  recipient,  not  in  the 
hu7nan  mediator.  The  faith  and  preparation  of  heart,  on  the  part  of  the 
recipient,  is  every  thing ;  and  the  Lord's  promises  are  to  him  directly, 
without  any  human  instrumentality. 

You  will  recollect  that  Mr.  Rice  read  some  extracts  from  Perrin,  or 
some  other  historian,  on  the  subject  of  succession,  and  made  an  attack 
upon  the  reputation  of  Mr.  Jones,  the  Baptist  historian,  whose  history  of 
the  Waldenses  I  commended  some  years  ago,  over  whose  shoulders  the 
gentleman,  in  his  friendship,  hurled  a  javelin  at  me,  for  the  sin  of  recom- 
mending said  work,  because  it  had  traced  up,  or  furnished  a  part  of  the 
train  of  succession  of  baptized  churches,  from  the  christian  era  to  the 
present  day.  The  work  was  first  introduced  and  recommended  to  the 
community  by  elder  Spencer  Cone,  of  New  York.  I  recommended,  and 
still  recommend  it,  not  because  of  any  particular  respect  for  its  author, 
nor  from  any  indebtedness  to  the  Baptists  that  introduced  it :  for  neither 
Mr-  Jones  nor  they  have  any  claims  upon  my  generosity  whatever.     It 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  587 

was  then  a  tribute  to  truth,  and  to  the  oppressed  cause  of  the  only  true 
baptism.  But  I  did  not  happen  to  have  the  proper  documents  before  me 
the  other  day,  and  could  not  at  that  time  disprove  the  allegation. 

This  Mr.  Jones  is  now  charged  by  Mr.  Rice,  with  a  willful,  perverse 
suppression  of  the  truth,  and  thereby  making  Perrin  bear  testimony  on 
the  wrong  side  of  the  question. 

Before  attempting  the  defence  of  Mr.  Jones  from  the  aspersions  thrown 
upon  his  reputation,  the  subject  of  a  succession  of  churches  practicing  the 
christian  ordinances,  without  any  connection  with  the  gospel  establish- 
ment— themselves  contending  for  views  similar  to  those  I  am  offering  on 
Uiis  subject — demands  a  remark  or  two.     I  make  these  remarks. 

In  reference  to  the  subject  of  succession  as  respects  the  question  before 
us,  let  me  be  permitted  to  say,  that  since  the  days  of  bishop  Sylvester 
till  now,  there  have  been  immersed  multitudes  of  persons  not  members 
of  the  church  of  Rome.  They  have  been  called  by  many  names,  such 
as  Danites,  Paulicians,  Henricians,  Novatians,  Petrobrusians,  Waldenses, 
Albigenses,  <fcc.,  &c. — a  mighty  host  of  men,  never  under  the  direct  influ- 
ence of  popery,  who,  in  all  ages,  bore  their  firm  and  unwavering  testi- 
mony against  all  its  assumptions  and  pollutions.  While  the  gentleman 
was  telling  you  the  other  day,  that,  on  our  principles,  the  church  was  ex- 
tinct for  ages  ;  many  of  you,  with  myself,  were  no  doubt  amazed  at  his 
inadvertence  to  those  millions  that  opposed  papal  aggrandizement,  and  hu- 
man tradition,  down  to  the  time  of  the  reformation.  Many  have  affirm- 
ed, that  Luther  and  Calvin  only  translated  the  views  of  these  witnesses 
into  German  and  French,  and  sent  them  out  in  a  new  dress.  They  say 
that  Savoy  and  other  portions  of  Europe,  long  before  Protestantism  was 
born,  had  promulged  and  sustained  all  the  cardinal  truths,  and  more  truth 
than  was  ever  recognized  by  any  Protestant  throne  or  kingdom.  Highly 
as  I  esteem  the  Protestant  reformation,  and  the  mighty  men  of  that  day, 
I  esteem  others  more  than  they.  These  men  originated  nothing ;  but 
they  concentrated  and  variously  embodied  and  reproduced,  in  new  and 
impressive  forms,  the  tenets  of  Protestants,  in  fact,  who  had  lived  and  died 
centuries  before  they  were  born.  Still  they  were  God's  chosen  vessels 
to  accomplish  at  the  proper  time  a  mighty  moral  revolution,  whose  mighty 
sway  and  extended  empire  over  the  human  mind  and  the  destinies  of  the 
world,  have  not  yet  been  fully  appreciated. — [Z'ime  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  25 — 12  o'clock,  M. 
[mr.  rice's  second  address. "1 
Mr.  President — Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
under  consideration,  I  wish  to  make  a  remark  or  two  respecting  Mr, 
Jones'  history,  which  has  been  again  brought  up  by  my  friend.  In 
all  the  discussions  in  which  I  have  engaged,  I  have  met  with  nothing 
which  has  so  much  astonished  me  as  the  course  now  pursued  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  in  introducing  Mr.  Jones  and  his  documents  on  the  present 
occasion.  As  an  apology  for  this  singular  conduct,  he  told  you,  that  I 
read  something  from  Jones  on  the  doctrine  of  succession.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  fact.  I  read  not  one  word  from  Jones  on  this  subject; 
not  a  word.  Moreover,  I  have  introduced  nothing  in  my  argument,  to- 
day, concerning  it.  The  gentleman  might  as  well  talk  about  the  moun- 
tains in  the  moon,  as  about  the  doctrine  of  succession,  in  connection  with 
the  subject  now  under  discussion.  Nor  liave  I  read,  in  your  hearing, 
any  tiling  from  Jones,  on  the  question,  whether  baptism  is  to  be  admiiv> 


688  DEBATE  ON  THE 

istered  only  by  an  ordained  minister.  I  read  from  Jones,  a  paragraph,  to 
prove  tliat  in  quoting  Perrin's  iiistory,  he  left  out  what  related  to  infant 
baptism,  and  inserted  in  its  place,  "  baptism  according  to  the  primitive 
church."  I  have  repeatedly  expressed  the  conviction,  that  Mr.  C.  was 
dissatisfied  with  his  efforts  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  Now,  if  he 
is  anxious  to  discuss  that  subject  again,  let  him  say  so,  and  let  the  neces- 
sary arrangements  be  made.  I  do  protest  against  the  introduction  of  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism,  whilst  another,  and  totally  different  subject,  is 
being  discussed.  I  will  discuss  but  one  subject  at  a  time.  I  really  pity 
the  cause  that  requires  a  man  of  the  standing  of  my  friend  to  violate  our 
rules,  by  again  introducing,  and  attempting  to  discuss  a  subject,  after  it 
has  been  disposed  of.  He  must,  indeed,  be  in  an  awful  case,  that  he  can- 
not get  along  without  perpetually  harping  upon  that  subject.  But,  he  says, 
he  had  not  his  books  when  the  subject  was  under  discussion.  Why  did 
he  not  have  them  ?  I  trust  the  question  of  infant  baptism,  and  of  the  faith 
of  the  Waldenses,  will  not  be  again  introduced,  until  he  is  prepared  to 
enter  into  arrangements  for  a  new  discussion  of  it.  He  asserts  that  there 
were  anti-Pedo-baptists  in  all  ages.  If  this  were  even  true,  what  has  it 
to  do  with  the  proposition  now  before  us?  I  would  tread  the  cause  of 
Pedo-baptism  under  my  feet,  if  I  could  not  defend  it  without  resorting  to 
such  means.  If  it  will  not  bear  fair  and  honorable  discussion;  if  it  cannot 
be  sustained  without  the  violation  of  the  rules  which  I  have  bound  my- 
self to  regard,  I  will  abandon  it  forever.  I  will  debate  but  one  subject  at 
a  time ;  I  will  not  allow  myself  to  be  diverted  from  the  proposition  before 
us,  to  a  second  debate,  on  a  subject  fully  discussed  several  days  since. 

I  will  now  resume  the  discussion.  My  friend  says,  that  I  have  pro- 
duced no  passage  of  Scripture  to  sustain  the  proposition  that  baptism  is  to 
be  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or  presbyter.  The  question  in  debate 
is  not  whether  ordained  ministers  may  baptize,  but  whether  others,  not 
ordained,  are  authorized  to  administer  the  ordinance?  He  does  not  deny 
that  bishops  or  presbyters  have  the  right  to  baptize ;  but  he  maintains, 
that  all  the  members  of  the  church  have  the  same  right.  If  they  have, 
let  it  be  proved  ;  if  my  friend  cannot  find  the  Scripture  authorizing  them 
to  baptize,  it  follows,  of  course,  that  lay-baptism  is  wholly  without  an- 
thority  ;  and  if  without  authority,  it  is  not  valid. 

Again ;  the  question  is  not,  whether  a  regular  succession  from  the 
apostles  is  essential  to  ordination ;  but  whether  private  members  of  the 
church,  persons  admitted  to  be  unordained,  may  administer  baptism  ? 

My  friend  says,  as  soon  as  a  church  is  organized,  it  ought  to  appoint 
persons  to  administer  the  ordinance.  This  strikes  me  as  being  not  ex- 
actly consistent  with  the  sentiments  set  forth  in  his  Harbinger;  his  lan- 
guage is  as  follows :  "  But  we  might  as  rationally,  and  as  scripturally, 
talk  about  a  legal  administrator  of  prayer,  of  praise,  or  of  any  religious 
service  which  one  can  render  to,  and  perform  for,  another,  as  for  baptism. 
Expediency,  however,  may,  in  some  circumstances,  decree  that  persons 
may  be  appointed  by  a  congregation  to  preach  and  baptize.^' — Millen. 
Harb.  vol.  iii.  p.  237.  Does  he  here  say  that  suitable  persons  ought  gen- 
erally, or  universally,  to  be  appointed  to  administer  baptism  ?  No.  But 
he  says  expediency  may,  in  some  circumstances,  require  such  a  course. 
Is  this  the  general  law  of  which  he  was  speaking? 

He  says,  I  misrepresented  his  views,  as  expressed  in  the  Harbinger, 
where  he  states,  that  the  administration  of  baptism  is  not  confined  to  any 
c/ass  of  citizens  of  the  kingdom.     But  the  difficulty  is,  that  he  contends 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  589 

that  females  have  the  right  to  baptize,  and  yet  acknowledges  that  he  finds 
neither  precept  nor  example  authorizing  them  to  do  so.  This  is  not  all. 
He  maintains,  in  so  many  words,  that  "  there  is  no  law  in  the  christian 
Scriptures,  authorizing  any  one  class  of  citizens  in  the  christian  kingdom 
to  immerse,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  class  of  citizens  ;"  and  that 
"  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  in  the  Lord" — that  consequently,  a 
female  may  immerse  a  female,  "  were  it  to  become  necessary." 

And  now,  I  ask,  who  is  to  judge  when  circumstances  require  that 
females,  or  other  unordained  persons,  shall  baptize?  Is  the  church  to  be 
called  together,  to  determine  this  question  ?  This  is  not  pretended.  Does 
it  not,  tlien,  follow,  that  every  one  is  to  judge  for  himself?  If  a  little 
girl  thinks  it  right  to  baptize  her  little  associates;  or  if  a  little  boy  think? 
proper  to  baptize  his  play-fellows ;  or  a  servant,  his  fellow-servants ; 
who,  but  themselves,  is  to  judge  of  the  circumstances?  If  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  Campbell  be  true,  that  every  citizen  of  the  kingdom,  every  church- 
member  has  the  right  to  baptize — the  license  is,  of  necessity,  universal. 
Each  individual  must  act,  in  these  matters  of  such  momentous  interest  to 
the  church,  and  to  the  eternal  happiness  of  individuals,  on  his  own  res- 
ponsibility. 

But  Mr.  C.  tells  us,  that  no  case  has  ever  occurred,  of  minors  under- 
taking to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  This  may  be  true ;  but 
it  is  not  because  the  doctrine  he  advocates,  has  prevented  it ;  but  because 
the  people  have  had  better  sense  than  to  carry  it  into  practice.  It  is  not 
the  soundness  of  the  doctrine  that  has  prevented  his  church  from  being 
corrupted  and  disgraced  by  such  disorders  ;  but  the  fact,  that  common 
prudence  has  kept  the  members  within  narrower  bounds  than  the  faith  he 
has  inculcated.  But  when  I  have  shown,  that  if  the  doctrine  were  fully 
carried  out  in  practice,  it  would  lead  to  results  the  most  disastrous  to  the 
church,  as  well  as  to  individuals,  I  have  given  evidence  the  most  conclu- 
sive, that  it  cannot  be  of  divine  authority.  It  will  not  answer,  to  say  that 
nobody  has  yet  carried  the  practice  as  far  as  the  doctrine  authorizes  ;  that 
does  not  prove  that  the  doctrine  is  sound.  I  am  looking  at  what  would 
be  the  result,  if  it  were  fully  carried  out  in  practice,  and  showing  that 
evil,  and  only  evil,  would  result  to  the  church.  And  Mr.  Campbell  at- 
tempts to  evade  the  force  of  the  argument,  by  saying,  those  disorders 
have  not  actually  occurred  ! 

The  apostolical  oflice,  he  tells  us,  is  incommunicable;  and  the  apostles 
had  no  successors.  This  is  true,  so  far  as  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  placed  required  extraordinary  gifts  and  authority  ;  but  so 
far  as  baptizing  and  preaching  are  concerned,  it  is  not  true.  It  is  admit- 
ted, that  the  apostles  were  ordained  to  baptize  and  teach  ;  this,  no  one, 
with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  can  dispute.  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  those 
who  were  ordained  by  them,  were  authorized  to  perform  those  duties.  I 
do  not  say,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were,  in  every  sense  of  the  word, 
their  successois  ;  but  that  they  were  appointed  to  teach  and  baptize,  none 
certainly  will  deny. 

But  I  will  not  discuss  the  doctrine  of  the  succession,  because  it  is  not  the 
question  before  us.  There  are  two  questions  confusedly  introduced  into 
the  gentleman's  speech.  The  first  is,  whether  a  regular  line  of  succession 
from  the  apostles  to  the  present  day,  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  ordinor 
lion;  and  the  second,  whether  a  man  must  be  scripturally  ordained,  be- 
fore he  is  authorized  to  administer  baptism.  If  you  say,  that  a  particular 
church,  assembled  for  the  purpose,  has  the  right  to  ordain  presbyters,  I 

3D 


590  DEBATE  ON  THE 

will  not  oppose  it  now.  If  you  maintain,  that  a  man  is  lawfully  ordained, 
when  the  members  of  the  church  set  him  apart  to  the  ministerial  office,  so 
far  as  this  debate  is  concerned,  I  will  not  call  in  question  the  correctness 
of  your  opinion.  But  the  simple  and  only  question  now  before  us,  and 
the  only  question  I  vvill  now  discuss,  is,  whether  a  man,  in  order  to  bap- 
tize, must  be  scriptitrally  ordained.  Now,  all  that  my  friend  read  from 
archbishop  Whateley,  was  upon  another  subject — the  doctrine  of  succes- 
sion;  and  he  might  as  well  have  read  us  a  dissertation  on  the  mountains 
of  the  moon,  or  the  climate  and  productions  of  Africa.  The  archbishop 
is  proving,  that  a  regular  succession  from  the  apostles  is  not  necessary  to 
the  validity  of  ordination,  and  that  no  man  can  trace  such  succession.  It 
is  not  at  all  necessary  for  me  to  controvert  his  position.  But  does  he 
maintain,  that  every  citizen  of  the  kingdom,  every  church-member,  has  a 
right  to  baptize  ?  He  does  not  say  so.  He  supposes  a  company  of  chris- 
tians cast  upon  an  island,  without  an  ordained  minister,  and  desiring  to 
enjoy  the  ordinances  of  God's  house;  and  he  contends,  that  ministers  ap- 
pointed by  them  are  lawful  ministers.  I  am  not  going  to  dispute  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  position  now,  though  I  might  on  another  occasion.  The 
question  before  us,  let  me  again  say,  is  not  how  ministers  are  to  be  lav?- 
fully  ordained,  but  whether,  in  order  to  administer  baptism,  they  must  be 
ordained  at  all.  Concerning  the  question,  whether  individuals  selected 
and  set  apart  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  by  a  company  of  christians  on 
an  island,  would  be  validly  ordained,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  But,  what- 
ever scriptural  ordination  may  be,  the  question  is,  whether  that  is  neces- 
sary, or  essential  to  the  proper  and  scriptural  administration  of  baptisna. 
Bishop  Whateley  is  discussing  one  subject,  and  we  are  discussing  another. 
Let  us,  then,  keep  distinctly  in  view,  the  subject  in  debate.  My  friend 
endeavors  to  confound  these  questions,  but  it  is  merely  to  conceal  the 
weakness  of  his  cause. 

Mr.  Smyth,  from  whose  writings  Mr.  Campbell  quoted  an  extract,  is, 
like  myself,  comparatively  a  young  man.  We  were  in  the  theological 
seminary  at  the  same  time.  I  might,  perhaps,  not  agree  with  every  sen- 
timent contained  in  the  passage  quoted.  It  is,  however,  of  no  service  to 
Mr.  Campbell's  cause.  Mr.  Smyth  expresses  the  opinion,  that  the  mere 
ceremony  of  laying  on  hands  is  not  essential  to  the  office.  There  maybe 
a  question,  whether  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  necessary,  or  whether  the 
mere  selection  of  men  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  office,  is  sufficient  to 
constitute  them  ministers  of  the  Gospel ;  but  that  question  is  not  now 
before  us. 

Neither  have  I  any  thing  to  say  about  Mr.  Carson's  views  of  the  doe- 
trine  of  succession.  His  bare  assertions,  however,  even  if  they  related  to 
the  subject  before  us,  I  should  not  regard  as  authority.  If  he  will  pro- 
duce the  Scriptures  in  support  of  his  views,  I  will  weigh  his  arguments 
with  candor ;  but  when  he  gives  his  opinion,  I  am  willing  to  let  it  go  for 
what  it  is  worth. 

The  gentleman  is  of  opinion,  that  on  the  subject  under  discussion  he 
and  Presbyterians  do  not  differ  very  materially.  I  believe,  however,  that 
they  do  differ  from  him  toto  ccelo.  They  will  never  admit,  that  all  the 
members  of  the  church,  male  and  female,  old  and  young,  may,  under  any 
circumstances,  administer  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

By  way  of  illustrating  his  views,  he  refers  to  civil  society,  and  says 
correctly,  that  in  an  unorganized  state,  individual  rights  are  more  exten- 
sive, than  after  the  civil  compact  has  been  formed.     In  the  former  he 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  591 

may,  of  right,  do  many  things  which  become  unlawful,  when  he  has  be- 
come a  member  of  an  organized  society.  1  am  very  much  pleased  with 
the  illustration.  And  now,  if  you  can  find  the  period  when  the  christian 
church  was  in  an  unorganized  state,  I  will  cheerfully  admit,  that  there 
has  been  a  time  when  unordained  persons  might  baptize,  as  circumstances 
seemed  to  require.  But  the  truth  is,  it  never  was  in  an  unorganized 
state.  Our  Savior,  at  a  very  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
organized  his  church ;  and  from  that  day  to  this  it  never  has  been  in  an 
unorganized  state  ;  and  consequently  there  never  has  been  a  time  when 
laymen  might  baptize.  I  admit  that  my  friend's  church  is  unorganized : 
for  he  has  informed  us,  that  such  is  the  fact.  And  he  has  been  writing 
and  laboring  faithfully  for  two  years  past  to  get  up  an  organization  of 
some  kind  ;  but  he  has  not  yet  succeeded.  But  the  church  of  Christ  is 
not  unorganized.  It  has  never  been  in  an  unorganized  state.  And  as  in 
an  organized  civil  society  no  man  may  venture  to  discharge  the  functions 
of  an  office  with  which  he  has  not  been  lawfully  invested  ;  so,  for  reasons 
far  more  important,  can  no  man  perform  the  duties  of  an  office  in  Christ's 
church,  which  he  has  not  been  appointed  to  fill.  It  would  be  just  as  pro- 
per and  as  lawful  for  a  man,  on  his  own  responsibility,  to  act  as  sheriff, 
judge,  or  president,  as  for  one  who  is  a  private  member  of  the  church  of 
Christ  to  officiate  either  in  preaching  or  baptizing.  It  is  just  as  right  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Since  the  church  has  been  organized,  laws 
enacted,  and  the  necessary  officers  appointed  by  the  King  himself,  no  in- 
dividual has  a  right  to  perform  the  duties  of  an  office  with  which  he  has 
not  been  invested. 

With  regard  to  the  supposed  case  of  persons  cast  upon  an  island,  who 
might,  by  accident,  find  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament;  it  is  one  of  those 
improbable  cases,  which,  so  far  as  my  information  extends,  has  never  oc- 
curred, and  is  never  likely  to  occur.  But  should  such  a  thing  happen,  it 
will  then  be  quite  time  enough  to  take  it  into  consideration. 

Jesus  Christ  does  not  leave  his  people  to  the  workings  of  blind  chance. 
There  is  a  providence  over  them,  special  as  that  which  watches  the  falling 
of  the  little  sparrow.  It  is  not  for  us  to  imagine  difficulties  which  in 
eighteen  hundred  years  have  never  occurred,  and  in  all  probability  never 
will  occur,  and  undertake  to  legislate  for  them.  The  fact,  that  no  provis- 
ion seems  to  have  been  made  by  the  all-wise  Redeemer  for  such  an  exi- 
gency, should  be  considered  a  sufficient  reason  why  we  may  not  attempt 
it.  The  principles  advocated  by  Whateley  may  be  correct.  He  does 
not,  however,  advocate  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C,  that  every  member  of  the 
church  may  baptize  and  preach,  but  only  such  as  have  been  selected  and 
set  apart  to  that  office.  As  before  remarked,  he  was  discussing  a  subject 
entirely  different  from  that  now  before  us. 

Mr.  Campbell  considers  it  a  singular  paradox  in  our  creed,  that  we 
admit  the  validity  of  baptism,  administered  by  an  unconverted  minister, 
if  he  be  properly  ordained,  and  yet  refuse  to  recognize  it  when  adminis»- 
tered  by  a  pious  but  unordained  man.  I  should  suppose,  that,  to  a  man 
at  all  acquainted  with  the  most  common  principles  of  government,  there 
would  appear  to  be  nothing  paradoxical  in  this.  Every  officer  in  our 
civil  government  ought  to  be  an  honest  man.  Yet  if,  after  a  man  has 
been  in  office  for  years,  it  appears,  that  he  was  most  dishonest  and  un- 
worthy of  the  trust  reposed  in  him,  his  official  acts  are  as  valid  in  law  as 
if  he  had  been  an  example  of  virtue.  However  unworthy  he  may  be  pep- 
sonally,  he  is  rectus  in  officio — a  lawfully  appointed  officer.    But  one  of 


592  DEBATE  ON  THE 

the  most  virtuous  and  worthy  private  citizens  might  perform  the  same 
official  acts,  and  no  one  would  recognize  them  as  valid  in  law.  This 
principle  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  order,  if  not  to  the  very  existence, 
of  civil  government;  and,  for  reasons  equally  clear  and  no  less  important, 
it  must  be  recognized  and  acted  upon  in  ecclesiastical  government. 

I  am  not  able  to  perceive  wherein  I  either  misconceived  or  misrepre- 
sented the  gentleman  in  regard  to  the  principles  advocated  by  him  in  the 
Harbinger.  He  now  seems  disposed  to  confine  the  right  of  females,  and 
other  unofficial  persons,  to  baptize,  to  extreme  cases.  But  it  is  not  so 
presented  in  the  article  from  which  I  read  an  extract. 

With  the  case  of  Roger  Williams  I  am  not,  at  present,  concerned.  I 
find  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  to  countenance  the  singular  course  pursued 
by  him  and  his  friends.  I  presume,  he  had  been  truly  and  validly  bap- 
tized before.  He  became  dissatisfied  with  his  baptism  ;  and  this  error 
placed  him  in  the  unpleasant  predicament.  Had  he  been  satisfied  with  a 
scriptural  baptism,  he  might  have  avoided  both  his  difficulties  and  his 
absurdities. 

But  many  persons  in  this  audience,  I  donbt  not,  are  astonished  to  find 
Mr.  Campbell  abandoning  the  very  fundamental  principle  of  his  boasted 
reformation,  which  is — to  have  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or  a  clear 
scriptural  example  for  every  article  of  faith,  or  item  of  practice.  One 
of  the  prominent  and  most  important  articles  of  his  faith  is — that  every 
member  of  the  church,  male  and  female,  old  and  young,  has  the  right  to 
administer  baptism.  On  this  doctrine  he  encourages  his  people,  as  cir- 
cumstances may  require,  to  practice ;  and  upon  the  truth  of  it,  if  his 
views  of  the  design  of  baptism  are  correct,  depends  the  salvation  of  souls. 
Has  he  produced  a  solitary  passage  of  Scripture  to  sustain  it  ?  He  has 
not.  Yet  it  is  with  him  a  matter  o^ faith.  Where  is  the  divine  testimo- 
ny on  which  it  is  founded  ?  The  gentleman  has  read  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  archbishop  Whateley,  Thomas  Smyth,  D.  D.,  and  from  some- 
body else.  These  are  his  authorities ;  but  from  the  word  of  God  he  has 
given  us  neither  precept  nor  example !  Here  is  an  article  of  his  faith, 
on  the  truth  of  which  depends  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  for  which  he  is 
unable  to  produce  even  one  precedent ! !  Thus  is  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  his  reformation  abandoned.  I  set  a  very  low  estimate  upon  a 
reformation,  which  is  of  a  character  so  accommodating,  that  it  will  take 
the  Scriptures  when  they  sustain  its  principles,  and  abandon  them  when 
occasion  requires. 

But,  strangely  enough,  the  gentleman  calls  on  me  to  produce  a  passage 
of  Scripture  which  says,  that  none  but  a  bishop  or  ordained  presbyter 
may  baptize.  I  doubt  very  much,  whether  you  can  find  in  our  civil  code 
a  law  forbidding  any  man,  who  is. not  a  sheriff,  to  perform  the  duties  be- 
longing to  that  office.  You  may  find  a  law  which  defines  the  duties  of 
those  who  fill  the  office  ;  and  it  is  a  principle  of  common  sense  and  of  com- 
mon law,  that  no  private  citizen,  nor  any  one  not  invested  with  that  office, 
may  interfere  with  its  functions.  So  I  have  proved,  that  our  Savior  ap- 
pointed twelve  men  to  a  high  and  responsible  office;  and  that  he  author- 
ized them  to  ordain  others  to  the  same  office.  'J'he  great  duties  required 
of  these  officers,  were  to  preach  and  baptize.  No  other  persons  were 
ever  commanded  or  authorized  to  do  the  one  or  the  other.  Here,  then, 
is  an  office  established  in  the  church,  provision  made  for  the  regular  ap- 
pointment of  officers  to  fill  it,  and  its  duties  clearly  defined.  These,  ac- 
cording to  the  universally  admitted  principle  just  mentioned,  no  one,  not 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  593 

regularly  inducted  into  this  office,  can  discharge  the  functions  connected 
with  it ;  and  if  any  one,  in  his  rashness,  attempt  it,  his  acts  are  null  and 
void. 

Yet.ihe  gentleman  would  have  you  believe,  that  I  am  bound  to  point 
to  the  Scripture,  which,  in  so  many  words,  forbids  an  unordained  person 
to  administer  baptism  !  I  assert,  that  a  bishop  or  presbyter  has  the  right 
to  baptize.  He  admits  it.  Then,  so  far  as  my  faith  and  my  practice  are 
concerned,  I  have  nothing  to  prove.  But  he  maintains,  that  unordained 
persons,  and  even  females,  may  of  right  baptize.  I  call  upon  him  to 
prove  it.  Surely  it  is  but  reasonable,  that  a  man,  especially  one  who 
boasts  that  he  goes  by  the  Bible,  should  prove  the  truth  of  that  which  he 
believes,  and  the  lawfulness  of  his  practice.  But  he  wishes  me  to  prove 
a  negative,  viz :  that  unordained  persons,  females,  &c.,  have  not  the 
right  to  baptize  !  Why,  he  cannot  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that,  in  so 
many  words,  forbids  horse-racing,  or  card-playing.  Yet  he  will  admit, 
that  I  can  prove  both  to  be  wrong.  So  I  cannot  produce  a  passage  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  says,  in  so  many  words,  that  an  unordained,  or  even 
an  unbaptized  person,  shall  not  baptize;  but  I  can  prove  by  clear  decla- 
rations of  Scripture,  that  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  they  only,  were  au- 
thorized to  administer  the  ordinance ;  and  that,  so  far  as  we  can  gain  in- 
formation from  the  inspired  records,  no  others  ever  ventured  to  do  it 
Now  if  Mr.  Campbell  asserts,  that  unordained  persons  are  authorized  to 
baptize,  it  behooves  him  to  adduce  the  proof.  lie  admits  the  truth  of  all 
for  which  weC contend,  viz:  that  bishops  or  presbyters  are  authorized  to 
baptize.  Then,  unless  he  can  prove,  that  others  have  the  same  right,  his 
doctrine  must  be  abandoned ;  or  if  he  still  adheres  to  it,  his  reformation 
should,  in  consistency,  be  given  up,  for  its  fundamental  principle  is  repu- 
diated, and  he  is  found  in  the  ranks  of  those  who  substitute  tradition  for 
the  Bible.  Would  it  not  be  wiser  in  him  to  abandon  this  unscriptural 
tenet,  than  trample  under  foot  his  own  principles  ?  Is  it  indeed  so  very 
important  for  him  to  adhere  to  a  doctrine  and  a  practice  for  which  he  can 
find  in  the  Bible  not  the  slightest  authority  ?  Would  it  not  be  better  for 
him,  and  better  for  his  church,  at  once  to  abandon  it? 

He  thinks  it  wise  to  change ;  and  he  tells  us,  he  has  very  greatly 
changed  his  views.  One  more  change,  especially  if  it  bring  him  nearer 
the  Bible,  will  not  hurt  him.  Let  him  bring  this  doctrine  to  the  test — 
"to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  I  desire  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord" 
in  support  of  it,  and  I  must  have  it,  or  I  shall  still  protest  against  it.  At 
least,  let  us  have  a  fair  and  clear  precedent. 

In  reply  to  one  of  his  correspondents,  who  made  several  inquiries  on 
this  important  subject,  he  stated  as  a  fact,  that  in  the  New  Testament 
"Deacons,  and  uuolficial  persons,  are  all  represented  as  immersing,  when 
occasion  called  for  it."  I  expected  him  to  produce  the  evidence  on 
which  he  founded  this  important  assertion.  I  supposed  that  he  would 
feel  himself  bound  to  bring  forward  tlie  very  passages ;  but,  as  yet,  we 
have  not  been  permitted  to  see  even  one  of  them !  Alas !  what  is  to 
become  of  that  great  truth  in  which  he  would  appear  so  much  to  glory — 
The  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants  ? 

The  ladies,  too,  he  believes,  may  baptize  when  circumstances  require 
it;  and  each  lady  must,  of  course,  determine  for  herself  when  circum- 
stances do  require  her  thus  to  ofiiciate.  For  this  item  of  his  faith,  the 
gentleman  does  not  pretend  to  find  either  precept  or  precedent.  Yet  he 
believes  it! 

38  3d2 


594  DEBATE  ON  THE 

An  unscriptural  doctrine  has  given  rise  to  these  unscriptural  and  injuri- 
ous practices.  Better  give  up  the  doctrine ;  and  the  practices  will,  of 
course,  be  abandoned.  According  to  our  views,  there  is  no  necessity  to 
provide  for  any  cases  for  which  the  law  of  Christ  does  not  providq.  We 
do  not  believe,  that  penitent  believers  will  be  lost,  even  though  they  have 
not  the  opportunity  to  receive  baptism.  Consequently  we  have  no  occa- 
sion to  call  on  the  ladies  and  children  to  officiate  in  any  case.  "  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life."  My  friend,  Mr.  C,  em- 
braced one  false  doctrine ;  and  to  meet  the  difficulties  growing  out  of  this 
error,  he  embraced  another,  and  upon  these  two  errors  based  a  most  un- 
scriptural practice.  But  alas  !  for  his  reformation ;  for  it  is  unable  to  find 
precept  or  precedent  for  one  of  its  most  important  doctrines. 

Mr.  Campbell  says,  I  have  given  him  considerable  time,  inasmuch  as  I 
occupied  in  my  introductory  speech  hnt  forty  minutes.  Well,  I  can  spare 
him  time.  My  doctrine  and  my  practice  on  this  subject  he  acknowledges 
to  be  scriptural.  I  can  give  him  time  to  find  and  bring  forward  those 
scriptures  which  teach  that  laymen  and  women  may  baptize.  I  will  give 
him  as  much  time  as  can  be  deemed  necessary,  if  he  will  produce  just 
one  passage  of  the  kind. 

I  see  no  propriety  in  making  long  speeches,  when  my  doctrine  is  ad- 
mitted, and  he  produces  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  his.  It  appears  useless 
to  reply  to  his  quotations  from  archbishop  Whateley  and  others,  when 
they  are  discussing  other  subjects.  It  would  be  cruel,  indeed,  to  continue 
warring  against  a  man  when  he  has  no  sword,  no  weapons,  and  can  get 
none  !  I  do  not  like  to  fight  with  a  man  in  that  condition.  I  think  it  is 
better  to  close  the  war.  I  cannot  consent  to  contend  with  an  unarmed 
man.  When  he  can  get  a  sword,  I  will  again  be  with  him;  but  I  hope 
he  will  no  longer  rely  on  human  authority.  It  is,  indeed,  most  incon- 
sistent in  a  man  like  Mr.  C,  who  has  waged  a  long  and  furious  war 
against  all  bishops  and  presbyters,  now  to  rely  on  them  alone  for  support. 
I  will  wait  for  the  Scripture.' — [^Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  25 — 121  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  sorely  pressed  sir!  I  am  sorely  pressed,  fellow- 
citizens  !  I  am  grievously  oppressed  !  Alas  for  me  !  alas  for  reformation  ! 
Such  exclamations  have  become  familiar  as  household  words  ;  you  all 
understand  them.  When  the  gentleman  has  nothing  to  say,  then  I  am 
just  got  into  some  dreadful  predicament ;  when  he  has  nothing  to  say, 
then  my  case  is  sure  to  be  sorely  pressed.  Yes,  my  fellow-citizens,  I  am 
truly  hard  pressed ;  for  to  speak  against  nothing,  is  one  of  the  hardest 
tasks  that  can  be  imposed  on  me. 

If  any  one  sees  any  relevancy  in  the  remarks  of  my  opponent  to  the 
question  before  us,  I  must  envy  him  his  powers  of  discrimination.  I  see 
nothing  relevant — call  it  my  obtusity,  if  you  please — but  I  must  say,  that 
I  see  nothing  at  all  relevant  to  the  proposition. 

In  his  first  speech,  he  spoke  forty  minutes  and  sat  down.  Brought  he 
one  passage  of  Scripture  that  could  be  predicated  of  the  subject  of  his  pro- 
position ?  Did  he  bring  one  verse,  intimating  that  bishops  and  ordained 
ministers  had  a  prescribed  right  to  baptize  ?  Is  it  not  necessary  to  prove 
that  they  have  a  right  to  baptize,  before  we  prove  that  none  else  have  such 
a  right?  I  said  he  could  not  produce  one  such  text;  and  now  you  all  see 
that  my  prediction  was  true ;  he  did  not,  he  could  not,  he  has  not  brought 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  595 

the  first  word,  declarative  that  bishops  have  a  special  right  to  baptize. 
All  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  I  alledged,  gave  them  the  right  to  bap- 
tize, only  in  common  with  other  persons ;  it  was  never  associated  with 
them,  nor  committed  to  them,  as  bishops.  If  other  persons  may  baptize 
on  particular  occasions,  and  by  the  force  of  special  circumstances,  so  may 
they  ;  but  as  to  an  official  and  divine  right,  there  is  no  evidence.  Apostles 
baptized  with  all  the  authority  of  their  high  office,  which  gave  them  uni- 
versal and  supreme  superintendence. 

Mr.  Rice,  it  seems,  is  resolved  that  I  shall  not  defend  Mr.  .Tones  from 
the  violent  assault  made  upon  his  reputation  the  other  day,  in  the  presence 
of  this  great  concourse.  I  do  not  introduce  this  subject  because  of  any 
personal  feeling,  or  by  way  of  reprisal  for  his  censures  upon  me,  for  re- 
commending his  history  of  the  Waldenses.  I  do  it  as  an  act  of  justice  to 
an  injured  man,  and  to  an  injured  community.  I  have  the  documents  to 
show,  that  the  statements  made  here  are  a  base  aspersion  of  an  unoffending 
man.  But  Mr.  Rice  refuses  to  hear  them  read.  On  him,  then,  be  the 
responsibility.     This  matter  has  been  inquired  into,  and  refuted. 

To  return  to  our  immediate  subject.  I  was  pleased  to  hear  Mr.  Rice 
admit,  at  last,  that  there  was  a  perfectly  organized  society  in  the  apostolic 
age.  The  aposdes  must  then  have  had  power  to  organize  such  a  com- 
munity. Now  we  have  always  contended,  that  Christianity,  being  a  mo- 
ral positive  institution — a  special  providence — it  must  have  for  all  its 
essential  provisions,  the  warrant  of  a  divine  precept — of  a  "■  Thus  saith  the 
Lord."  What  the  aposdes  did  as  plenipotentiaries  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven, is  just  as  exemplary  and  authoritative  as  a  divine  command.  To 
show  that  any  thing  was  done  in  the  presence  of  the  apostles,  with  their 
approbation,  is  all-sufficient  to  warrant  us  to  go  and  do  likewise.  When, 
then,  any  one  claims  official  or  special  power,  or  privilege,  we  ask  him 
for  the  authority — for  a  warrant  from  the  ministers  of  the  Great  King. 

As  the  gentleman  admits  every  thing  was  done  in  good  order  in  the 
apostolic  church,  and  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  God,  I  need  only 
show  what  that  church  did  to  obtain  from  him  the  concession  that  we  may 
go  and  do  likewise.  I  will,  then,  proceed  to  read  a  sketch  of  the  way  and 
manner  things  were  done  in  the  mother  church,  at  Jerusalem,  while  all 
the  apostles  were  yet  living.  After  that  the  church  in  Jerusalem  had  in- 
creased to  many  thousands,  a  very  fierce  persecution  arose  :  Stephen  was 
slain,  and  all  were  dispersed,  except  the  aposdes.  It  reads  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner:  Acts  viii.  1  :  "  And  at  that  time  there  was  a  great  perse- 
cution against  the  church,  which  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  they  were  all 
scattered  abroad  throughout  the  regions  of  Judea  and  Samaria,  except  the 
aposdes.  And  devout  men  carried  Stephen  to  his  burial,  and  made  great 
lamentations  over  him.  As  for  Saul,  he  made  havoc  of  the  church,  enter- 
ing into  every  house,  and  haling  men  and  women,  committed  them  to 
prison.  Therefore,  they  that  were  scattered  abroad  went  every  where 
preaching  the  word." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  church  of  so  many  thousands  dispersed.  Those 
scattered  abroad,  we  are  told,  went  every  where  through  Judea  and  Sama- 
ria, preaching  the  word.  Here,  then  we  have  a  divine  precedent.  The 
historian  gives  us  the  history  of  one  of  these  preachers,  from  whose  career 
we  may  learn  something  of  that  of  the  others;  his  name  was  Philip: 
"Then  Philip  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  preached  Christ 
unto  them.  And  the  people  with  one  accord  gave  heed  unto  those  things 
which  Philip  spake,  hearing  and  seeing  the  miracles,  which  he  did.     And 


596  DEBATE  ON  THE 

when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  the  name  of  tlie  Lord  Jesus,  they  were  baptized,  both  men 
and  women."  He  next  gives  the  history  of  two  distinguished  persons — 
Simon  Magus,  and  the  Ethiopian  eunuch.  From  these  particular  cases, 
we  may  learn  much  of  the  details  of  Christianity.  On  account  of  the 
minute  statements  concerning  the  Samaritans,  Simon  and  Philip,  the  eighth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  Apostles  is,  to  us,  an  invaluable  document. 

We  have,  then,  the  .adventures  and  success  of  Philip  detailed  to  the  end 
of  that  chapter.  The  gospel  was  carried  by  him  into  Samaria ;  and 
was  successfully  preached  to  the  Samaritans.  Many  of  them  heard,  be- 
lieved, and  were  baptized.  The  historian  tells  us,  that  many  men  and 
women  were  baptized.  How  particularly  minute  in  detailing  these,  to 
us  apparently  very  minor  matters  !  It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  church  in 
Jerusalem  was  not  Presbyterian  :  for  they  licensed  persons  to  preach,  and 
withheld  not  from  them  the  right  to  baptize.  They  may  enlighten,  and, 
as  they  say,  convert  the  people,  but  must  not  baptize  them.  Philip  bap- 
tized. No  such  licentiates  were  in  the  apostolic  age.  What  a  singular 
caprice  of  learned  men  !  A  preacher  is  licensed  to  go  out  into  the  wide 
world  to  preach  the  word;  and,  should  he  make  a  hundred  converts  in  a 
day  or  a  year,  he  has  not  power  to  baptize  one  of  them !  The  apostolic 
commission  was,  "  convert  and  baptize,"  according  to  him  ;  and  yet  he 
asks  for  authority  for  these  thousands  to  baptize.  We  have  the  adven- 
tures of  only  one  of  them  given  ;  and  evident  it  is,  that  he  both  preached 
and  baptized.  AVhat  he  did,  we  are  compelled,  by  every  principle  of 
reason,  to  believe  the  others  did.  There  were  not  two  laws,  two  castes 
of  preachers  in  those  days.  Philip's  history  is  given,  for  one  of  two  rea- 
sons :  either  because  he  was  a  very  distinguished  man  among  those  preach- 
ers, or  because  of  the  important  fact  that  the  distinguished  city  of  Samaria 
was  visited,  Simon  the  Sorcerer  vanquished,  and  the  arch-treasurer  of 
queen  Candaces'  empire  was  converted.  But  those  facts  and  incidents, 
which  respect  the  man  and  his  success,  do  not  at  all  give  him  a  new  or 
different  office.  We  still  have  preachers  of  different  ranks  of  talent, 
honor,  and  usefulness  ;  but  they  are  all  equal  in  office. 

While  we  have  these  scriptural  facts  and  documents  before  us,  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  note  this  fact  also,  that  light  is  scattering  over  this 
land,  and  men  in  all  parties  begin  to  see  it.  Here  is  a  book  called  "  Ba- 
con's Manual."  It  came  from  the  east.  Wise  men  come  from  the  east, 
even  in  this  country.  Light  has  broken  out  even  in  New  Haven.  We 
shall  read  a  few  sentences : 

"  As  to  the  persons  by  whom  this  ceremony  of  baptism  was  performed,  I 
will  say,  in  one  word,  that  this,  evidently,  was  deemed  a  matter  of  little 
consequence.  Paul  thought,  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  among  the 
least  of  his  duties  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel;  1  Cor.  i.  14 — 17.  I  find  no- 
thing in  the  Bible,  and  nothing  in  what  I  have  seen  of  the  earliest  chris- 
tian writers,  which  implies  that  it  was  the  peculiar  duty,  or  the  peculiar 
honor,  of  this  or  that  officer,  to  administer  baptism." — Bacon's  Manuel, 
page  .58. 

"  The  Lord's  Supper. — Where  there  were  church  officers,  there  the  bish- 
ops presided  over  this,  as  over  every  other  part  of  public  worship.  To  pre- 
side over  the  church,  at  the  Lord's  table,  belongs  to  their  office,  as  obvious- 
ly, as  to  preside  over  the  prayers  of  the  church,  or  over  the  public  reading 
and  expounding  of  the  Scriptures,  or  over  the  debates  of  a  meeting  for 
church  business.  But  where  there  were  no  officers,  the  organization  of  the 
churcli  being,  as  at  Corinth  when  Paul  wrote  his  epistles,  not  yet  completed ; 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  597 

there  is  no  evidence  that  this  commemoration  of  Christ  was  omitted,  any 
more  than  prayers  and  singing. 

Ordination  was  simply  the  public  inauguration  of  a  man  to  a  particular 
work  or  office.  It  seems  to  have  been  done  uniformly  with  prayer  and  the 
laying  on  of  hands. 

The  imposition  of  hands  is  an  ancient  oriental  form  of  benediction.  Thus 
'Jacob,  when  he  was  dying,  blessed  both  the  sons  of  Joseph.'  Thus,  little 
children  were  brought  to  Jesus  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  '  that  he  should  put 
his  hands  on  them  and  pray,'  and  after  reproving  his  disciples  for  their  in- 
terference, '  he  laid  his  hands  on  them.'  This  benediction,  this  solemn 
commendation  of  the  individual  to  the  grace  and  blessing  of  God,  is  all  that 
was  meant  by  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  inauguration  of  church  offi- 
cers, or,  in  the  setting  apart  of  a  christian  teacher  to  the  sacred  employ- 
ment of  preaching  the  gospel.  The  idea  of  any  sacerdotal  power,  or  di- 
vine virtue,  transferred  into  the  candidate,  through  the  hands  of  the  ordain- 
ing bishop  or  the  presbytery,  is  a  popish  fancy,  unworthy  of  an  '  age  of 
Bibles,'  and  unknown  to  the  simplicity  of  the  primitive  times." — lb.  p.  59. 

Thus  speaks  Leonard  Bacon,  pastor  of  the  First  Church  in  New  Ha- 
ven :  second  edition,  New  York,  1841.  Without  special  call,  or  official 
designation,  this  gentleman  argues,  men  holding  private  stations  in  the 
church  may  baptize,  and  not  only  that,  but  may  also  even  dispense  the 
supper — a  matter,  by  some  weak  and  superstitious  minds,  regarded  as 
still  more  solemn  and  official.  This  is  the  doctrine  of"  the  reformation," 
as  Mr.  R.  denominates  it.  It  is  so,  indeed.  And  it  was  the  original  and 
true  doctrine  of  Protestantism  ;  and,  better  still,  it  is  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures,  which  has  been  asserted  in  every  age,  and  received  by 
all  who  have  opposed  the  hanghty  pretensions  of  those  who  presumed  to 
arrogate  to  themselves  an  exclusive  right  to  mediate  and  negotiate  be- 
tween God  and  man.  While  we  build  only  on  apostles  and  prophets, 
we  are  pleased  to  see  men  of  all  parties  opening  their  eyes  to  the  primi- 
tive simplicity  and  high  authority  of  die  inspired  Scriptures. 

In  the  New  Testament,  we  never  read  of  any  one  waiting  for  an  ad- 
ministrator, for  the  presence  of  an  officer  to  dispense  any  ordinance 
whatever;  nor  do  Ave  read  of  their  ever  sending  abroad  for  any  such  func- 
tionaries. The  most  convenient  person  is  always  sent  for  as  the  operator. 
Witness  the  conversion  and  baptism  of  the  apostle  Paul.  Not  far  from 
Damascus,  in  Syria,  on  the  public  highway,  Paul  saw  the  Lord,  and  be- 
lieved his  voice.  He  was  led  into  the  city.  And  who  baptized  the  great 
apostle  of  the  gentiles?  Surely  they  must  send  to  Jerusalem  for  bishop 
James,  a  prince  among  the  apostles ! — or  for  Peter,  the  grand  prelate  and 
president  of  the  whole  college  of  apostles  !  Nay,  verily.  There  hap- 
pened to  be  living  in  Damascus,  just  at  that  time,  a  "  certain  disciple," 
never  before  heard  of,  "  named  Ananias."  We  have  no  evidence  that  he 
■was  an  official  character  of  any  sort;  and,  consequently,  that  he  ivas,  is 
not  to  be  assumed.  Those  who  say  that  he  was,  must  prove  it.  The 
Lord  sent  him  to  a  certain  place  in  Damascus,  to  inform  this  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  what  to  do  for  his  own  special  salvation.  The  Lord  had  told  him 
what  to  do  for  him  as  a  witness  and  a  minister;  but  he  did  not  preach  to 
him  the  details  of  his  own  personal  duties,  under  the  Messiah's  reign. 
This  he  left  to  some  one  v/ho  had  received  it  from  that  Peter,  to  whom 
he  solemnly  and  irrevocably  had  consigned  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

Now,  as  Paul's  case  was  to  be  a  remarkable  one,  this  Ananias  had  a 
vision  too,  to  dispose  him  to  go  to  the  house  of  one  Judas,  with  whom 
Paul  was  then  lodging.     He  was  carefully  directed  to  Straight  Street, 


598  DEBATE  ON  THE 

and  to  the  house  of  Judas,  and  entering  m,  he  found  Paul  yet  blind. 
He  laid  his  hands  upon  him  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  that  he  might  re- 
ceive his  outward  sight,  and  be  inwardly  filled  with  the  holy  Spirit.  He 
then  baptized  him,  "  He  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was 
baptized."  With  such  iacts  as  these  before  us,  why  arraign  our  brethren, 
and  censure  them  for  following  such  examples  as  those  already  given  ? 
In  censuring  us,  our  friends  censure  the  primitive  church  and  the  apostles 
themselves. 

If  Paul  had  been  converted  by  any  man  according  to  the  usage  of  that 
age,  he  would  have  been  baptized  by  that  man.  But  the  Lord  having 
taken  the  work  entirely  into  his  own  hand,  furnished  a  "  certain  disci- 
ple for  administrator. 

We  must  all  admit,  that  matters  Avere  well  understood  at  Jerusalem 
before  the  dispersion,  and  that  the  church  there  had  been  properly  or- 
ganized. Hence,  their  practice  and  example  are  all  important  to  us.  In 
that  church,  nor  in  any  other,  do  we  ever  read  of  any  special  provision 
having  been  made  for  baptizing.  This  is  a  singular  fact — a  fact  that 
ought  to  be,  in  this  age  of  clerical  pride  and  assumption,  deeply  engraved 
upon  all  minds — that  neither  in  Jerusalem,  nor  in  any  church,  city,  or 
province,  where  cliristianity  was  planted  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  did 
there  ever  arise  any  question,  or  originate  any  law  or  precept,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  an  administrator  of  baptism  nor  of  the  holy  supper.  Even  when 
specifying  the  qualifications  of  elders,  or  bishops,  and  deacons,  and  when 
assigning  them  their  duties,  the  apostles  never  once  mentioned  any  thing 
about  the  dispensation  or  administration  of  ordinances  !  There  never 
arose  any  question  on  this  subject,  nor  any  difficulty  calling  for  one  line 
or  word  from  any  New  Testament  writer.  Paul  himself  spent  eighteen 
months  in  Corinth.  "Many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed  and 
were  baptized."  Paul  baptized  but  a  very  few  of  that  immense  multitude. 
Nor  are  we  even  informed  who  baptized  any  of  them.  Paul  made  oth- 
ers attend  to  this  matter.  He  must  have  distributed  it  amongst  others  of 
inferior  rank. 

When  Peter  was  sent  by  a  Divine  oracle  from  Joppa  to  Cesarea,  to 
the  house  of  the  famous  gentile  centurion,  Cornelius,  to  announce  to  him, 
his  family,  friends,  and  neighbors,  the  glad  tidings ;  wlien,  too,  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  liberally,  in  his  miraculous  gifts,  bestowed  on  that  commu- 
nity, the  apostle  commanded  others,  who  accompanied  him,  to  baptize 
those  gentiles.  To  change  the  style  of  Luke,  the  narrator,  who  preserves 
the  third  person;  I  say  change  it  into  the  first — let  Peter  in  his  own 
person  be  heard,  and  it  would  read  thus :  Can  any  of  you  Jews,  [six 
brethren,  who  accompanied  him  from  Joppa ;]  can  any  of  you  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  be  baptized  as  well  as  we  ?  When  no  one  re- 
sponded, Peter  said,  In  the  name  of  the  Lord,  baptize  them.  In  the  third 
person  it  reads,  "  Then  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized."  Here, 
then,  were  neither  bishops  nor  ministers ;  they  were  simply  six  brethren. 
They  were  not  officials — there  is  no  sort  of  evidence  that  they  were. 
The  presumption  is,  that  they  were  not;  and,  of  course,  we  cannot  argue 
from  them  in  any  other  light  than  that  they  were  merely  "six  brethren.''^ 

There  is  not,  then,  either  in  the  case  of  the  Samaritans,  nor  of  the 
gentiles,  nor  even  among  the  Jews,  a  single  indication  of  any  concern 
about  the  rank  of  an  administrator  of  baptism  or  any  other  ordinance. 
Such  questions  Avere  not  then  agitated,  and  of  course  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  wholly  silent  on  the  whole  subject  of  official  administrators  of 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  599 

baptism,  farther  than  we  learn  incidentally  from  the  examples  before  us. 
I  am  singularly  fortunate  in  being  able  to  produce  such  instances  of 
what,  now-a-days,  would  be  called  lay -baptism,  just  under  the  eyes  and 
direction  of  such  churches,  apostles,  and  prophets.  It  is  wholly  a  work 
of  supererogation.  I  am  not  required  by  any  law  of  discussion  to  produce 
such  evidence.  But  what  should  we  have  had  to  talk  about  in  this  case, 
if  I  had  not  found  these  documents.  Mr.  Rice  has  nothing  to  offer.  He 
has  been  dipping  buckets  into  empty  wells  and  drawing  nothing  out.  It 
is  not  any  defect  in  his  genius  or  invention.  He  has  rather  too  much  of 
that.     It  is  the  sterility,  the  barrenness  of  the  soil. 

Having,  then,  found  no  precept  or  precedent  for  episcopal  or  Presby- 
terian baptism ;  no  authority  for  such  classic  and  clerical  administrations ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  having  produced  clear  and  indisputable  cases  of  lay- 
baptism,  under  the  inspection  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  and  his 
aposdes;  may  we  not  regard  the  subject  as  clearly,  satisfactorily  and 
finally  settled  ? 

With  regard  to  the  good  order  of  religious  society,  Mr.  R.  seems  to 
represent  us  as  having  little  or  no  regard  for  it.  This  is  very  far  from 
fact.  No  one  admires  good  order  more  than  I,  and  no  one,  I  think,  is 
more  ready  to  sacrifice  his  own  opinions  to  obtain  it.  The  beauty  of  the 
universe  is  its  good  order.  A  community  without  it  must  go  to  ruin. 
We  are  not,  however,  without  church  organization.  We  have  hundreds 
of  congregations,  with  their  bishops  and  deacons,  in  as  good  order  as, 
perhaps,  any  Presbyterian  community  in  the  commonwealth.  But  Ave 
have  not  any  general  system  of  organization,  no  system  of  general  co-op- 
eration. Tliis  is,  indeed,  true.  But,  even  in  this  respect  we  are  now  as 
all  other  societies  have  been  in  their  incipiency.  Presbyterian  society 
was  much  longer  than  our  whole  existence  in  getting  organized.  They 
were  so  much  perplexed  and  distracted  about  organization,  that  in  the 
time  of  Knox  there  passed  at  one  time  eighteen  years  without  a  case  of 
ordination  by  imposition  of  hands.  The  long  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and 
that  of  Edward  VI.,  were  spent  in  organizing,  changing,  and  new-modi- 
fying that  national  institution  called  Episcopalianism.  The  Congrega- 
tionalists,  or  Independents,  were  also  in  a  transitive  state  for  years.  And 
Wesley's  discipline  and  order  was  changed  some  seventeen  times  in  his 
own  life-time. 

The  apostles  were  not  very  precipitate  in  this  work.  It  Avas  upon  the 
second  tour  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  that  they  set  things  in  order  and  or- 
dained elders  in  every  city.  Paul  left  Timothy  in  Ephesus,  not  merely 
to  keep  the  order  established  by  Paul,  but  to  set  things  in  order  as  he 
had  appointed  him.  The  apostles  were  governed  by  circumstances,  and 
had  to  wait  for  the  developments  of  society.  They  did  not  enact  nor 
legislate  in  anticipation,  but  in  retrospection  of  difficulties  and  disorders. 

We  have  been  occasionally  writing  on  order  for  many  years.  We  have 
secured  a  good  deal  of  it  at  many  points,  and  still  hope  to  secure  it  at 
more.  The  wliole  christian  community  should  be  perfectly  organized 
and  compacted  together,  and  combine  their  energies  and  means  in  one 
grand  system  of  redeeming  man  from  ignorance,  guilt,  and  bondage.  But 
instead  of  mocking  our  efforts,  as  did  certain  persons  of  old  the  rebuilders 
of  Jerusalem,  our  friends  should  rather  commend  us  for  what  we  have 
done,  than  censure  us  for  what  we  have  not  done. 

And  here  I  am  led  to  notice  a  statement  of  Mr.  Rice  that  startled  me 
no  litde.     He  says,  that  we  have  promulged  a  doctrine  authorizing  all 


600  DEBATE  ON  THE 

persons  to  baptize.     He  can  produce  no  siich  document.     It  is  a  gross 

I  sliall  not  name  it.     It  is  at  least  a  misconception  of  his  own.     I 

have  ah-eady  expressed  myself  fully  on  that  point.  We  ought  always  to 
assail  the  proper  ground  occupied  by  those  we  oppose,  and  not  make  for 
them  such  arguments  as  we  can  easily  refute.  I  do  not  demur  to  any 
man  assailing  me  through  my  own  arguments,  while  I  must  always  com- 
plain of  his  putting  into  my  mouth  propositions  or  aguments  which  I  did 
not  use.  Nor  is  it  lawful  to  accuse  me  of  maintaining  the  inferences 
which  Mr.  Rice  chooses  to  draw  from  my  arguments.  This  is  neither  the 
part  of  candor  nor  of  moral  rectitude.  I  will  not  consent  to  be  responsi- 
ble for  his  inferences,  nor  for  those  of  any  other  man.  I  defend  what  I 
have  written,  and  not  his  inferences  from  it. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Nov.  25 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
|]mr.  rice's  closing  address. 3 

Mr.  President — 1  have  a  remark  or  two  lo  make  with  regard  to  Jones' 
history.  I  read  it  to  the  audience  in  connection  with  that  of  Perrin,  for 
the  purpose  of  proving,  that  in  quoting  Perrin  he  threw  out  what  his 
author  said  of  baptizing  infants,  and  substituted  in  its  place  a  statement 
which  was  wholly  different.  The  gentleman  may  apply  to  my  conduct 
in  this  matter  what  epithet  he  pleases ;  but  I  will,  at  any  proper  time, 
meet  him,  and  give  him  a  fair  opportunity  of  exposing  it.  I  never  shrink 
from  such  responsibilities. 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  regrets  (so  he  would  have  us  think)  to  be  obliged 
to  speak  against  nothing.  When  a  man  is  called  upon  to  produce  a 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  his  doctrines  and  practices,  and  is  unable  to 
do  it,  I  think  a  complaint  that  he  has  nothing  to  do,  comes  with  a  poor 
grace  from  him.  It  looks  very  much  as  if  he  were  speaking  against  the 
Bible!  I  have  been  prepared  to  examine  all  his  Bible  authorities;  but, 
strange  to  tell,  he  has  not  produced  one  that  is  even  plausible. 

He  maintains  that  there  is  no  passage  of  Scripture  authorizing  bishops 
to  baptize,  and  calls  on  me  to  produce  one.  I  will  prove  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell himself,  that  every  ordained  presbyter  is  auliiorized  to  administer 
baptism.  I  will  read  in  the  MiUenial  Harbinger,  vol.  iii.  p.  475: — "No 
person  can  be  sent  specially  to  baptize  without  preaching,  nor  to 
PREACH  WITHOUT  BAPTIZING.  But  baptizing  was  the  inferior  of  the  two, 
and,  therefore,  Paul  says,  in  the  Hebrew  idiom,  he  was  sent  to  preach 
rather  than  baptize.  This  is  precisely  his  meaning — nay,  it  is  precisely 
what  he  says,  when  his  Jewish  idiom  is  understood."  The  gentleman 
has  called  on  me  to  prove,  that  bishops  are  authorized  to  baptize  ;  and 
yet  he  has  himself  declared,  that  no  one  can  be  sent  specially  to  preach 
imthout  baptizing .'.' !  He  must  certainly  have  forgotten  much  that  he 
has  written.  I  have  very'recently  been  looking  through  his  writings,  and 
perhaps  I  have  a  more  distinct  recollection  of  many  of  them  than  he  has. 

I  have  not  said,  as  he  seems  to  intimate,  that  no  particular  church  was 
ever  in  an  unorganized  state.  My  remark  was  made  distinctly  concern- 
ing the  church  of  Christ.  I  said,  it  has  never  been  in  an  unorganized 
state,  so  as  to  make  it  proper  or  lawful  for  private  members  to  assume  to 
perform  one  of  the  functions  of  the  ministerial  office.  Moreover,  when 
any  particular  church  is  to  be  organized,  it  should  be  done  by  properly 
appointed  officers. 

But  let  us  examine  the  Scriptures  to  which  the  gentleman  has  appealed 
in  support  of  his  doctrine   of  lay-baptisra.     He  refers  to  Acts  viii.  4, 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  601 

"  Therefore  they  that  were  scattered  abroad,  went  every  where  preaching 
the  word."  The  word  here  rendered  preaching,  signifies  telling  good 
news  ;  and  it  is  admitted,  that  all  christians  have  the  right  to  tell  to  others 
the  good  news  concerning  salvation  through  Christ.  As  the  christians  at 
Jerusalem  were  scattered  abroad  by  persecution,  they  went  forth,  telling 
their  fellow-men  these  glad  tidings.  Such  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  passage. 

But  if  the  gentleman  insists  that  the  word  euangelizomenoi,  translated 
preaching,  means  in  this  instance  preaching  in  the  official  or  technical 
sense  of  the  word ;  he  must  admit,  that  the  women  as  well  as  the  men, 
became  public  preachers  !  This,  I  think,  he  will  scarcely  maintain.  The 
inspired  historian  tells  us,  that  the  women  as  well  as  the  men  were  scat- 
tered abroad,  preaching ;  yet  Mr.  C.  will  confine  the  preaching  to  the 
men.  Then  how  can  he  be  sure,  that  it  is  not  confined  to  ordained 
men  ?  The  word,  however,  does  not  mean  preaching  in  the  official 
sense,  as  I  suppose,  but  telling  the  good  news  of  salvation,  as  private 
christians  may  do. 

But  after  all,  there  is  not  in  this  passage,  nor  in  the  connection,  one 
word  about  baptizing.  The  question  under  discussion  is,  whether  pri- 
vate members  of  the  church  may  baptize;  and  to  prove,  that  they  have 
the  authority,  Mr.  C.  triumphandy  adduces  a  passage  in  which  there  is 
not  a  syllable  concerning  baptism  !  It  is  one  thing  to  inform  an  inqui- 
ring mind  how  he  may  be  saved  through  Christ,  and  quite  another  to  in- 
troduce him  into  the  church  of  Christ,  and  thus  afford  him  the  opportu- 
nity, if  he  be  an  unworthy  member,  greatly  to  dishonor  and  injure  the 
church  and  the  cause  of  truth.  The  introduction  of  persons  into  the 
church  by  baptism,  is  no  mere  personal  or  private  matter.  One  unworthy 
member  can  do  more  injury  to  the  church  and  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  than 
a  dozen  like  him,  who  remain  in  the  world.  Hence  our  Savior  was  care- 
ful to  whom  he  committed  the  keys  of  the  kingdom.  He  did  not  author- 
ize every  member  of  the  church  who  might  choose  to  be  officious,  to 
initiate  into  the  church  whom  he  pleased. 

Tlie  passage,  I  repeat,  says  not  a  word  about  baptizing — the  only  sub- 
ject now  before  us.  You  perceive  how  the  genUeraan  shifts  and  turns 
to  save  his  unscriptural  tenet.  I  call  for  a  passage  of  Scripture  to  sustain 
his  doctrine,  that  private  members  of  the  church  may  baptize ;  and  he 
points  us  to  one  which  speaks  of  persecuted  christians  wandering  to 
and  fro,  and  telling  to  their  fellow-men  the  good  news  of  salvation  through 
Christ,  but  which  says  not  a  word  about  baptizing ! 

His  next  proof  of  lay-baptism  is  tlie  fact,  that  Philip  baptized  the  eu- 
nuch. But  we  have  some  information  concerning  Philip,  which  com- 
pletely nullifies  this  argument.  In  Acts  xxi.  8,  we  read  as  follows: 
"  And  the  next  day  we  that  were  of  Paul's  company  departed,  and  came 
unto  Cesarea;  and  we  entered  into  the  house  of  Philip  the  evangelist, 
which  ivas  one  of  the  seven,  and  abode  with  him."  Philip  was  first 
elected  and  ordained  to  the  office  of  deacon  at  Jerusalem,  but  afterwards 
became  an  evangelist.  After  receiving  this  last  office  it  was,  doubtless, 
that  he  went  forth  preaching  and  baptizing.  There  is  not  the  least  evi- 
dence that  he  was  only  a  deacon  when  he  baptized  the  eunuch.  On  the 
contrary,  inasmuch  as  we  know  that  he  was  ordained  as  an  evangelist, 
the  evidence  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that  he  had  received  this 
office  before  he  baptized  the  eunuch. 

Mr.  Campbell's  third  argument  for  lay-baptism  is  the  fact,  that  Ananias 

3E 


602  DEBATE  ON  THE 

baptized  Paul;  and  he  says,  the  presumption  is,  that  he  was  not  ordained 
to  the  office  of  the  ministry.  But  does  he  know,  that  he  was  not  or- 
dained ?  Has  he  the  slightest  evidence  on  which  to  found  the  presump- 
tion, that  he  was  not?  This  is  an  important  question;  for  he  cites  Ana- 
nias as  an  instance  in  which  an  unordained  man  administered  baptism ; 
and  he  says,  in  all  probability  he  was  a  private  member.  Has  he  the 
least  evidence  in  the  world  on  which  to  found  such  an  opinion  ?  He  has 
not.     Then  what  is  his  argument  worth?     Absolutely  nothing. 

His  fourth  argument  in  favor  of  lay-baptism  is  derived  from  the  bap- 
tism of  Cornelius  and  his  family,  (Acts  x.)  Certain  brethren  went  with 
Peter  to  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  Mr.  C,  supposes,  that  some  one  of 
them,  and  not  Peter,  baptized  him  and  his  family.  And  he  says,  the 
presumption  is,  that  they  were  unofficial  persons.  But  on  what  evi- 
dence, 1  emphatically  ask,  is  this  presumption  founded  ?  I  venture  the 
assertion,  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  to  support  such  a  pre- 
sumption. Some  one  or  all  of  them  may  have  been,  and  probably  were 
ordained  ministers  of  the  gospel. 

But  the  gentleman  has  appealed  to  these  six  brethren  as  proof  positive, 
that  unordained  persons  did  administer  baptism  in  the  apostolic  age.  I 
ask,  does  he  know,  that  they  were  unordained  ?  He  acknowledges  that 
he  does  not.  But  he  says,  the  presumption  is,  that  they  were  unofficial 
persons.  I  reply,  that  there  can  be  no  presumption  without  some  evi- 
dence. What  evidence  has  he  ?  None — absolutely  none.  Then,  I  again 
ask,  what  is  his  argument  worth  ? 

His  Bible  evidence  in  favor  of  the  right  of  unordained  males  and  fe- 
males to  baptize,  has  disappeared.  He  is  not  able  to  produce  a  "  Thua 
saith  the  Lord,"  or  a  clear  precedent  to  sustain  it.  Yet  he  has  taught 
this  doctrine,  and  encouraged  thousands  to  practice  accordingly ;  and  al- 
though, according  to  his  views,  the  salvation  of  the  soul  depends  on  the 
validity  of  baptism,  he  is  now  unable  to  sustain  it  by  either  precept  or 
example  from  the  Scriptures  ! 

But  he  appeals  to  Leonard  Bacon,  of  New  Haven,  as  favoring  his 
views.  Dr.  Bacon,  if  I  am  correcdy  informed,  is,  comparati^  2ly,  a 
young  man — a  Congregationalist.  I  do  not  know,  whether  his  reputation 
as  a  profound  theologian  would  constitute  him  an  authority.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  all  Scripture  authority  for  lay-baptism,  perhaps  I  ought  not  to 
attempt  to  rob  him  of  this  human  authority.  The  gentleman  is  evident- 
ly in  great  difficulty ;  and  he  appeals  to  Dr.  Bacon  to  help  him  out.  He 
set  out  in  his  reformation  on  the  safe  principle  of  having  for  every  article 
of  faith,  or  item  of  practice,  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or  a  clear  and  cer- 
tain precedent.  In  his  present  difficulties  he  finds,  that  he  has  not  the 
Bible  to  sustain  him  ;  but  he  has  got  Leonard  Bacon. — [A  laugh.] 

He  tells  us,  that  there  is  in  the  New  Testament  no  law  regulating  the 
administration  of  baptism ;  and  yet  in  his  Harbinger  we  are  told,  as  I 
have  proved,  that  every  man  who  was  specially  sent  to  preach,  was  also 
sent  to  baptize  !  Yet,  strangely  enough,  he  appeals  to  the  fact,  that  Paul 
was  not  sent  particularly  to  baptize,  as  evidence  that  the  administration  of 
baptism  was  not  assigned  to  any  particular  class  of  persons !  I  rather  think, 
however,  that  he  has  given  a  better  reason  than  this,  why  Paul  was  not 
accustomed  to  baptize.  In  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  (vol.  ii.  Extra,  page 
36,)  he  says — "  He  [Paul]  was  no  fisherman  like  the  twelve.  He  was 
not  of  that  robust  constitution.  My  bodily  presence  is  weak,  says  he: 
and  history  gives  him  not  size  enough  to  baptize  !"    I  know  not  to  what 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  603 

history  the  gentleman  had  reference ;  but  certaiflly  the  reason  here 
assigned  for  his  not  being  accustomed  to  baptize,  is  better  than  the  one 
he  now  offers  !  Paul  was  not  big  enough  to  baptize  ! ! !  Then,  indeed, 
it  was  very  important  he  should  have  others  to  do  it  for  him ! 

With  regard  to  the  organization  of  Mr.  Campbell's  church,  I  have  no- 
thing to  say  at  present.  That  subject  will  be  fully  discussed  under  the 
proposition  concerning  creeds. 

He  charges  me  with  a  crime  which  he  could  not  venture  to  name,  for 
having  said,  that,  according  to  his  doctrine,  every  member  of  the  church 
has  the  right  to  baptize.  I  am  responsible  for  all  the  statements  I  make. 
I  will  prove  the  truth  of  the  fact  I  stated,  by  Mr.  Campbell  himself!  I 
will  read  in  his  Christian  System,  (p.  85,)  "  A  christian  is  by  profession 
a  preacher  of  truth  and  righteousness,  both  by  precept  and  example. 
He  may  of  right  preach,  baptize,  and  dispense  the  supper,  as  loell  as 
pray  for  all  men,  when  circumstances  demand  it.''''  Now  who,  I  ask, 
is  to  determine  when  circumstances  require  a  private  member  of  the 
church  to  baptize  ?  Has  the  gentleman's  church  ecclesiastical  bodies  by 
which  the  matter  may  be  determined  ?  He  acknowledges  that  it  has  not. 
He  wages  an  exterminating  war  against  ecclesiastical  courts.  Each  in- 
dividual, therefore,  must  judge  for  himself  or  for  herself,  when  he  or  she 
ought  to  administer  baptism.  For,  as  Mr.  C.  teaches,  each  may  of  right 
preach,  baptize,  &c.,  and  none  have  authority  to  dictate  to,  or  control  him 
in  the  matter.     Does  not  this  completely  sustain  all  that  I  have  aihrmed? 

In  the  passage  I  read  in  the  Harbinger,  a  short  time  since,  he  teaches 
that  females  may  baptize,  when  circumstances  require  it ;  and  yet  he 
acknowledges,  that  he  can  find  neither  precept  nor  example  to  sustain  him 
in  the  position.  He  even  goes  further,  and  maintains  that  an  imbaptized 
person  may,  under  certain  circumstances,  baptize.  But  who,  I  again  ask, 
is  to  determine  when  circumstances  do  require  such  persons  to  venture 
upon  a  work  so  solemn  and  so  responsible  ?  There  is  no  body,  or  court, 
to  which  the  matter  can  be  referred.  The  good  lady,  the  little  boy  or 
girl,  must  determine,  in  any  exigency,  what  is  duty.  This  is  the  worst  I 
have  said  of  the  genUeman's  principles  ;  and  all  this,  as  he  must  admit,  is 
precisely  according  to  the  New  Testament,    It  is  so,  if  his  doctrine  is  true. 

As  this  is  the  last  speech  I  shall  make  on  this  question,  I  must  now, 
very  briefly,  sum  up  the  argument. 

The  commission  given  by  our  Savior,  I  maintain,  is  a  clear  prohibition 
of  lay-baptism.  "  Go  ye,"  said  he  to  the  twelve,  "  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you  ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen."  We  know  that  the  aposUes  were  authorized  and  commanded  to 
baptize  and  teach.  But  this  is  not  all ;  the  promise  extends  to  the  end 
of  time.  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
It  is,  then,  clear,  that  till  the  end  of  time,  there  is  to  be  a  class  of  men, 
solemnly  invested  with  the  ministerial  office,  whose  business  it  shall  be 
to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to  administer  baptism.  This  cannot  be  success- 
fully controverted. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  teaches,  that  not  only  bishops  or  presbyters,  but 
private  members,  and  even  females,  may  of  right  baptize.  I  maintain, 
that  ihi.*  commission  confines  both  preaching  and  baptizing  to  those  who 
are  clothed  with  the  ministerial  office.  Here,  you  observe,  we  find  a  most 
important  oflice,  established  in  the  church  by  Christ  himself,  designed  to 


604  DEBATE  ON  THE 

be  perpetual.  Twelve  men,  qualified  for  their  responsible  work  by  the 
King,  are  solemnly  charged  with  the  duties  of  the  office;  they  are  author- 
ized and  required  to  ordain  others  to  engage  in  the  same  work ;  they  are 
directed  to  look  well  to  the  character  and  the  qualifications  of  those  on 
whom  they  lay  their  hands,  to  whom  they  entrust  the  interests  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  As  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  a  brief  history  of 
their  labors,  we  find  them,  in  obedience  to  the  authority  of  the  Redeemer, 
ordaining  other  men  to  go  forth  and  baptize,  and  to  teach  the  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom. 

But  from  the  time  when  the  commission  was  given,  and  the  apostles 
inducted  into  their  responsible  office,  we  find  not  one  instance  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  by  an  unordained  person.  We  do,  indeed,  read 
that  baptism  was  administered,  in  some  cases,  by  persons  whose  official 
character  is  not  mentioned  ;  but  this  fact  proves  nothing  against  the  position 
I  am  maintaining,  and  nothing  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell. 
For  if  I  state,  that  an  individual  was  baptized  in  one  of  our  churches,  on  a 
certain  day,  it  is  wholly  unnecessary  for  me  to  mention  the  fact,  that  the 
administrator  was  an  ordained  minister,  because  our  views  and  our  prac- 
tice are  generally  known.  For  the  same  reason,  it  was  not  necessary 
that  Luke,  in  writing  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  should,  in  recording  a  bap- 
tism, state  that  an  ordained  minister  officiated ;  nor  does  his  silence  on 
this  point,  in  any  number  of  cases,  afford  the  least  ground  of  probability 
that  those  who  administered  the  ordinance  were  private  persons. 

The  fact,  then,  is,  that  the  New  Testament  gives  not  a  solitary  instance 
in  which  baptism  was  administered  by  a  person  known  to  be  unordained. 
There  is  neither  precept  nor  precedent.  Then  Mr.  Campbell  is  bound, 
according  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  reformation,  to  abandon  the 
doctrine,  and  the  practice  of  lay-baptism. 

In  every  government,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  there  must  be  offices  es- 
tablished, and  officers  appointed  to  transact  public  business.  And  when 
particular  duties  are,  by  law,  connected  with  a  particular  office,  it  is,  as  I 
have  said,  a  principle  universally  admitted,  that  no  individual,  whatever 
his  standing  may  be,  can  discharge  the  duties,  until  he  is  clothed  with  the 
office.  Indeed,  it  is  a  principle,  the  necessity  of  which  must  be  manifest 
to  every  one.  For  if  every  private  individual  may,  on  his  own  responsi- 
bility, transact  public  business,  no  government  on  earth,  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical, can  exist.  Perfect  anarcliy  must  result  in  church  and  in  state,  from 
the  adoption  of  such  a  principle.  Whether,  therefore,  we  regard  the  inte- 
rests, present  and  future,  of  individuals,  or  the  purity  and  peace  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  the  honor  of  his  cause,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  none  but  men  properly  qualified,  and  solemnly  ordained  to  the  minis- 
terial office,  should  be  permitted  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
and  introduce  persons  to  the  fellowship  of  the  church.  Every  one  must 
see,  that  if  each  individual  member  may  open  the  door,  and  admit  into  the 
church  whom  he  pleases,  consequences  the  most  disastrous  must  follow. 

The  wisdom  of  the  Redeemer  is  manifested  by  the  fact,  that  he  commit- 
ed  the  work  of  teaching  and  baptizing  to  those  who  were  qualified  for  the 
proper  performance  of  it,  and  directed  them  to  ordain  others  to  the  office, 
but  to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man."  There  were  most  important  rea- 
sons why  he  pursued  this  course.  He  intended  not  to  have  a  church 
containing  within  itself  the  elements  of  its  own  destruction — leaving  the 
male,  the  female,  the  j^oung,  the  old,  the  rash,  the  superstitious,  the  ignorant, 
to  throw  wide  its  doors,  and  introduce  just  whom  they  might  think  proper. 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  605 

It  is  a  happy  circumstance,  that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell  has  not 
been  fully  and  eilensively  carried  out  in  practice.  The  preservation  of 
his  church,  from  "  confusion  worse  confounded,"  is  owing,  he  must  ad- 
mit, to  the  prudence  and  good  sense  which  have  prevented  tlie  members 
from  acting  in  accordance  with  his  doctrine,  not  to  the  soundness  of  the 
doctrine  itself.  If  each  member  had  undertaken  to  administer  baptism, 
as,  he  says,  each  may  of  right  do,  the  church,  thougli  now  sufficiently 
involved  in  confusion,  would  have  been  in  a  condition  far  worse  than 
it  is. 

I  must  here  reply  to  one  of  the  gentleman's  arguments,  which  I  forgot 
to  notice  in  the  proper  place.  He  says,  my  objection  to  the  right  of 
females  to  baptize,  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  me,  as  a  Pedo-baptist, 
since  mothers,  of  olden  time,  circumcised  their  children.  The  Scriptures 
do  not  inform  us  that  mothers  had  any  such  authority.  The  conduct  of 
the  wife  of  Moses  is  not  approbated;  and  the  temper  she  displayed  on 
the  occasion,  does  not  evince  that  she  was  actuated  by  proper  motives. 
There  is  not  another  example  of  the  kind  in  the  Bible.  But  God  might 
have  permitted  unofficial  persons  to  administer  that  ordinance  under  the 
old  dispensation,  and  yet,  when  the  church  extended  her  boundaries  over 
the  earth,  and  was,  of  course,  placed  in  circumstances  greatly  different, 
there  would  be  reasons  of  greatest  importance  for  confining  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  initiatory  ordinance  to  men  properly  qualified,  and  set 
apart  to  the  work.  Under  the  old  dispensation  he  did  not  say  to  the 
priests,  or  the  prophets,  "  Go  ye,  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  cir- 
cumcising them."  Had  such  a  commission  been  given,  there  would 
have  been  good  reasons  for  confining  the  authority  to  circumcise  to  the 
prophets  and  the  priests. 

But  under  the  new  dispensation,  the  church  was  to  lengthen  her  cords 
and  strengthen  her  stakes.  All  nations  were  to  be  invited  to  participate  in 
her  privileges  and  blessings.  The  Savior  then  said  to  men  qualified  for 
the  responsible  work,  "  Go  ye,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus 
he  connected  the  work  of  baptizing  and  teaching,  with  the  office  of  the 
ministry,  and  commanded  those  invested  with  the  office,  to  discharge 
those  duties,  and  to  ordain  others  to  the  same  work.  He  committed  it  to 
no  private  hands.  There  is,  I  repeat  it,  neither  precept  nor  precedent  in 
the  Scriptures,  authorizing  any  but  bishops  or  presbyters  to  baptize;  and 
no  private  member  dare  attempt  it,  unless  he,  or  she,  is  willing  to  tram- 
ple under  foot  the  authority  of  heaven. 

Such  are  the  views  I  entertain  on  this  important  subject;  and  such  are 
some  of  the  plain  and  obvious  reasons  by  which  they  are  sustained.  I 
leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine,  in  view  of  your  responsibility  to 
Christ  and  his  church,  whether  I  have  established  the  truth  of  the  propo- 
sition, that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop  or  presbyter, 
acripturaUy  ordained. — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  November  25 — 1|  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  closing  reply.] 
Mr.  President — The  gentleman  has,  for  once  at  least,  sat  down  with- 
out telling  us  what  he  has  done.  You  all  see  what  he  has  not  done. 
Notwithstanding  the  indisputable  evidence  of  his  failure,  I  will  respond 
to  what  has  been  offered.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  an  or- 
dained bishop  or  elder  ! !     So  he  affirms  :  but  where  is  the  proof?     His 

3e2 


606  DEBATE  ON  THE 

former  speeches  give  us  neither  precept  nor  precedent.  In  my  first 
reply,  I  once  and  again  called  for  evidence ;  bat  I  have  called  in  vain. 
Finally,  he  gave  an  extract  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger.  Now  listen 
to  his  authority — vol.  iii.  p.  475  : 

*'  No  person  can  be  sent  specially  to  baptize  without  preaching ;  nor  to 
preach  without  baptizing.  But  baptizing  was  the  inferior  of  the  two,  and 
therefore  Paul  says  in  the  Hebrew  idiom,  he  was  sent  to  preach  rather  than 
to  baptize.  This  is  precisely  his  meaning — nay,  it  is  precisely  what  he 
eays,  when  his  Jewish  idiom  is  understood  !" 

Admit  it  all,  does  this  prove  that  elders  and  bishops  are  sent  abroad  to 
preach  as  apostles  ? !  And  will  it  not  also  prove  that  all  persons  ordained 
or  unordained,  that  preached,  were  accustomed  to  baptize  ? ! 

The  Millenial  Harbinger  proves  that  Paul  was  not  sent  with  special 
reference  to  baptize,  but  to  preach.  Was  Paul  a  bishop? — a  presbyter? 
Any  proof  short  of  proving  Paul  to  have  been  an  elder  or  a  bishop,  falls 
short  of  the  proposition.  As  it  is,  it  comes  not  within  a  thousand  miles 
of  the  question.  By  the  Harbinger,  he  cannot  prove  that  Paul  was  a 
bishop  or  an  elder  of  any  church.  He  says  he  has  read  it  more  recently 
than  I  have.  It  is  quite  probable.  Yet  he  has  not  found  that  in  it.  I 
wish  the  gentleman  had  read  his  Bible  a  little  more.  He  confesses  that 
I  gave  a  good  reason  why  Paul  baptized  but  a  few.  Truth  will  some- 
times force  for  itself  an  utterance.  The  gentleman,  imperceptibly  to  him- 
self, perhaps,  has  conceded  that  Paul  practiced  immersion  :  for  surely  he 
must  admit  that  Paul  had  strength  and  size  enough  to  sprinkle.  Inciden- 
tal arguments  are  generally  both  convincing  and  strong  arguments.  I  will 
give  another  incidental  argument.  Paul  said,  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach.  Baptizing,  then,  is  inferior  to  preaching  ;  yet  Paul  some- 
times baptized.  He  baptized  without  a  special  commission,  then  ?  Was 
he  right  or  wrong  ?  We  cannot  choose  the  latter.  He  was  right — was 
he  not?  Follows  it  not,  then,  that  it  is  right  to  baptize  without  a  com- 
mission— without  a  special  license  in  some  cases  ? !  Paul,  then,  it  seems, 
as  any  disciple  may,  on  some  occasions,  baptized  without  a  special  com- 
mission. His  case  is  then  decidedly  against  Mr.  Rice.  The  gentleman 
is  out  at  every  angle  on  this  proposition.  He  now  stands  in  an  open  field, 
in  Avhich  there  are  no  hiding  places.  What  those  skilled  in  the  laws  of 
debate  may  say,  on  hearing  Mr.  Rice  plead,  that  he  is  not  bound  to  prove 
that  every  one  who  baptized  was  a  bishop,  when  proving  that  none  but  a 
bishop  may  baptize,  I  presume  not  to  conjecture;  but  certainly  they  will 
smile  at  his  calling  upon  me  to  prove  that  Philip  was  or  was  not  a  bishop, 
while  he  affirms  that  he  was  !  I  adduced  several  instances  of  persons 
baptizing,  as  well  as  Philip.  How  has  he  disposed  of  them?  One  of 
them  was  a  very  clear  case,  but  he  has  not  deigned  to  consider  them.  He 
admits,  however,  that  all  who  preach,  ought  to  baptize  ;  and  thinks  it  was 
so  from  the  beginning.  Wliy,  then,  license  ministers  to  preach,  and  re- 
strain them  from  baptizing  ? ! 

Acts,  eighth  chapter,  as  before  shown,  is  an  overwhelming  instance  of 
preaching  and  baptizing,  without  such  licenses  as  are  now  deemed  es- 
sential. The  church  in  Jerusalem  certainly  amounted  to  many  thousands 
before  Stephen  was  slain.  After  that  persecution,  the  church,  with  the 
exception  of  the  apostles,  was  driven  from  the  city.  They  continued  at 
the  metropolis.  These  dispersed  brethren,  we  are  told,  "  went  every 
where  preacliing  the  word."  That  they  baptized  the  converts,  is  most 
evident  from  tlie  fact,  that  we  are  told  of  the  baptism  of  the  Samaritans, 


■*:■> 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  607 

and  of  the  eunuch,  by  one  of  them ;  and  it  is  further  evident  from  the  con- 
cession of  Mr.  R..  that,  from  the  beginning,  those  who  preached  the  gos- 
pel, baptized.  But,  says  Mr.  Rice,  Philip  might  have  been  a  bishop. 
Yes,  might  have  been!  And  he  adds,  that  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  he  was  an  evangelist;  but  that  he  was  an  evangelist,  specially  so 
called,  and  appointed  to  the  work,  is  yet  to  be  proved.  He  might  have 
been  a  bishop — he  might  have  been  an  evangelist,  &c.  &c.,  is  poor  logic. 
Let  us  read  the  passage  : — "  And  at  that  time  there  was  a  great  persecu- 
tion against  the  church  which  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  they  were  all  scat- 
tered abroad  through  Judea  and  Samaria,  except  the  apostles.'' — "  They 
that  were  scattered  abroad,  went  every  where  preaching  the  word  ;" 
and  Philip  went  down  to  Samaria,  Sic.  It  is,  then,  indisputably  evident 
that  they  all  preached  and  baptized  their  converts. 

"  But  he  might  have  been  a  bishop  !"  Well,  let  him  prove  that  what 
might  have  been,  actually  teas.  Ananias  might  have  been  a  bishop,  too. 
All  the  persons  named  in  the  New  Testament  might  have  been  any 
thing  wiiich  partyism  demands ;  but  this  species  of  logic,  on  this  occa- 
sion, is  wholly  reprobate  and  inadmissible. 

From  the  origin  of  baptism  till  now,  no  one  superior  to  a  disciple  was 
called  upon  to  administer  it.  The  baptism  of  John  was,  indeed,  from 
heaven,  though  some  will  have  it,  from  men,  and  will  have  John  to  bap- 
tize as  a  Levite.  Yet  even  this  was  administered  by  the  disciples  of  Je- 
sus— for  "Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples  baptized."  A  commu- 
nity properly  organized,  will  doubtless  set  apart  some  baptists,  Avho  will 
attend  to  this  ordinance  in  a  becoming  manner,  persons  of  discrimination, 
judgment,  and  responsibility  of  character. 

The  first  gentile  baptisms,  it  has  been  proved,  and  we  now  see  it  can- 
not be  withstood,  were  performed  by  laymen.  Peter  took  with  him 
from  Joppa  to  Cesarea  *'  six  brethren.''''  They  had  no  ofhcial  designation 
whatever.  They  Avere  Jews  by  nation,  and  brethren  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  These  were  commanded  to  baptize  the  first  fruits  of  the  gen- 
tile world.  Unofficial  persons,  in  the  New  Testament,  are  in  distinction 
from  those  in  office,  usually  called  "  brethren."  Thus  they  stand  forever 
stereotyped  in  the  Jerusalem  letters  to  the  gentiles — "  The  aposdes,  elders, 
and  brethren  send  greeting."  Peter,  then,  and  the  six  brethren,  were  the 
only  baptized  persons  on  the  ground.  Peter  did  not  baptize,  but  com- 
manded them  to  be  baptized.  The  case  is  made  out — and  the  negative 
side  of  the  question  sustained  by  arguments  invincible — by  facts  indis- 
putable. 

The  gendeman  observes,  there  is  no  council  to  decide  when  circum- 
stances make  such  baptists  necessary  or  expedient.  There  is  no  need  for 
such  deliberations.  The  common  sense  of  a  community,  and  the  good 
sense  of  aged  and  experienced  brethren,  will  be  a  much  safer  palladium 
than  ecclesiastic  or  synodical  action.  My  general  observation  on  this 
subject  is,  that  any  disciple  or  brother  may  baptize,  only  when  circum- 
stances require  and  authorize  it.  If  the  circumstances  are  mistaken,  no 
very  great  danger  may  ensue  ;  for,  indeed,  there  is  much  less  depending 
on  the  operation  than  any  other  circumstance,  so  far  as  the  enjoyment  of 
the  blessing  is  regarded.  We  have  not  experienced  much  trouble  or  dan- 
ger on  that  account,  although  the  license  has  been  carried  farther  by  us, 
tlian  any  denomination  in  Christendom.  It  is  now,  indeed,  much  less  fre- 
quent than  formerly,  and  will  become  still  less  so,  as  we  advance  to  a 
more  complete  organization.     We  cannot,  then,  in  justice,  be  represented 


608  DEBATE  ON  THE 

as  teaching  that  every  person,  or  any  person,  amongst  us  has  a  general 
right  to  administer  baptism. 

Mr.  Rice  takes  pleasure  to  say  and  to  reiterate  it,  that  when  he  asserts 
any  proposition  or  fact,  he  is  always  prepared  to  prove  it.  This  is  a  fair 
and  plausible  saying.  It  sounds  well.  But  the  fact  of  its  performance  is 
better  than  the  profession.  How  far  it  has  been  redeemed  in  this  case,  as 
■well  as  on  other  occasions,  you  all  perceive.  What  proof  has  been  ad- 
vanced on  the  present  proposition  ?  Does  any  one  remember  a  verse  in 
the  Bible,  or  a  fair  and  plausible  inference  ?     I  do  not. 

The  gentleman  complains  of  my  bringing  books  here  to  prove  my 
■views — and  has  frequently  before  complained  of  my  reliance  upon  learned 
authorities,  and  upon  numbers  of  witnesses,  as  if  I  were  in  those  in- 
stances inconsistent  with  myself.  He  takes  pleasure  in  the  attempt  to 
prove  inconsistencies.  Witness  his  readings  from  my  writings.  But 
how  complete  the  failure,  you  have  all  doubtless  observed.  But  do  I  use 
those  books  instead  of  the  apostles  ?  Do  I  rely  upon  the  number  or 
learning  of  my  witnesses  and  vouchers?  No.  The  Book  of  God  is  my 
magazine  of  arguments  and  proofs.  I  use  these  authorities  to  expose  the 
nakedness  of  the  land,  and  to  show  how  empty  the  pretence  of  numbers 
and  learning  against  us.  He  demurs  at  the  testimony  of  Leonard  Bacon, 
and  would  have  you  believe  that  I  substitute  him  for  the  apostles.  Who 
believes  it?  No  one — not  even  Mr.  Rice!  Did  I  so  use  archbishop 
Whateley,  or  Mr.  Smyth,  or  any  one  else  ?  I  only  used  these  to  show, 
that  our  views  are  not  singular,  and  that  light  was  breaking  into  his  own 
church,  or  the  Pedo-baptist  societies  upon  these  subjects,  on  account  of 
which  we  have  been  so  repudiated  by  such  men  as  Mr.  Rice. 

The  gentleman  will,  if  possible,  blur  the  face  or  the  character  of  a 
witness  whom  he  cannot  at  all  dispose  of.  He  is  sometimes  a  young 
man,  or  he  is  on  the  wrong  side,  or  some  other  demur.  I  was  too  young 
when  I  renounced  Presbyterianism — yet  some  twenty-four  years  old  !  and 
Mr.  Bacon  is  too  young  a  man,  though  as  old  as  my  opponent!  Strange 
logic.  But  when  evidence  is  wanting  for  a  proposition,  it  is  politic  to 
attempt  to  weaken  the  authorities  on  the  other  side,  especially  when  their 
arguments  cannot  be  at  all  encountered.  But  the  embodiisent  of  learn- 
ing and  good  sense  in  the  writings  of  these  persons  whom  I  adduce  here, 
will  obtain  for  them  as  much  esteem  and  authority  as  I  desire  them  to 
have.  Mr.  Bacon  speaks  with  as  much  internal  evidence  of  good  sense, 
sound  discretion,  and  intellectual  endowment,  as  my  opponent,  or  any 
other  writer  of  his  denomination  in  the  country.  Whateley  is  a  giant 
intellect,  and  of  attainments  of  the  highest  order. 

Weak  minds  are  the  slaves  of  old  times,  and  of  old  customs.  They 
need  the  crutches  of  antiquity,  and  human  authority.  But  men  of  vigor- 
ous minds  ask,  what  is  truth?  not  who  says  it.  True,  the  lesser  lights 
must  yield  to  the  superior.  The  moon  will  not  contend  with  the  sun, 
nor  twilight  with  the  risen  day.  But  it  is  an  evidence,  to  my  mind  at 
least,  that  a  man  has  some  intelligence,  and  some  force  of  intellect,  when 
he  has  so  much  mental  independence  as  to  think  for  himself. 

Mr.  Rice  seems  peculiarly  fond  of  speaking  of  my  church,  or  of  •'  his 
friend's  church."  This  is  very  well  understood  here.  The  gentleman 
knows,  however,  that  I  have  no  church,  and  claim  no  such  thing.  1  am 
a  member  of  Christ's  church,  and  no  more.  I  have  presumed  to  lift  up 
my  voice  for  reformation,  and  multitudes  have  responded  to  it.  But  we 
are  not  our  own  church,  nor  our  own  people,  but  the  Lord's.     The  au- 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM.  609 

thority  we  possess  is  not  personal,  nor  official.  It  is  the  authority  of  the 
truth — the  great  truths  elicited,  or  developed,  in  ihe  current  controversy, 
and  reformation.  Light  has  been  elicited  by  the  collision  and  co-operation 
of  many  minds ;  and  it  is  gone  forth,  and  going  forth,  with  a  power  aS 
irresistible  as  the  light  of  God's  sun. 

We  began  at  the  right  place,  and  at  the  right  time — Jerusalem,  and  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  One  party  begins  at  Rome,  another  at  Con- 
stantinople, another  at  Geneva,  Amsterdam,  or  Westminster,  We  begin 
at  Jerusalem.  Others  began  wrlli  Luther,  with  Calvin,  or  with  Wes- 
ley. Some  with  this  synod,  and  some  with  that.  But  we  begin  with 
the  twelve  apostles  assembled  in  Jerusalem.  We  must,  Mr.  President,  go 
beyond  the  reigns  of  king  Henry  VHL,  prince  Edward,  and  the  mighty 
tyrant  Elizabeth.  We  must,  sir,  go  beyond  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Augus- 
tine, and  the  council  of  Nice.  We  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  the 
holy  twelve. 

Bishop  Purcell,  as  all  the  Catholic  bishops,  gloried  in  Rome,  and  in 
St.  Peter.  He  has  a  line,  or  lineage,  of  bishops  made  out,  from  Peter  to 
Gregory  XVL,  a  splendid  hoax,  a  golden  dream.  Those  who  have  the 
idea  of  succession  and  hereditary  grace  in  their  heads,  cannot  dispense 
with  it.  So  much  of  the  pope  as  there  is  in  every  man's  stomach,  so 
much  depends  he  upon  this  chain  of  so  many  links,  not  noticing  how 
many  wooden  ones  are  interposed.  Is  not  Rome  the  mother  and  mis- 
tress of  all  churches  ?  exclaims  the  prelate — the  learned  prelate  of  Cin- 
cinnati! Was  not  Peter  the  first  bishop  of  the  imperial  and  eternal  city? 
We  say  prove  it,  and  we  will  believe  it.  But  never  was  there  a  greater 
failure  I !  He  could  not  prove  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  ;  and  if  he 
had — that  he  planted  that  church,  and  presided  over  it,  is  wholly  out  of 
the  question.  But  we  argued  then  as  now,  and  triumphed  then  on  this 
ground — and  on  this  ground  must  always  triumph,  that  Jerusalem  is  the 
mother  of  all  true  churches,  and  the  mistress  too,  if  we  must  have  a  mis- 
tress rather  than  a  lord.  We  know  that  Peter  was  there,  and  set  up 
the  kingdom  there,  and  that  all  the  holy  twelve  were  there,  and  that  the 
first  and  last  apostolic  council  was  there  ;  and  letters  patent  issued  thence 
in  favor  of  all  the  gentile  churches,  and  one  grand  act  of  incorporation 
emanated  thence.  To  Jerusalem,  then,  we  make  our  first  and  last  ap- 
peal. Whenever  Mr,  Rice  turns  his  eyes  towards  that  ancient  city,  more 
ancient,  by  a  thousand  years,  than  Rome ;  more  venerable,  too,  for  a 
thousand  reasons;  he  will  give  up  his  baptism — subject,  action,  design, 
and  administrator,  too.  He  will,  indeed,  allow  a  bishop  to  baptize  a 
proper  subject,  but  he  will  permit  a  deacon,  too. 

From  Jerusalem  sounded  out  the  word  of  the  Lord.  It  was  the  radi- 
ating centre  of  Christianity.  Great  was  the  multitude  of  them  that  pub- 
lished it.  The  brethren  from  that  point  peranibulated  Judea,  Samaria, 
Syria,  <fec.  They  preached  the  word  every  where,  and  every  preacher 
occasionally  baptized  his  own  converts;  even  Paul  himself  sometimes 
immersed !  What  was  right  in  those  days,  is  still  right.  All  persons, 
then,  enlightened  and  gifted  by  God,  may,  by  a  jure  divino,  a  right 
sacred  and  divine,  proclaim  the  word  when  opportunity  and  circum- 
stances present  themselves,  demanding  it.  He  that  persuades  a  sinner 
to  come  to  the  Lord,  may  also  baptize  him.  For  all  of  which  we  have 
ihe  highest  authority — the  practice  of  the  first  church. 

I  am  opposed  to  all  innovations.  Innovations,  with  me,  are  not  the 
creations  of  last  year,  last  century,  nor  of  the  last  millenium.  Innova- 
39 


610  DEBATE  ON  THE  ADMINISTRATOR,  ETC. 

tions  are  customs,  usages,  rites,  doctrines  that  commenced  one  year  after 
John  wrote  the  word  a7nen  at  the  end  of  the  Apocalypse.  All  have  a 
right  to  read  this  book ;  to  think,  speak,  and  act  for  themselves.  When 
they  discover  what  the  Lord  would  have  them  to  do,  they  are  not  to  con- 
fer with  flesh  and  blood — with  expediency,  with  worldly  interests,  hon- 
ors, friends,  relations,  but  to  obey  and  honor  the  Lord  that  bought  'hem. 

The  gentleman  has  given  me  so  little  to  do,  I  shall  only  add — that  I 
advocate  good  order,  as  well  as  abstract  rights — and,  while  I  have  shown 
what  circumstances  authorize  in  some  cases,  what  they  have  authorized 
on  former  occasions,  I  think  that,  in  the  present  day,  they  authorize  a 
very  high  regard  to  good  order ;  and,  as  a  general  rule,  call  for  particular 
persons  for  particular  and  special  works  and  services. 

But,  fellow-citizens,  we  all  do  fade  as  a  leaf — we  are  frail  dust  and 
ashes ;  our  words  soon  pass  away.  They  perish  from  our  lips  as  the 
sound  dies  upon  the  ear.  Our  opinions  are  as  light  as  air ;  but  God's 
word  has  at  all  times  firmly  stood,  and  shall  from  age  to  age  endure. 
"All  flesh  is  grass,"  and  the  glory  of  man  as  the  flower  that  fadeth 
away;  "but  the  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever."  Bring  all  things, 
then,  to  its  discriminating  and  solemn  test ;  what  accords  with  it  receive, 
believe,  and  practice:  what  does  not,  reject  as  a  human  invention,  and 
repudiate  as  a  part  of  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men. — [^Time 
expired. 


("end   of   the    fourth  PROPOSITION.3 


PROPOSITION    FIFTH. 

In  Conversion  and  Sanctijication,  the  Spirit  of  God  operaiea 

on  Persons  only  through  the  Word.     Mr.  Campbell  affirms. 

Mr.  Rice  denies. 

Monday,  Nov.  27 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  proposition  to  be  discussed  to-day,  is  admitted 
on  all  hands  to  be  of  transcendent  importance  to  the  christian.  It  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  words  : — "/n  conversion  and  sanctijication,  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  JVord. 

Most  controversies  are  mere  logomachies — wars  of  words  about  words, 
and  not  about  things.  Perspicuity  and  precision  in  the  definition  of  the 
terms  of  a  proposition  at  the  commencement,  would  have  prevented  more 
tlian  half  of  all  the  debates  in  the  world,  and  would  have  reduced  the 
other  half  to  less  than  half  their  size.  Indeed,  we  yet  need  for  daily  use 
a  much  more  simple  and  scriptural  vocabulary,  on  the  great  subject  of 
religion,  as  well  as  in  some  other  departments  of  literature  and  science. 
The  cumbrous,  unwieldy,  and  badly  assorted  nomenclature  of  certain 
sciences,  has,  for  centuries,  retarded  their  progress.  This  is  most  unfor- 
tunately true  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  departments.  Scholastic  theol- 
ogy is  greatly  behind  the  age.  The  stale  divinity  of  other  times,  refuses 
to  reconsider  its  sense  or  its  symbols.  Hence  the  superabundance  of  the 
barbarous  gibberish  and  miserable  jargon  yet  extant  in  our  creeds  and  sys- 
tems of  theoretic  divinity.  Some  samples  of  these  quaint  vocables  may 
be  given  in  the  discussion  of  the  creed  question. 

Meantime,  we  have  yet  to  learn  how  much  perversion,  not  of  language 
only,  but  of  the  mind  also,  has  grown  out  of  sectarian  animosities  and 
bickerings.  The  periodical  hobbies  of  religious  parties  generate,  like  our 
political  feuds,  hosts  of  new  terms ;  and  often  change  and  modify  the  old 
ones,  that  even  a  well  practiced  politician,  with  Johnson,  and  Webster, 
and  Richardson  by  his  side,  cannot  now-a-days  define  either  whig  or  tory, 
democrat  or  republican. 

It  is  truly  an  interesting  study  to  learn  the  new  phraseology  of  religion, 
not  only  of  religion  in  general,  but  of  the  different  leading  parties  of  the  pres- 
ent church  militant.  An  adept  in  this  study  could  almost  swear  to  a  Romanist 
or  a  High-churchman,  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Methodist,  in  the  dark,  if  he  only 
heard  him  speak  for  a  single  hour;  and  that,  too,  without  stating  one  of 
his  peculiar  dogmata.  Certain  words,  like  the  shibboleth  of  the  Ephraim- 
ites,  invariably  identify  the  religious  tribe  to  which  the  speaker  belongs. 

In  the  midst  of  this  babelism  there  is  one  fact,  which  it  behooves  me 
to  state.  I  scarcely  knoAV  how,  indeed,  to  introduce  it  in  this  place ;  and 
yet  it  is  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  whole  subject  before 
us.  This  fact  is,  that,  in  the  strife  of  partyism,  some  Bible  terms  have 
been  so  appropriated  to  represent  peculiar  tenets  and  views  which  never 
occurred  to  their  inspired  authors ;  tliat,  were  Paul  now  living  amongst 

on 


612  DEBATE  ON  THE 

us,  he  could  not  understand  much  of  his  own  language.  To  this  class 
belong  the  words  regeneration,  sanctification,  and  conversion. 

With  special  reference  to  the  discussion,  and  to  the  words  of  my  pro- 
position, I  must,  therefore,  notice  one  capital  blunder,  which,  if  not  now 
detected,  might  involve  the  subject  before  us  in  great  obscurity.  I  can- 
not, however,  much  as  I  regret  it,  distinctly  unfold  my  meaning  in  a  single 
sentence.  Allow  me,  then,  to  open  it  gradually  to  the  apprehension 
of  all. 

The  various  conditions  of  man,  as  he  was,  as  he  now  is,  and  as  he  shall 
hereafter  be,  as  connected  with  Adam  the  first,  and  Adam  the  second,  are 
set  forth  in  Sacred  Scripture,  under  various  images  and  metaphors,  each 
of  which  belongs  exclusively  to  its  own  class,  and  is  independent  of  eve- 
ry other  one ;  requiring  no  addition  nor  subtraction  of  other  images, 
from  other  classes,  to  complete  or  to  unfold  it.  For  example ;  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  sinners,  in  Adam  the  first,  is  set  forth  under  such  meta- 
phors as  the  following :  dead,  destroyed,  lost,  alienated,  enemy,  going 
astray,  condemned  in  law,  debtor,  unclean,  sold  to  sin,  darkened,  blind, 
&c.  Each  one  of  these  has  a  class  of  opposite  metaphors,  of  the  same 
particular  idea  or  figure.  These  metaphors,  just  now  quoted,  give  rise 
to  a  corresponding  class,  indicative  of  his  new  condition  in  Adam  the 
second ,  such  as — quickened,  made  alive,  born  again,  new  created,  saved, 
reconciled,  friend,  converted,  illuminated,  pardoned,  redeemed,  &c.  The 
changing  of  these  states  is  also  set  forth  in  suitable  imagery ;  such  as— 
regeneration,  conversion,  reconciliation,  new  creation,  illumination,  remis- 
sion, adoption,  redemption,  salvation,  &c.  Now,  the  error  to  which  I 
allude,  primarily  consists  in  not  uniformly  regarding  each  one  of  these  as  a 
complete  view  of  man,  in  some  one  condition,  or,  in  his  whole  condition 
in  Adam  the  first,  or  in  Adam  the  second ;  but  in  sometimes  contemplat- 
ing them  as  parts  of  one  view,  as  fractions  of  one  great  whole,  and,  con- 
sequently, to  be  all  added  up  to  make  out  a  full  scriptural  view  of  man, 
in  Adam  and  in  Christ,  and  of  the  transition  from  the  one  state  to  the  other. 
From  this  wild  confusion  of  metaphors — the  indiscriminate  use  of  cer- 
tain leading  terms,  mere  images  it  may  be,  our  very  best  and  most  admir- 
ed treatises  on  theology  are  not  always  exempt.  Hence  regeneration, 
conversion,  justification,  sanctification,  &c.  &c.,  are  frequently  represented 
as  component  parts  of  one  process :  whereas,  any  one  of  these,  indepen- 
dent of  the  others,  gives  a  full  representation  of  the  subject.  Is  a  man 
regenerated?  he  is  converted,  justified,  and  sanctified.  Is  he  sanctified? 
he  is  converted,  justified  and  regenerated.  With  some  system-builders, 
however,  regeneration  is  an  instantaneous  act,  between  which  and  con- 
version there  is  a  positive,  substantive  interval;  next  comes  justification; 
and  then,  in  some  still  future  time,  sanctification. 

A  foreigner,  in  becoming  a  citizen,  is  sometimes  said  to  be  naturalized, 
sometimes  enfranchised,  sometimes  adopted,  sometimes  made  a  citizen. 
Now,  what  intelligent  citizen  regards  these  as  parts  of  one  process  ? 
Rather,  who  does  not  consider  them  as  different  metaphors,  setting  forth 
the  same  great  change  under  various  allusions  to  past  and  present  circum- 
stances ?  From  such  a  statement,  none  but  a  simpleton  would  imagine 
that  a  foreigner  was  first  naturalized,  then  enfranchised,  then  adopted, 
and  finally  made  an  American  citizen  :  yet  such  a  simpleton  is  that  learned 
Rabbi,  who  represents  a  man,  first  regenerated,  then  converted,  then  jus- 
tified, then  sanctified,  then  saved. 

Under  any  one  of  these  images,  various  distinct  acts  of  the  mind,  or  of 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  613 

the  whole  person  of  an  individual,  may  be  necessary  to  the  completion 
of  the  predicate  concerning;  him.  Thus,  in  regeneration  or  conversion, 
there  may  be  included  hearing,  believing,  repenting,  and  being  baptized. 
These  are  connected  as  cause  and  eflect,  under  a  hxed  administration  or 
economy  of  salvation.  So  Paul  asks,  "  How  shall  tliey  call  upon  him  in 
whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  How  sliall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard? — and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher? — 
and  bow  shall  they  preach  unless  they  be  sent? 

The  terms  of  my  proposition  will  now  be  easily  defined  and  appre- 
hended. Conversion  is  a  term  denoting  that  whole  moral  or  spiritual 
change,  which  is  sometimes  called  sanctification,  sometimes  regeneration. 
These  are  not  three  changes,  but  one  change  indicated  by  these  three 
terms,  regeneration,  conversion,  sanctification.  Whether  we  shall  call  it 
by  one  or  .the  other  of  these,  depends  upon  the  melaplior  we  happen  to 
have  before  us,  in  contemplating  man  as  connected  witli  the  two  Adams — 
the  old  or  the  new,  the  first  or  the  second,  the  earthly  or  the  heaven- 
ly. Is  he  dead  in  the  first? — then  he  is  born  again  and  alive  in  the  se- 
cond. Has  he,  like  the  prodigal  son,  strayed  away  in  the  first, — he  re- 
turns, or  is  converted  in  the  second.  Is  he  unclean  or  polluted  in  the 
earthly  Adam  ? — he  is  sanctified  in  the  heavenly.  Is  lie  lost  in  the  first? 
— he  is  saved  in  the  second.  Is  he  destroyed  and  ruined  in  the  first  ? — 
he  is  created  anew  in  the  second  Adam,  the  Loi-d  from  heaven. 

If  I  am  asked,  why  I  admitted  the  terms  conversion,  sanctification,  or 
regeneration  into  the  proposition,  I  answer  again,  I  could  not  help  it.  It 
would  have  been  to  debate  the  question,  while  settling  the  preliminaries. 
We  must  take  the  religious  world  as  we  have  to  take  the  natural  or  the 
political ;  that  is,  just  as  we  find  them,  or  as  they  find  us.  I  seek  to  ac- 
complish in  this  preamble,  what  ought  to  have  been,  but  which  could  not 
be,  accomplished,  in  settling  the  propositions.  I  therefore  now,  most 
distinctly  and  emphatically  state,  that  with  me,  and  in  reference  to  this 
discussion,  these  terms,  severally  and  collectively  indicate  a  moral,  a 
spiritual,  and  not  a  physical  nor  legal  change. 

A  physical  change  lias  respect  to  the  essence  or  form  of  the  subject.  A 
legal  change,  is  a  change  as  respects  a  legal  sentence,  or  enactment. 
Hence  pardon,  remission,  justification,  have  respect  to  law.  But  a  mo- 
ral or  spiritual  change,  is  a  change  of  the  moral  state  of  the  feelings,  and 
of  the  soul.  In  contrast  with  a  merely  intellectual  change — a  change  of 
views,  it  is  called  a  change  of  the  affections — a  change  of  the  heart.  It  is 
in  this  acceptation  of  the  subject  of  my  proposition,  that  I  predicate  of  it, 
"  The  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Word." 

The  term  only  is,  indeed,  redundant ;  because  a  moral  change  is  effected 
only  by  motives,  and  motives  are  arguments;  and  all  the  arguments  ever 
used  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  found  written  in  the  book  called  the  Word 
of  Truth.  Hence,  the  term  only  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  what  I  con- 
ceive to  be  the  assumption  of  my  respondent,  viz:  that  the  Spirit  in  re- 
generation, operates  sometimes  without  the  Word.  Only  is,  therefore,  by 
the  force  of  circumstances,  made  to  mean  always.  But,  indeed,  this  is 
more  a  matter  of  form,  than  of  any  grave  importance — inasmuch  as  the 
common  admission  of  Protestants,  and,  I  presume,  of  my  opponent  also, 
is,  that  the  change  of  which  we  speak  is  a  moral,  or  spiritual  change. 

If,  then,  I  prove  that  conversion,  or  sanctification,  is  effected  by  the 
Word  of  Truth  at  all,  I  prove  that  it  is  a  moral  change,  and,  consequently, 
accomplished  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  Word  alone. 

3F 


614  DEBATE  ON  THE 

On  ihe  subject  of  spiritual  intiuence,  there  are  two  extremes  of  doctrine. 
There  is  the  ff'ord  alone  system,  and  ihere  is  the  Spirit  alone  system.  I 
believe  in  neitiier.  The  former  is  the  parent  of  a  cold,  lifeless  rationalism 
and  formality.  The  latter  is,  in  some  temperaments,  the  cause  of  a  wdd, 
irrepressible  entliusiasm  ;  and,  in  oiher  rases,  of  a  dark,  melancholy  des- 
pondency. "With  some,  there  is  a  sort  of  compound  system,  claiming  both 
ihe  Spirit  and  the  Word — representing  the  naked  Spirit  of  God  operating 
upon  the  n^ked  soul  of  man.  without  any  argument,  or  motive,  interposed 
in  some  mysterious  and  inexplicable  way — incubating  the  soul,  quickening, 
or  making  it  spiritually  alive,  by  a  direct  and  immediate  contact,  without 
the  intervention  of  one  moral  idea,  or  impression.  But,  after  this  creating 
act.  there  is  the  bringing  to  bear  upon  it  the  gospel  revelation,  called  con- 
version. Hence,  in  this  school,  reoreneration  is  the  cause :  and  conver- 
sion, at  some  future  time,  the  result  of  that  abstract  operation. 

There  yet  remains  another  school,  which  never  speculatively  separates 
the  Word  and  the  Spirit;  which,  in  every  case  of  conversion,  contem- 
plates them  as  co-operatin? ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thin?,  conceives  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  clothed  with  the  gospel  motives  and  arguments — en- 
lighteninof.  convincing,  persuading  sinners,  and  thus  enabling  them  to  liee 
from  the  wrath  to  come.  In  this  school,  conversion  and  regeneration  are 
terms  indicative  of  a  moral  or  spiritual  change — of  a  change  accomplished 
through  the  arguments,  the  light,  the  love,  the  grace  of  God  expressed  and 
revealed,  as  well  as  approved  by  the  supernatural  attestations  of  the  Holy 
SpiriL  They  believe,  and  teach,  that  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickens,  and 
that  the  Word  of  God — the  Living  Word — is  that  incorruptible  seed, 
which,  when  planted  in  the  heart,  vegetates,  and  germinates,  and  grows, 
and  truetities  unto  eternal  life.  They  hold  it  to  be  unscriptural,  irrational, 
unphilosophic,  to  discriminate  between  spiritual  agency  and  instrument- 
ality— between  what  the  Word,  per  se,  or  the  Spirit,  per  se,  severally 
does  :  as  though  they  were  two  independent,  and  wholly  distinct  powers, 
or  influences.  They  object  not  to  the  cooperation  of  secondary  causes  ; 
of  various  subordinate  instrumentalities  ;  the  ministry  of  men;  the  minis- 
try of  angels  :  the  doctrine  of  special  providences  :  but,  however,  when- 
ever the  Word  gets  into  the  heart — the  spiritual  seed  into  the  moral  nature 
of  man ;  it  as  naturallv,  as  spontaneously  grows  there,  as  the  sound,  good 
com,  when  deposited  in  the  genial  earth.  It  has  life  in  it;  and  is.  there- 
fore, sublimely  and  divinely  called  "  The  Living  and  Etfectual  Word," 

I  prefer  the  comparisons  of  the  Great  Teacher.  They  are  the  most 
appropriate.  AVe  frequendy  err  when  handling  these,  because,  in  our 
quest  of  forbidden  knowledge,  we  are  disposed  to  carry  them  farther  than 
he  himself  did.  In  the  opening  parable  of  the  Gospel  A^e — a  parable 
placed  flrst  in  the  synopsis  of  parables  presented  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke — he  thus  compares  the  Word  of  God  to  seed ;  and,  with  refer- 
ence to  that  figure,  he  compares  the  human  heart  to  soil,  distributed  into 
six  varieties :  the  trodden  pathway,  the  rocky  field,  the  thorny  clifl",  the 
rich  alluvian,  the  better,  and  the  best  of  that.  But  we  are  not  content 
with  tliat  beautiful  and  instructive  representation  of  the  philosophy  of 
conversion.  We  must  transcend  these  limits.  We  must  explain  the 
theory  of  vegetation.  We  must  explain  the  theon,"  of  soils.  We  must 
even  become  spiritual  geologists,  and  explore  all  the  strata  of  mother 
earth :  and  even  then,  there  yet  remains  an  infinite  series  of  whys  and 
wherefores  concerning  all  the  reasons  of  things  connected  with  these  va- 
rieties.    These  speculations,  and  the  conflictiiig  theories  to  which  they 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  616 

have  given  birth,  we  will  and  bequeath  to  the  more  curious  and  specula 
tive,  and  will  farther  premise  some  things  necessary  to  a  proper  opening 
of  the  argument. 

Man,  by  his  fall  or  apostasy  from  God,  lost  three  things — union  with 
God,  original  righteousness,  and  original  holiness.  In  consequence  of 
these  tremendous  losses  he  Ibrfeited  life,  lost  the  right  of  inheriting  the 
earth,  and  became  subject  to  all  the  physical  evils  of  this  world.  He  is, 
therefore,  with  the  earth  on  which  he  lives,  doomed  to  destruction:  mean- 
while, a  remedial  system  is  introduced,  originating  in  the  free,  sovereign, 
and  unmerited  favor  of  God ;  not,  indeed,  to  restore  man  to  an  Eden 
lost— -to  an  inheritance  forfeited — to  a  liie  enjoyed  before  his  alienation 
from  his  Divine  Father  and  benefactor.  Tiiis  supremely  glorious  and 
transcendent  scheme  of  Almighty  love,  contemplates  a  nearer,  more  inti- 
mate, and  more  sublime  union  with  God,  than  that  enjoyed  in  ancient  par- 
adise— a  union,  too,  enduring  as  eternity — as  indestructible  as  the  divine 
esiJence.  It  bestows  on  man  an  everlasting  righteousness,  a  perfect  holi- 
ness, and  an  enduring  blessedness  in  the  presence  of  God  for  ever  and 
ever. 

To  accomplish  this  a  new  manifestation  of  the  Divinity  became  necessary. 
Hence  the  development  of  a  plurality  of  existence  in  the  Divine  Nature. 
The  God  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  Lord  God  of  the  second. 
Light  advances  as  the  pages  of  human  history  multiply,  until  we  have 
God,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  clearly  intimated  in  the 
law,  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  But,  it  was  not  until  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  arose — till  the  Word  became  incarnate  and  dwelt  among 
us — till  we  beheld  his  glory  as  that  of  an  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth ;  it  was  not  till  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  finished  the 
work  of  atonement  on  the  hill  of  Calvary — till  he  had  brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light,  by  his  revival  and  resurrection  from  the  sealed 
sepulchre  of  the  Ariraalhean  senator;  it  was  not  till  he  gave  a  commis- 
sion to  convert  the  whole  world,  that  the  development  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  fully  stated  and  completed. 
Since  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  birth-day  of  Christ's 
church — since  the  glorious  immersion  of  the  three  thousand  triumphs  of 
the  memorable  Pentecost,  the  church  has  enjoyed  the  mysteries  and  sub- 
lime light  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  one 
Divinity,  manifesting  itself  in  these  incomprehensible  relations,  in  order 
to  effect  the  complete  recovery  and  perfect  redemption  of  man  from  the 
guilt,  the  pollution,  the  power,  and  the  punishment  of  sin. 

No  one,  Mr.  President,  believes  rriore  firmly  than  I,  and  no  one,  I  pre- 
sume, endeavors  to  teach  more  distinctly  and  comprehensively  than  I, 
this  mysterious,  sublime,  and  incomprehensible  plurality  and  unity  in  the 
Godhead.  It  is  a  relation  that  may  be  apprehended  by  all,  though  com- 
prehended by  none.  It  has  its  insuperable  necessity  in  the  present  con- 
dition of  the  universe.  Without  it,  no  one  can  believe  in,  or  be  recon- 
ciled to,  the  remedial  policy,  as  developed  in  the  apostolic  writings. 
And,  sir,  I  have  no  more  faith  in  any  man's  profession  of  religion,  than  I 
have  in  the  sincerity  of  Mahomet,  who  does  not  believe  in  the  Father, 
and  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  as  co-operating  in  the  illumination, 
pardon,  and  sanctitication  of  fallen,  sinful,  and  degraded  man.  While, 
then,  I  repudiate,  with  all  my  heart,  the  scliolastic  jargon  of  the  Arian, 
Unitarian,  and  Trinitarian  hypotheses,  I  stand  up  before  heaven  and  earth 
jn  defence  of  the  sacred  style — in  the  fair,  full  and  perfect  comprehension 


616  DEBATE  ON  THE 

of  all  its  words  and  sentences,  according  to  the  canons  of  a  sound,  exe- 
getical  interpretation. 

I  would  not,  sir,  value  at  the  price  of  a  single  mill  the  religion  of  any 
man,  as  respects  the  grand  affair  of  eternal  life,  whose  religion  is  not  be- 
gun, carried  on,  and  completed  by  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Nay,  sir,  I  esteem  it  the  peculiar  excellence  and  glory  of  our  religion, 
that  it  is  spiritual ;  that  the  soul  of  man  is  quickened,  enlightened,  sanc- 
tified and  consoled  by  the  indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  the  eternal 
God.  But,  while  avowing  these  my  convictions,  I  have  no  more  fellow- 
ship with  those  false  and  pernicious  theories  that  confound  the  peculiar 
work  of  the  Father  with  that  of  the  Son,  or  with  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
or  the  work  of  any  of  these  awful  names  M'ith  that  of  another ;  or  which 
represents  our  illumination,  conversion  and  sanctification  as  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  without  the  knowledge,  belief  and  obedience  of  the  gospel,  as  writ- 
ten by  the  holy  apostles  and  evangelists,  than  I  have  with  the  author  and 
finisher  of  the  book  of  Mormon. 

The  revelation  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  is  not  more  clear  and 
distinct  than  are  the  difTerent  offices  assumed  and  performed  by  these  glo- 
rious and  inefTable  Three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe.  It  is 
true,  so  far  as  unity  of  design  and  concurrence  of  action  are  contemplated, 
they  co-operate  in  every  work  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption. 
Sujch  is  the  concurrence  expressed  by  the  Messiah  in  these  words — "  My 
Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work" — "  I  and  my  Father  are  one" — 
"  Whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  the  Son  doeth  likewise:"  but  not  such  a 
concurrence  as  annuls  personality,  impairs  or  interferes  with  the  distinct 
offices  of  each  in  the  salvation  of  man.  For  example  :  the  Father  sends 
his  Son,  and  not  the  Son  his  Father.  The  Father  provides  a  body  and  a 
soul  for  his  Son,  and  not  the  Son  for  his  Father.  The  Son  ofiers  up  that 
body  and  soul  for  sin,  and  thus  expiates  it,  which  the  Father  does  not, 
but  accepts  it.  The  Father  and  the  Son  send  forth  the  Spirit,  and  not 
the  Spirit  either.  The  Spirit  now  advocates  Christ's  cause,  and  not 
Christ  his  own  cause.  The  Holy  Spirit  now  animates  the  church  with 
his  presence,  and  not  Christ  himself.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  church, 
while  the  Spirit  is  the  heart  of  it.  The  Father  originates  all,  the  Son  exe- 
cutes all,  the  Spirit  consummates  all.  Eternal  volition,  design  and  mis- 
sion belong  to  the  Father ;  reconciliation  to  the  Son ;  sanctification  to  the 
Spirit.  In  each  of  these  terms  there  are  numerous  terms  and  ideas  of 
subordinate  extent,  to  which  we  cannot  now  advert.  At  present,  we  con- 
sider the  subject  in  its  general  character,  and  not  in  its  particular  details. 

In  the  distribution  of  official  agency,  as  it  presents  itself  to  our  appre- 
hension, with  reference  to  the  subject  before  us,  we  regard  the  benevolent 
design  and  plan  of  man's  redemption,  as  originating  in  the  bosom  of  our 
Divine  Father ;  the  atonement,  or  sacrificial  ransom,  as  the  peculiar  work 
of  the  Messiah;  and  the  advocacy  of  his  cause,  in  accomplishing  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  the  world,  the  peculiar  mission  and  ofiice  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus,  the  Spirit  is  the  author  of  the  written  Word,  as 
much  as  Jesus  Christ  is  the  author  of  the  blood  of  atonement.  The 
atoning  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  is  not  more  peculiarly  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  than  is  the  Bible  the  immediate  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  inspired  and  dictated  by  him  ;  "For  holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Now,  as  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  in  the 
work  of  mediation,  operates  through  his  blood ;  so  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
his  official  agency,  operates  through  his  Word  and  its  ordinances.     And 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  617 

thus  we  have  arrived  at  the  proper  consideration  of  our  proposition,  to  wit: 
In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  only  through  the 
Word  of  Truth. 

In  how  many  other  ways  the  Spirit  of  God  may  operate  in  nature,  or 
in  society,  in  the  way  of  dreams,  visions  and  miracles,  comes  not  within 
the  premises  contained  in  our  proposition.  To  what  extent  He  may  ope- 
rate in  suggestions,  special  providences,  or  in  any  other  way,  is  neither 
affirmed  nor  denied  in  the  proposition  before  us.  It  has  respect  to  con- 
version and  sanctijication  only.  Whatever  ground  is  fairly  covered  by 
these  terms,  belongs  to  this  discussion.  What  lies  not  within  these  pre- 
cincts, comes  not  legitimately  into  this  debate. 

I.  Owx  first  argument  in  proof  of  our  proposition,  shall  be  drawn  from 
the  constitution  of  the  human  mind. 

That  the  human  mind  has  a  specific  and  well-defined  constitution,  is  as 
evident,  as  that  the  body  has  a  peculiar  organization ;  or  that  the  universe 
itself  has  one  grand  code  of  laws,  which  govern  it.  Our  intellectual  and 
moral  constitution,  as  well  as  our  physical,  has  its  peculiar  powers  and 
capacities — not  one  of  which  is  violated  on  the  part  of  our  Creator,  in  his 
remedial  administration,  any  more  than  are  our  sensitive  and  animal  facul- 
ties destroyed  or  violated  by  the  physician,  who  rationally  and  benevo- 
lently aims  at  our  restoration  to  health  from  some  physical  malady.  No 
new  faculties  are  imparted — no  old  faculty  destroyed.  They  are  neither 
more  nor  less  in  number ;  they  are  neither  better  nor  worse  in  kind. 
Paul  the  apostle,  and  Saul  of  Tarsus,  are  the  same  person,  so  far  as  all 
the  animal,  intellectual  and  moral  powers  are  concerned.  His  mental  and 
physical  temperament  were  just  the  same  after,  as  before  he  became  a 
christian.  The  Spirit  of  God,  in  effecting  this  great  change,  does  not 
violate,  metamorphose,  or  annihilate  any  power  or  faculty  of  the  man,  irt 
making  the  saint.  He  merely  receives  new  ideas,  and  new  impressions, 
and  undergoes  a  great  moral,  or  spiritual  change — so  that  he  becomes 
ialive  wherein  he  was  dead,  and  dead  wherein  he  was  formerly  alive. 

As  the  body  or  outward  man  has  its  peculiar  organization,  so  has  the 
mind.  Both  are  organized  in  perfect  adaptation  to  a  world  without  us : 
the  one  to  a  world  of  sensible  and  material  objects,  the  other  to  that 
world,  and  to  a  spiritual  system  also,  with  which  it  is  to  have  perpetual 
intimacy  and  communion.  But  the  mind  is  to  commune  with  its  Creator, 
and  its  Creator  with  it,  through  material  as  well  as  through  spiritual  na- 
ture :  and  for  this  purpose  he  has  endowed  it  with  faculties,  and  the  body 
with  senses  favorable  to  these  benevolent  designs. 

Now,  as  the  body  has  to  subsist  upon  material  nature,  and  the  mind 
upon  the  spiritual  system,  both  are  so  organized  and  furnished  as  to  se- 
cure and  assimilate  so  much  of  both  as  are  necessary  for  this  end.  Thus, 
for  example,  the  body  lives,  moves,  and  has  its  being  in  the  midst  of  mat- 
ter from  which  it  is  to  draw  perpetual  sustenance  and  comfort.  For  doing 
this,  it  is  admirably  fitted  with  an  animal  machinery,  created  for  this  pur- 
pose, without  which  animal  life  would  immediately  become  extinct.  The 
lur.gs  are  fitted  for  respiration,  and  the  stomach  is  furnished  with  all  the 
powers  necessary  to  the  reception,  digestion,  and  assimilation  of  so  much 
of  material  nature  as  is  necessary  to  the  heathful,  vigorous  and  comforta- 
ble subsistence  of  the  body.  But  nothing  from  without  can  afford  it  sub- 
sistence or  comfort,  but  in  harmony  with  this  organization. 

Man,  then,  has  to  live  by  breathing,  eating,  and  drinking ;  and  without 
these  operations,  nothing  around  him  can  afford  him  life  and  comfort. 

3f2 


618  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Nothing  of  the  bounties  of  nature  can  administer  to  his  animal  enjoy- 
ments in  any  other  Avay.  God,  then,  feeds  and  sustains  man  in  perfect 
harmony  with  this  organization.  He  neither  dispenses  Avith  any  of  these 
powers  nor  A^olates  them,  in  supporting  physical  life  and  comfort. 

Precisely  so  is  it  in  the  spiritual  system.  The  mind  has  its  powers  of 
receiving,  assimilating,  and  enjoying  whatever  is  suitable  to  itself,  as  the 
body  Avith  which  it  is  furnished.  While  embodied,  it  has  only  its  oAvn 
proper  faculties ;  but  it  has,  also,  organs  and  senses  in  the  body,  by  and 
through  which  it  communes  Avith  matter  and  with  spirit,  Avith  God,  and 
nature,  and  man ;  and  through  Avhich  they  commune  with  it.  It  receives 
all  the  ideas  of  material  nature  by  outward,  bodily  senses,  without 
which  it  could  not  have  one  idea  or  impression  of  the  external  universe 
A  blind  man  has  no  idea  of  colors,  nor  a  deaf  man  of  sounds.  Neither 
can  any  one  give  him  an  idea  of  them  without  those  senses.  Since  the 
world  began,  every  man  sees  by  his  eyes  and  hears  by  his  ears.  What- 
ever knoAvledge,  therefore,  is  peculiar  to  any  sense  can  never  be  acquired 
by  another.  If  God  give  sight  to  the  blind,  or  hearing  to  the  deaf,  he  does 
it  by  restoring  these  senses  :  for,  since  the  Avorld  began,  no  man  has  ever 
seen  by  his  ears  nor  heard  by  his  eyes. 

So  true  it  is,  that  all  our  ideas  of  the  sensible  universe  are  the  result  of 
sensation  and  reflection.  All  the  knowledge  Ave  haA^e  of  material  nature, 
has  been  acquired  by  the  exercise  of  our  senses  and  of  our  reason  upon 
those  discoveries.  With  regard  -to  the  supernatural  knoAvledge,  or  the 
knowledge  of  God,  that  comes  Avholly  "byyazYA,"  and  "faith"  itself 
"comes  by  hearing."  This  aphorism  is  Divine.  Faith  is,  therefore,  a 
consequence  of  hearing,  and  hearing  is  the  effect  of  speaking ;  for,  hear- 
ing comes  by  the  AVord  of  God  spoken,  as  much  as  faith  itself  comes  by 
hearing.  The  intellectual  and  moral  arrangement  is,  therefore — 1.  The 
word  spoken;  2.  hearing;  3.  believing ;  4.  feeling ;  5.  doing.  Such  is 
the  constitution  of  the  human  mind — a  constitution  divine  and  excellent, 
adapted  to  man's  position  in  the  universe.  It  is  never  A^iolated  in  the 
moral  government  of  God.  Religious  action  is  uniformly  the  effect  of 
religious  feeling :  that  is  the  effect  of  faith  ;  that  of  hearing  ;  and  that  of 
eomething  spoken  by  God. 

Now,  as  faith  in  God  is  the  first  principle — the  soul-rencAving principle 
of  religion ;  as  it  is  the  regenerating,  justifying,  sanctifying  principle; 
without  it,  it  is  impossible  to  be  acceptalile  to  God.  With  it,  a  man  is  a 
son  of  Abraham,  a  son  of  God ;  an  heir  apparent  to  eternal  life — an  ever- 
lasting kingdom. 

And  what  is  christian  faith  ?  It  is  a  belief  of  testimony.  It  is  a  per- 
suasion that  God  is  true  ;  that  the  gospel  is  divine  ;  that  God  is  love  ;  that 
Christ's  death  is  the  sinner's  life.  It  is  trust  in  God.  It  is  a  reliance 
upon  his  truth,  his  faithfulness,  his  poAver.  It  is  not  merely  a  cold  as- 
sent to  truth,  to  testimony  ;  but  a  cordial,  joyful  consent  to  it,  and  recep- 
tion of  it. 

Still  it  is  dependent  on  testimony.  No  testimony,  no  faith.  The 
Spirit  of  God  gaA'e  the  testimony  first.  It  bore  Avitness  to  Jesus.  It  ex- 
pected no  faith  Avithout  something  to  believe.  Something  to  believe  is 
always  presented  to  faith  ;  and  that  something  must  be  heard  before  it  can 
be  believed ;  for,  until  it  is  heard,  it  is  as  though  it  were  not — a  nonentity. 
But  it  is  not  enough,  that  it  be  heard  by  the  outward  ear.  God  has 
given  to  man  an  iuAvard,  as  well  as  an  outAvard  ear.  The  outAvard  recog- 
nizes sounds  only  ;  the  inward  recognizes  sense.    Faith  is,  therefore,  im- 


w 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  619 

possible  without  language  ;  and,  consequently,  without  the  knowledge  of 
language,  and  that  language  understood.  It  is  neither  necessary  nor  pos- 
sible,  without  language — intelligible  language.  An  infant  cannot  have 
faith  ;  but  it  needs  neither  faith,  nor  regeneration,  nor  baptism.  It  was 
a  figment  of  St.  Augustine,  adopted  by  Calvm,  propagated  in  his  Instil 
tutes,  and  adopted  by  his  children. 

These  infant  regenerators  are  lame  in  both  limbs  :  in  the  right  limb  of 
faith,  and  in  the  left  limb  of  philosophy.  They  move  on  crutches,  and 
broken  crutches,  too.  They  have  no  philosophy  of  mind,  or  else  they 
abandon  it  in  all  their  theological  embarrassments.  They  will  have  in- 
fants regenerated,  and  souls  morally  dead  quickened  by  a  direct  impulse. 
The  Spirit  of  God  is  supposed  to  incubate  their  souls — to  descend  upon 
them  and  work  a  grace  in  them — a  faith  without  reason,  without  argu- 
ment, without  evidence,  without  intelligence,  without  perception,  with- 
out fear,  hope,  love,  confidence,  or  approbation. 

The  whole  system  of  Calvinism,  of  Arminianism,  is  crazy  just  at  this 
point.  They  build  a  Avorld  upon  the  back  of  a  tortoise.  They  pile 
mountains  upon  an  egg.  They  build  palaces  upon  ice,  and  repose  on 
couches  of  ether.  They  have  not  one  clear  idea  on  the  subject  of  regen- 
eration. It  is  to  them  a  mystic  mystery — a  cabalistic  word — a  mere 
shibboleth.  The  philosophy  of  mind  is  converted  into  a  heap  of  ruins. 
They  have  the  Spirit  of  God  operating  without  testimony — without  ap- 
prehension or  comprehension — without  sense,  susceptibility,  or  feeling  : 
and  all  this  for  the  sake  of  an  incomprehensible,  unintelligible,  and  worse 
than  useless  theory.  I,  therefore,  ex  animo,  repudiate  their  whole  the- 
ory of  mystic  influence,  and  metaphysical  regeneration,  as  a  vision  of 
visions,  a  dream  of  dreams,  at  war  with  philosophy,  with  the  philosophy 
of  mind,  with  the  Bible,  with  reason,  with  common  sense,  and  with  all 
christian  experience. 

II.  Our  second  argument  is  deduced  from  the  fact,  that  no  living  man 
has  ever  been  heard  of,  and  none  can  now  be  found,  possessed  of  a  single 
conception  of  Christianity,  of  one  spiritual  thought,  feeling,  or  emotion, 
where  the  Bible,  or  some  tradition  from  it,  has  not  been  before  him. 
Where  the  Bible  has  not  been  sent,  or  its  traditions  developed,  there  is 
not  one  single  spiritual  idea,  word,  or  action.  It  is  all  midnight — a  gloom 
profound — utter  darkness.  What  stronger  evidence  can  be  adduced,  than 
this  most  evident  and  indisputable  fact  ?  It  weighs  more  than  a  thousand 
volumes  of  metaphysical  speculations. 

One  would  most  rationally  conclude,  that  if  the  Spirit  of  God  did  any 
where  illuminate  the  human  mind,  or  work  into  the  heart  the  principle  of 
faith  previous  to,  and  independent  of,  any  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, he  would  most  probably  do  it  in  those  portions  of  the  earth,  and 
amid  those  vast  masses  of  human  kind  entirely  destitute  of  the  Word  of 
Life  ;  wholly  ignorant  of  the  "  only  name  given  under  the  whole  heaven," 
by  which  any  sinful  man  can  be  saved.  If,  then,  he  has  never  operated 
in  this  way,  where  the  Bible  has  never  gone,  who  can  prove  that  he  so 
operates  here,  where  the  Bible  is  enjoyed. 

When,  then,  we  reflect  upon  the  melancholy  fact  so  often  pressed  upon 
the  attention  of  Christendom,  by  her  missionaries  to  heathen  lands,  that 
not  more  than  one-third  of  human  kind  enjoy  the  name  of  Jesus ;  that 
six-tenths  or  seven-tenths  of  mankind  are  wholly  given  up  to  the  most 
stupid  idolatries  or  delusions  ;  that  pagan  darkness,  and  Mahometan  im- 
postures cover  the  fairest  and  largest  portions  of  our  earth,  and  ingulph 


620  DEBATE  ON  THE 

the  great  majority  of  our  race  in  the  most  debasing  superstitions — in  the 
grossest  ignorance,  sensuality,  and  vice ;  and  that  from  these  is  with- 
holden  all  spiritual  and  divine  influence,  of  a  regenerating  and  salutary 
character,  so  far  as  all  documentary  evidence  avoucheth.  If,  then,  in- 
deed, the  Spirit  of  the  Bible,  the  Holy  Spirit  of  our  God,  did,  at  all,  tra- 
vel out  of  the  record,  and  work  faith,  or  communicate  intelligence,  with- 
out verbal  testimony,  methinks  this  is  the  proper  field.  And  there  being 
no  evidence  of  his  having  so  done,  is  it  not  a  fact  as  clear  as  revelation 
from  heaven — clear  as  demonstration  itself,  that  the  illuminating,  regene- 
rating, converting,  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  Re- 
velation, are  not  antecedent  to,  nor  independent  of,  the  written  oracles  of 
that  Spirit  ? 

III.  Our  third  argument  is  deduced  from  the  fact,  that  no  one  profess- 
ing to  have  been  the  subject  of  the  illuminating,  converting,  and  sanctify- 
ing operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  can  ever  express  a  single  right  con- 
ception or  idea  on  the  whole  subject  of  spiritual  things,  not  already  found 
in  the  written  word.  We  have  been  favored  with  numerous  revelations 
of  the  experiences  of  the  most  spiritually  minded  and  excellent  christians 
of  this  our  age.  And  on  listening  to  them  with  the  strictest  attention, 
marking,  with  all  our  powers  of  discrimination,  every  idea,  sentiment, 
and  expression  as  uttered,  I  have  never  heard  one  suggestion  containing 
the  feeblest  ray  of  light,  which  was  not  eighteen  hundred  years  old,  and 
already  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures — read  of  all  men  who  choose  to 
learn  what  the  Spirit  of  God  has  said  to  saints  and  sinners.  Evident 
then,  it  is,  from  this  fact,  which,  I  presume,  I  may  also  call  an  incontro- 
vertible fact,  that  no  light  is  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  regen- 
erating and  converting  men ;  whicli  is  equivalent  to  saying,  that  "  in  con- 
version and  sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the 
Word  of  Truth." 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  is  derived  from  another  fact,  which  calls  for 
special  consideration  just  at  this  point ;  to  wit,  lohatever  is  essential  to  re- 
generation in  any  case,  is  essential  to  it  in  all  cases.  The  change,  called 
regeneration,  is  a  specific  change.  It  consists  of  certain  elements,  and  is 
effected  by  a  special  agency.  If  it  be  a  new  heart  given,  a  new  life  com- 
municated, it  is  accomplished  in  all  cases,  as  generation  is,  by  the  same 
agency  and  instrumentality.  If,  then,  the  Spirit  of  God,  without  faith, 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  in  any  case  regenerates  an  indivi- 
dual, he  does  so  in  all  cases.  But  if  faith  in  God,  or  a  knowledge  of 
Christ,  is  essential  in  one  case,  it  is  essential  in  every  other  case. 

Now  this  being  admitted,  as  I  presume  it  will  be,  without  farther  ar- 
gument or  illustration,  follows  it  not  then,  that  neither  the  word  of  God, 
nor  the  gospel  of  Christ,  neither  preaching  nor  teaching,  neither  hearing 
nor  believing,  is  necessary  to  regeneration,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  ?  inasmuch  as  that  church  believes  and  teaches 
that  infants  and  pagans  are  regenerated,  in  some  cases,  without  any  in- 
strumentality at  all,  but  by  the  direct,  naked,  and  abstract  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  operating  immediately  upon  their  souls.  As  this  is  a  most 
essential  affair  iu  this  discussion,  it  is  all-important  that  we  deliver  our- 
selves in  the  very  words  of  the  church,  and  especially  in  the  creed  of  that 
branch  of  the  church  to  which  my  respondent  belongs. 

"  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  especial  grace  alone  ;  not  from 
any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man :  nor  from  any  power  or  agency  in  the 
creature  co-working  with  his  special  grace,  the  creature  being  wholly  pas- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  621 

sive  therein:  being  dead  in  sins  and  trespasses,  until  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and 
to  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  contained  in  it ;  and  that  by  no  less  power 
than  that  which  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead.  Elect  inlants,  dying  in 
infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  work- 
eth  wlien,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleases:  so  also  are  all  other  elect  per- 
sons, who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word." 

So  speaks  the  Confession,  chap.  x.  sec.  2,  3. 

Now,  I  ask,  of  what  use  is  the  ministry  of  the  Word  in  any  case,  so  far 
as  regeneration  is  concerned  ?  This  is  a  point  on  which  I  am  peculiarly 
solicitous  of  illumination.  Surely  faith,  and  preaching,  and  the  gospel 
ministry  are  all  vain  and  useless  in  making  a  man  a  new  creature,  if  dying 
infants  and  untaught  pagans  may  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  alone,  with- 
out faith,  knowledge,  or  any  illumination  whatever.  Nay,  indeed,  if  my 
position  be  true,  and  true  it  most  assuredly  is,  that  whatever  is  essential 
to  regeneration  in  any  case  is  essential  in  all  cases,  then,  although  we  have 
three  classes  of  subjects,  to  wit :  elect  infants,  elect  pagans,  and  elect  gos- 
pel hearers,  we  have  for  them  all  one  and  the  same  species  of  regenera- 
tion. This  is  one  of  my  reasons  why  I  have  charged  my  Presbyterian 
ftiends,  on  some  occasions,  of  "  making  the  Word  of  God  of  non-effect  by 
their  traditions;"  and,  therefore,  1  solicit  such  an  exposition  of  this  dog- 
ma as  will  set  me  right,  if  I  err  in  this  particular.  As  the  confession 
reads,  we  have  thus,  in  effecting  the  regeneration  of  an  infant,  the  Spirit 
alone  operating  by  a  physical  power,  tantamount  to  that  which  raised  up 
to  life  again,  the  dead  body  of  the  crucified  Messiah. 

Miracles,  truly  never  cease  on  this  hypothesis  :  inasmuch  as  the  regen- 
eration of  every  infant  is  a  demonstration  of  a  power  as  supernatural  as 
tlie  resurrection  of  the  Messiah.  Unfortunately,  however,  this  power  is 
not  only  never  displayed  to  our  conviction  at  the  time,  nor  ever  so  dis- 
played after  the  event  as  to  become  an  object  of  perception,  much  less  of 
sensible  demonstration.  If,  indeed,  as  it  sometimes  happens  in  some 
branches  of  this  school,  regeneration  is  not  regarded  as  another  name  for 
conversion  and  sanctification,  but  a  previous  work,  then  it  will  be  im- 
portant that  we  be  enlightened  on  the  question.  How  long  the  interval 
between  regeneration  and  conversion,  between  regeneration  and  faith,  and 
between  regeneration  and  the  dying  infant's  or  pagan's  exit  ?  For  if  the 
interval  should  be  such  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  conversion  and 
sanctification,  we  should  have  the  startling  fact  promulged,  that  infants, 
and  pagans  too,  dying  regenerate,  enter  heaven  without  being  converted ! 
Another  curious  question  will  certainly  arise  here.  Of  what  use  is  infant 
baptism,  according  to  such  a  theory  of  regeneration?  For,  if  elect  infants 
are  regenerated  without  knowledge,  faith,  repentance,  or  baptism,  and  if 
non-elect  infants,  though  baptized,  are  not  regenerated,  why  have  such  a 
war  of  words  about  a  matter  virtually  worth  nothing  to  the  living  or  to 
the  dead  ? 

V.  My  fifth  argument  shall  be  deduced  from  the  Holy  Spirit's  own 
method  of  addressing  unconverted  men  ;  by  signs  addressed  to  the  sense, 
and  words  to  the  understanding  and  affections.  The  Messiah  himself, 
the  seventy  evangelists,  and  the  twelve  apostles  were  accomplished  and 
fitted  for  their  ministry  to  the  world  by  such  inspirations  and  accompa- 
nying powers  as  human  nature  and  society,  Jewish  and  pagan,  then  re- 
quired, and  I  presume  always  will  require.  They  were  first  sent  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel;  and  afterwards  the  aposdes  were  sent  to 


622  DEBATE  ON  THE 

the  gentiles.  Now,  in  seeking  to  regenerate  and  save  the  human  family, 
they,  divinely  guided,  uttered  certain  words,  and  accompanied  them  with 
certain  miracles.  These  were  the  means  supernaturally  chosen  and  used. 
They  were  certainly  apposite  means ;  appropriate  and  fitted  to  the  end 
proposed  by  the  donor  of  this  intelligence  and  power.  He  seems  to  have 
sought  admission  into  the  hearts  of  the  people,  by  these  glorious  displays 
of  divine  power  presented  to  the  eye,  and  these  words  of  grace  addressed 
to  the  ear.  They  saw  the  sick  healed,  the  leper  cleansed,  demons  dis- 
possessed and  the  dead  raised ;  and,  while  seeing  these  solemn  and  sig- 
nificant arguments,  they  heard  words  of  tenderness — words  of  pardon  and 
of  life  spoken  with  a  divine  earnestness,  with  a  heavenly  sympathy  and 
affection.  Thus  the  Spirit  sought  to  convert  them.  He  used  means, 
rational  means ;  therefore,  we  argue,  such  means  were  necessary,  and  are 
still,  in  certain  modifications  of  that  same  supernatural  grandeur,  necessary 
to  conversion  and  sanctification.  Signs,  as  Paul  explains  them,  were 
necessary,  not  for  believers,  but  for  unbelievers.  They  were  necessary 
to  faith.  The  miracle  opened  the  heart,  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  enter- 
ed, and  the  Spirit  of  God  with  it;  and  the  work  of  conversion  was 
finished. 

Now,  may  we  not  conclude  that  miracles  and  words  are  not  a  mere  re- 
dundancy— a  perfect  superfluity?  May  we  not  regard  them  as  essential 
means,  employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  accomplishing  his  work?  It  is, 
perhaps,  important  also  to  say,  that  the  proof  of  a  proposition  is  always 
subordinate  in  rank  to  the  proposition  which  it  proves.  The  life  is  not  in 
the  miracle,  but  in  that  which  the  miracle  proves.  The  grand  proposition 
is,  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Savior  of  the  world. 
He  that  believes  this  proposition,  is  "  begotten  of  God."  It  is  the  "  in- 
corruptible seed."  It  is  the  "  living  Word."  It  abideth  forever.  The 
church  of  the  Messiah  is  built  upon  it.  The  promises,  then,  certainly 
justify  the  conclusion,  that,  in  converting  and  sanctifying  the  world,  the 
inspired  apostles  and  evangelists  used  means  of  divine  authority  ;  and  nei- 
ther did  depend  upon,  nor  teach  others  to  depend  upon  any  agency  from 
above,  dispensing  with  such  an  instrumentality. 

VI.  Our  sixth  argument  is  derived  from  tlie  name  chosen  by  the  Mes- 
siah, as  the  official  designation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  calls  him  the 
Paracletos,  and  that,  too,  with  a  special  reference  to  his  new  mission. 
This  term,  occurring  some  five  times  in  the  apostolic  writings,  is,  in  the 
common  version,  translated  both  comforter  and  advocate;  and,  by  Dr. 
Campbell,  monitor.  As  an  official  name,  I  prefer  advocate  to  either  of 
the  others.  It  is  generic,  and  comprehends  them  both.  An  advocate  may 
be  a  monitor,  or  a  comforter ;  but  a  monitor,  or  a  comforter,  is  not  neces- 
sarily an  advocate.  Now,  as  the  Spirit  is  to  advocate  Christ's  cause,  he 
must  use  means.  Hence,  when  Jesus  gives  him  the  work  of  conviction, 
he  furnishes  him  with  suitable  and  competent  arguments  to  effect  the 
end  of  his  mission.  He  was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  righteousness 
and  judgment.  In  accomplishing  this,  he  was  to  argue  from  three  topics, 
1.  The  unbelief  of  the  world;  2.  Christ's  reception  in  heaven;  3.  The 
dethronement  of  his  great  adversary,  the  Prince  of  this  world.  Then  the 
person,  mission  and  character  of  the  Messiah  alone  came  into  his  plead- 
ings. Jesus  promised  him  the  documents.  And,  indeed,  the  four  evan- 
gelists are  arranged  upon  the  instruction  given  by  the  Messiah  to  his  advo- 
cate. In  converting  men,  the  Spirit,  the  Holy  Advocate,  was  to  speak  of 
Jesus.     Hence,  speaking  of  Jesus  by  the  Spirit,  is  all  that  was  necessary 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  623 

to  the  conversion  of  men.  The  official  service  and  work  thus  assigned, 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  standing  evidence,  that,  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  he  operates  only  through  the  Word.  And,  as  it  has  been  already 
shown,  conversion  is,  in  all  cases,  the  same  work,  he  operates  in  this  de- 
partment only  by  and  through  the  Word,  spoken  or  written ;  and  neither 
physically  nor  metaphysically. 

VII.  Our  seventh  argument  shall  be  deduced  from  the  opening  of  the 
commission  ;  from  the  gift  of  tongues,  by  which  the  Advocate  commenced 
his  operations.  That  the  Messiah  had  a  commission  for  convincing  and 
converting  the  world,  has  been  already  shown.  That  he  was  to  use  argu- 
ments has  been  fully  proved;  that  he  was  to  speak  and  work  also;  that, 
by  signs  and  miracles  he  accompanied  the  Word,  and  made  it  effectual. 
Now,  that  language  is  essential  to  the  completion  of  the  commission,  is 
further  proved  from  the  great  fact,  that  the  first  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
under  the  Messiah's  commission,  was  the  gift  of  tongues. 

Language,  not  merely  the  various  dialects  of  human  speech,  but  lan- 
guage itself — not  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Roman — but  that  of  which  Hebrew, 
Greek  and  Roman  are  mere  dialects,  forms,  or  modes,  is  essential.  He 
gave  the  first,  and  he  gave  the  second.  He  made  a  glorious  display  of  the 
use  of  language,  of  the  need  of  tongues,  in  commencing  his  new  work. 
He  gave  utterance  ;  for  utterance  is  his  gift.  So  Paul  to  the  Corinthians 
said,  "You  are  enriched  by  him  in  all  knowledge,  and  in  all  utterance." 
The  day  of  Pentecost  is  the  best  comment  on  this  whole  subject  of  spir- 
itual influence  ever  written.  We  have  much  use  for  it  in  this  discussion. 
It  is  just  as  useful  on  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  as  on  the  genius  and  design 
of  baptism. 

It  seldom  occurs  to  us,  that  all  Christendom — the  living  world,  is  now 
indebted  for  the  very  book  that  records  the  name,  and  embalms  the  me- 
mory of  the  Messiah,  and  for  all  that  is  known  of  the  Holy  Spirit — for  the 
very  language  of  the  new  covenant — for  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom — and 
for  every  spiritual  idea  and  conception  of  God,  of  heaven,  of  immortality, 
of  our  origin,  nature,  relations,  obligations  and  destiny,  to  the  immediate 
agency  of  this  Spirit  of  all  Wisdom  and  Revelation — to  the  gift  of  tongues, 
or  of  language.  Yet,  true  to  the  letter  it  is,  that  "  no  one  could  say  that 
Jesus  is  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Some  amongst  us,  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them  on  this  grand 
theme,  ascribe  to  the  human  mind  the  powers  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
represent  the  human  mind  as  possessing  some  sort  of  innate  power  of 
originating  spiritual  ideas  ;  to  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  God  by  the 
mere  contemplation  of  nature.  They  annihilate  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  ; 
of  human  imbecility  and  depravity,  and  adorn  human  reason  with  a  very 
splendid  plagiarism,  called  natural  religion.  While  at  variance  on  almost 
every  thing  else,  the  mental  philosopher  and  the  Deist,  the  Romanist  and 
the  Protestant,  the  Calvinist  and  the  Arminian  admirably  coalesce  and 
harmonize  in  this  self-congratulatory  assumption.  They  say,  that  man 
can,  by  the  feeble,  glimmering  rush-light  of  his  own  studies  of  nature,  either 
descend  from  his  a  priori,  or  ascend  from  his  a  posteriori  reasonings  to 
God — to  the  apprehension  of  his  very  being  and  perfections  ;  human  re- 
sponsibility, the  soul's  immortality,  and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments,  without  the  Bible,  and  without  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

We  have  neither. so  studied  nature  nor  learned  the  Bible.  We  sub- 
scribe to  Paul's  dogma,  "The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,"  and 


624  DEBATE  ON  THE 

agree  with  him,  that  "  it  is  by  faith,"  and  not  by  reason,  "  we  know  that 
the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  Word  of  God — so  that  things  now  seen 
existing  did  not  formerly  exist."  We,  indeed,  ascribe  all  our  ideas  of 
spirit  and  of  a  spiritual  system ;  our  conceptions  of  God  as  creator — of 
creation  itself,  of  providence,  and  of  redemption,  to  one  and  the  same 
Spirit,  and  to  that  Logos  who,  in  one  form  or  other,  has  been  the  pro- 
phet or  the  advocate  of  the  Messiah  and  his  cause,  for  some  six  thou- 
sand years. 

We  go  yet  further.  We  assign  to  the  Spirit  of  all  Wisdom  and  Reve- 
lation the  origination  of  the  spiritual  language;  perhaps,  indeed,  of  all 
language.  The  most  enlightened  men,  whether  Pagans,  Jews,  or  Chris- 
tians, regard  language  as  a  divine  revelation — even  that  large  portion  of 
it  derived  from  sensible  objects.  The  philosophers,  from  Plato  down  to 
Dr.  Whitby,  have  claimed  for  the  Supreme  God  this  honor.  They  have 
refused  it  to  either  civilized  or  uncivilized  man — to  all  conventional 
agreement.  They  have  handled,  with  great  effect,  that  plainest  of  pro- 
positions, that  councils  could  not  be  convened ;  that  if  they  had  sponta- 
neously arisen,  no  motions  could  have  been  made,  no  debates  commenced 
nor  conducted  without  the  use  of  speech.  Philosophers  assume  that 
men  think  in  words,  as  well  as  communicate  by  them ;  or,  at  least,  have 
some  image  of  the  thing,  natural  or  artificial,  or  they  cannot  even  think 
about  it.  The  natural  process,  which  can  easily  be  made  intelligible  to 
all,  is,  that  the  thing  is  pre-existent,  the  idea  of  it  next,  and  the  rvord 
last.  The  line  ascending  is  the  word,  the  idea,  the  thing.  The  line 
descending  is  the  thing,  the  idea,  the  word.  Now,  as  the  line  descend- 
ing is  necessarily  first,  we  must,  especially  in  things  spiritual,  admit  that 
the  spiritual  things  could  be  communicated  to  man  only  by  one  that  com- 
prehends them,  who  had  seen  them,  and  who  selected  from  the  elements 
of  that  language  first  given  to  man,  when  he  conversed  face  to  face  with 
God  in  Eden,  the  proper  materials  for  words  to  communicate  things  spir- 
itual. In  strict  accordance  with  this  assumption,  Moses  teaches  us  that  God 
conferred  with  Adam,  and  continued  his  lessons  until  Adam  was  able  to 
give  every  creature  around  him  a  suitable  name.  That  language  com- 
menced in  this  way  all  admit,  from  one  fact,  to  wit:  Every  one  speaks 
THE  LANGUAGE  WHICH  HE  FIRST  HEARS.  Tliis  is  his  Vernacular.  A  mir- 
acle is  before  us.  The  first  man  spoke  without  being  spoken  to ;  else 
God  spoke  to  him.  Either  is  a  miracle  :  and  of  the  two,  the  latter  is  of 
the  easiest  credence;  and,  indeed,  it  is  to  the  faithful  evidendy  true  from 
the  words  of  Moses.  With  Plato,  then,  I  say,  that  God  taught  the  prim- 
itive words,  and  from  that,  man  manufactured  the  derivatives.  With 
Newton,  I  say,  God  gave  man  reason  and  religion  by  giving  him  speech. 
With  tradition,  I  say,  that  the  god  Thath  of  the  Egyptians  is  the  Theos 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  Logos  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Logos  incar- 
nate is  the  Messiah  of  Christianity.  Therefore,  the  Spirit  of  God,  now 
the  Spirit  of  the  Word,  is  the  origin  of  all  spiritual  words  and  concep- 
tions. With  Paul,  therefore,  I  say,  "We  speak  spiritual  things  in  spir- 
itual words,  or  words  which  the  Spirit  teacheth,  expressing  spiritual 
things  in  spiritual  words." 

I  will  conclude  in  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  poet :  "  It  is  God  that 
teacheth  man  knowledge,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him 
understanding."  "The  entrance  of  thy  Word  giveth  light:  it  giveth 
understanding  to  the  simple."  The  very  language,  then,  as  well  as  the 
ideas  that  convert  the  soul,  is  spiritual.    So  that  truly  we  may  aflSrm,  that 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  625 

in  conversion,  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  upon  a  person  only  by  and 
through  the  Word,  and  the  ideas  originated  by  himself.  Of  all  which 
the  first  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  in  fiery  tongues,  words,  language, 
and  signs,  is  a  full  and  ample  proof. — [^Thne  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  27—11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  first  reply.] 

Mr.  President — There  are  two  principal  obstacles  in  the  way  of  man's 
salvation.  The  one  is,  that  he  has  broken  the  law  of  God,  and  is,  there- 
fore, condemned  :  the  other  is,  that  he  possesses  a  depraved  nature,  and 
is,  therefore,  disqualified  for  the  service  of  God  and  the  happiness  of  hea- 
ven. There  are,  likewise,  two  great  doctrines  which  especially  charac- 
terize the  gospel.  The  one  is  the  atonement  of  Christ,  by  which  we 
may  be  relieved  from  the  curse  of  the  law :  the  other  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  by  whose  agency  we  may  be  sanctified  and  prepared  for  heaven. 
These  doctrines  constitute  the  two  chief  pillars  in  the  temple  of  gospel 
truth ;  and  he  who  attempts  to  overturn  the  one  or  the  other,  does  what 
he  can  to  destroy  the  sacred  edifice,  and  to  expose  the  human  race,  help- 
less and  hopeless,  to  the  wrath  of  a  just  God. 

The  subject  of  discussion  this  morning  is,  therefore,  as  important  as 
the  immortal  interests  of  the  soul.  Without  tiie  atonement  of  Christ,  all 
must  die  in  a  state  of  condemnation ;  and  without  the  special  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  all  must  die  in  depravity  and  be  eternally  lost. 

In  the  discussion  of  a  subject  such  as  the  one  now  before  us,  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  we  understand  distinctly  the  point  in  contro- 
versy. In  this,  as  in  his  other  introductory  addresses,  my  friend,  Mr.  C, 
seems  to  have  directed  his  efibrts  more  to  beauty  of  style  and  composi- 
tion, than  to  the  clear  statement  and  defence  of  his  faith.  I  venture  the 
opinion,  that  no  one  individual  in  this  large  and  intelligent  audience,  has 
been  able  to  gather  from  the  address  he  has  just  read  to  us,  wherein  we 
differ,  or  what  is  the  point  to  be  debated.  If  any  one  has  been  so  happy 
as  to  have  been  enlightened  concerning  this  important  matter,  I  must 
award  to  him  more  ingenuity  and  discrimination  than  I  possess.  If  time 
were  allowed  me,  and  I  were  capable  of  writing  so  handsome  a  discourse, 
I  might  afford  the  audience  another  hour's  entertainment;  and  yet  they 
would  not  know  how  far  we  agree  in  our  views  of  this  most  important 
subject,  nor  wherein  we  differ. 

The  gentleman  has  said  a  number  of  things  which  are  true,  and  a  num- 
ber of  things  which,  I  suppose,  are  not  true.  Indeed,  I  could  but  admire 
the  number  of  topics  he  contrived  to  introduce  in  the  course  of  an  hour — 
sectarian  phraseology,  the  Trinity,  the  parts  of  the  work  of  salvation 
assigned  to  each  of  the  Persons,  tlie  nature  of  matter  and  mind,  infant  bap- 
tism, the  origin  of  language,  &c.  !  ! !  I  cannot  subscribe  to  much  that 
he  said  with  regard  to  theological  systems  and  sectarian  phraseology. 
With  him,  it  seems,  all  churches  are  "  sec/s  "  but  his  own;  and  yet  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a  denomination  that  is  more  accurately  described 
by  a  correct  definition  of  the  word  sect.  He  tells  us,  he  can  at  any  time 
know  a  Calvinist  or  an  Arminian  by  his  phraseology  before  he  has  heard 
him  an  hour.  And  I  will  say,  that  I  can  identify  a  modern  reformer  of 
his  school  in  half  the  time ;  not  by  his  close  adherence  to  Scripture 
phraseology,  but  by  the  cant  of  the  sect.  The  exclusive  claims  of  some 
of  our  modern  sects  to  be  the  church,  the  only  true  church,  savors  more 
of  the  pride  of  Rome,  than  of  the  Spirit  of  the  gospel.  If,  however,  the 
40  3G 


626  DEBATE  ON  THE 

gentleman  can  establish  the  high  claims  of  his  church,  he  will  have  ac- 
complished an  important  work. 

The  proposition  before  us  is  in  the  following  words  : — "/n  conversion 
and  sanctijication,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  on  persons  only  through 
the  JVord  of  Truths 

The  word  conversion,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures,  in  its  most  enlarged 
sense,  expresses  two  important  ideas,  viz  :  1st.  a  change  of  heart,  and  2d. 
a  change  of  conduct ;  or  a  turning  in  heart  and  in  life  from  sin  to  holi- 
ness, from  the  service  of  Satan  to  the  service  of  God.  The  word  signi- 
fies literally  turning  from  one  thing  to  another.  When  an  individual  who 
has  been  pursuing  a  certain  course,  turns  to  an  opposite  one,  we  naturally 
conclude  that  his  mind  is  changed.  Hence  the  word  conversion  came  to 
signify  both  cause  and  effect — the  change  of  heart,  and  the  consequent 
change  of  conduct.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  Matt,  xviii.  3  :  "  Except 
ye  be  converted,  andj  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

The  word  sanctijication  is  employed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  by  all 
accurate  theological  writers,  not  to  signify  something  in  its  nature  distinct 
from  regeneration  or  conversion,  but  the  progress  of  the  gracious  work 
of  which  regeneration  is  the  commencement. 

The  difference  between  us,  so  far  as  this  subject  is  concerned,  is,  in 
general  terms,  this  :  Mr.  Campbell  believes,  that  in  the  work  of  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Truth.  I 
believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth  where,  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  the  truth  can  be  employed;  but  I  deny,  that  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  the  truth.  I  would  not  have  consented  to  discuss 
the  proposition,  if  the  word  "ow/y"  had  been  omitted.  For  we  believe 
and  teach,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  ordinarily  through  the  truth,  but 
not  only  through  the  truth. 

That  we  may  ascertain  precisely  the  point  in  debate,  it  is  important  to 
inquire  how  far  we  agree.  I  remark,  then,  that  we  agree  on  the  follow- 
ing points : 

First.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated  the  Scriptures — that  "holy  men 
spake  of  old  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Gliost." 

Secondly.  Tiiat  the  Holy  Spirit  confirmed  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures 
by  miracles  and  prophecies. 

Thirdly.  That  in  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  those  who  are 
capable  of  receiving  and  understanding  the  Scriptures,  the  Spirit  operates 
ordinarily  through  the  truth.  Thus  far  we  are  agreed.  We  differ  on 
the  following  important  points  : 

First.  Mr.  Campbell  contends,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the 
Spirit  never  operates  without  the  truth,  as  the  means  of  influencing  the 
mind.  I  maintain,  that  in  the  case  of  those  dying  in  infancy  and  idiocy, 
the  Spirit  operates  without  the  truth. 

Second.  Mr.  Campbell  affirms,  that  in  the  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion of  those  capable  of  understanding  the  Word,  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  truth — that  is,  the  Spirit  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word, 
and  tlie  Word,  by  its  arguments  and  motives,  converts  and  sanctifies  the 
soul.  I  desire  that  this  point  may  be  very  distinctly  apprehended ;  for 
it  is  of  vital  importance.  Mr.  Campbell  teaches,  that  in  conversion  and 
sanctification,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  just  as  his 
spirit  operates  on  the  minds  of  this  audience  ;  or  as  the  spirits  of  Demos- 
thenes and  Cicero  operated  on  the  minds  of  their  auditors,  or  their  readers, 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  627 

viz.  by  his  words  and  arguments  alone.  As  Mr.  Campbell  presents 
words  and  arguments  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers  or  readers,  and  those 
words  and  arguments  exert  an  influence  on  them;  so  the  Holy  Spirit 
presents  in  the  Scriptures  arguments  and  motives  ;  and  by  these  alone 
does  He  operate  on  the  human  mind. 

Such  precisely  is  his  doctrine  on  this  vital  subject.  I  regret  that  he 
did  not,  in  his  address,  more  distinctly  present  it.  To  prove  to  you,  my 
friends,  that  I  am  not  misrepresenting  him,  I  will  read  several  passages 
from  his  Christianity  Restored. 

"  Because  arguments  are  addressed  to  the  understanding,  will,  and  affec- 
tions of  men,  they  are  called  moral,  inasmuch  as  their  tendency  is  to  form 
or  change  the  habits,  manners,  or  actions  of  men.  Every  spirit  puts  forth 
its  moral  power  in  words  ;  that  is,  all  the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  hab- 
its, manners,  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangement  of  its 
ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  in  significant  signs  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear. 
All  the  moral  power  of  Cicero  and  Demosthenes  was  in  their  orations  when 
spoken,  and  in  the  circumstances  which  gave  tiiem  meaning  ;  and  whatever 
power  these  men  have  exercised  over  Greece  and  Rome  since  their  death, 
is  in  their  writings. 

The  tongue  of  the  orator  and  the  pen  of  the  writer,  though  small  instru- 
ments and  of  little  physical  power,  are  the  two  most  powerful  instruments 
in  the  world  ;  because  they  are  to  the  mind  as  the  arms  to  the  body — they 
are  but  the  instruments  of  moral  power.  The  strength  is  in  what  is  spoken 
or  written.  The  argument  is  the  power  of  the  spirit  of  man  ;  and  the  only 
power  which  one  spirit  can  exert  over  another  is  its  arguments.  How 
often  do  we  see  a  whole  congregation  roused  into  certain  actions,  expres- 
sions of  joy  or  sorrow,  by  the  spirit  of  one  man.  Yet  no  person  supposes 
that  his  spirit  has  literally  deserted  his  body,  and  entered  into  every  man 
and  woman  in  the  house,  although  it  is  often  said  he  has  filled  them  with 
his  spirit.  But  how  does  that  spirit,  located  in  the  head  of  yonder  little 
man,  fill  all  the  thousands  around  him  with  joy  or  sadness,  with  fear  and 
trembling,  with  zeal  or  indignation,  as  the  case  may  be  ?  How  has  it  dis- 
played such  power  over  so  many  minds'!  By  words  uttered  by  the  tongue; 
by  ideas  commimicafed  to  the  miiids  of  the  hearers.  In  this  way  only  can 
moral  power  be  displayed. 

From  such  premises  we  may  say,  that  all  the  moral  power  which  can  be 
exerted  on  human  beings,  is,  and  must  of  necessity  be,  in  the  arguments  ad- 
dressed to  them.  No  otlier  power  than  moral  power  can  operate  on  minds  ; 
and  this  power  must  always  be  clothed  in  words,  addressed  to  the  eye  or 
ear.  Thus  we  reason  when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when 
we  think  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted  upon  minds  or  human 
spirits,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  imagine,  that  that  power  can  consist  in 
any  thing  else  but  words  or  arguments.  Thus,  in  the  nature  of  things,  we 
are  prepared  to  expect  verbal  communications  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that 
Spirit  operates  at  all  upon  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every  man 
is  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  argu- 
ments. Thus  man  still  retains  an  image  of  his  Creator:  and  from  such 
analogy  Paul  reasons  when  he  says,  '  For  the  things  of  a  man  knows  no 
man,  save  the  spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in  him  ;  even  so  the  things  of  God 
knows  no  man,  save  the  Spirit  of  God.'  And  the  analogy  stops  not  here: 
for  as  he  is  said  to  resist  another,  whose  arguments  he  understands  and 
opposes  ;  so  are  they  said  to  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  always  resist,  or 
refuse  to  yield  to  his  arguments." — pp.  348,  349. 

"  But  to  return.  As  the  spirit  of  man  puis  forth  all  its  moral  power,  in 
the  words  lohich  it  Jills  with  its  ideas ;  so  the  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its 
converting  and  sanctfying  power,  in  the  words  which  it  Jills  with  its  ideas. 
Miracles  cannot  convert.  They  can  only  obtain  a  favorable  hearing  of  the 
converting  arguments.    If  they  fail  to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing,  the  argu- 


628  DEBATE  ON  THE 

ments  which  they  prove  arc  impotent  as  an  unknown  tongue.  If  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  spoken  all  its  arguments  ;  or,  if  the  New  and  Old  Testament 
contain  all  the  arguments  which  can  be  oiFered  to  reconcile  man  to  God, 
and  to  purify  them  who  are  reconciled  ;  then  all  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  can  operate  upon  the  human  mind  is  spent ;  and  he  that  is  not 
sanctified  and  saved  by  these,  cannot  be  saved  by  angels  or  spirits,  human 
or  divine.     *     *     *     * 

We  plead,  that  all  the  converting-  power  of  the  Holy  Sjnrit  is  exhibited  in 
the  divine  record.'''' — pp.  350,  851. 

These  passages  present,  with  great  clearness,  the  views  of  Mr.  C.  on 
this  important  subject.  He  asserts,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
the  Holy  Spirit  operates  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  only  as  the 
spirit  of  one  man  operates  on  the  spirit  of  another.  Nay,  he  even 
goes  further,  and  denies,  not  only  that  the  Spirit  does  operate  except 
simply  by  words  and  arguments,  but  that  he  can  exert  any  other  influence 
over  the  human  mind!  In  the  Millenial  Harbinger  he  has  given  us  an 
exhibition  of  his  doctrine,  too  clear  to  admit  of  any  mistake  as  to  his  real 
sentiments.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  As  all  the  influence  which  my  spirit  has  exerted  on  other  spirits,  at 
home  or  abroad,  has  been  by  the  stipulated  signs  of  ideas,  of  spiritual  ope- 
rations, by  my  written  or  spoken  word  ;  so  believe  I  that  all  the  influence 
of  God's  good  Spirit  now  felt  in  the  way  of  conviction  or  consolation  in  the 
four  quarters  of  the  globe,  is  by  the  Word,  written,  read  and  heard,  which  is 
called  the  living  oracles." — vol.  vi.  p.  .356. 

Thus  you  see,  according  to  the  gentleman's  doctrine,  the  Spirit  of  God 
has  no  more  power  over  the  minds  of  men,  than  his  spirit;  except  that 
He  may  present  stronger  arguments.  That  is,  the  only  difference  consists 
in  the  fact,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  more  powerful  preacher  than  Mr. 
Campbell,  though  iiis  operations  are  precisely  of  the  same  kind !  !  ! 
Against  this  doctrine  1  enter  my  solemn  protest. 

We  believe  and  teach,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  there  is  an 
influence  of  the  Spirit  in  addition  to  that  of  the  Word,  and  distinct  from 
it — an  influence,  without  which  the  arguments  and  motives  of  the  gospel 
would  never  convert  and  sanctify  one  of  Aiiam's  ruined  race.  We  further 
believe,  that  although  the  Word  of  God  is  employed  as  the  instrument  of 
conversion  and  sanctification,  where  it  can  be  used  ;  God  has  never  con- 
fined himself  to  means  and  instrurnentalides,  where  they  cannot  be  em- 
ployed. In  all  ordinary  cases  He  has  always  clothed  and  fed  men  by  the 
use  of  means ;  but  when  his  people  were  journeying  through  the  wilder- 
ness to  the  promised  land,  and  could  not  obtain  either  food  or  raiment  in 
the  ordinary  way,  they  were  fed  with  manna  from  heaven ;  their  thirst 
was  quenched  by  water  miraculously  brought  out  of  the  rock,  and  their 
raiment  was  not  permitted  to  wax  old.  AVhen  Elisha  the  prophet  could 
no  longer  obtain  food  in  the  ordinary  way,  God  sent  a  raven  to  bear  it  to 
him;  and  when  the  widow's  cruse  of  oil  was  almost  exhausted,  it  was 
miraculously  replenished.  So  does  He  feed  the  soul  with  the  bread  of 
life,  through  means  and  instrumentalities  when  they  are  acessible,  and 
without  them  when  they  are  not. 

But  let  it  be  remarked,  that  whilst  we  believe  in  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it,  we  do  not  believe 
that  in  conversion  new  facAdties  are  created.  The  mind,  both  before  and 
after  conversion,  possesses  understanding,  will,  and  aff*ections.  There  is 
no  creation  of  new  faculties  ;  but  a  change  of  the  moral  nature — a  spirit- 
ual change — a  change  from  sinfulness  to  holiness,  and  from  the  love  and 
practice  of  sin  to  the  love  and  service  of  God. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  629 

Nor  do  we  maintain  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Holy- 
Spirit  reveals  to  the  mind  new  truths  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures. 
*'  For  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction  and  instruction  in  righteousness :  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."  The  design  of  regeneration  is  not  to  reveal  new  truths,  but  to 
enable  the  sinner,  who  is  blinded  by  his  depravity,  to  see  the  truths  of 
revelation  in  their  beauty  and  excellency,  and  to  incline  him  to  embrace 
tliem,  and  to  live  accordingly.  The  difficulty  is  not,  that  God's  revela- 
tion is  not  perfect,  presenting  every  truth  which  is  necessary  to  life  and 
godliness;  nor  that  its  truths  are  obscurely  taught;  but  that  the  hearts  of 
men  are  "  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil" — that  they  "  love  darkness  more 
than  light" — that  they  are  proud  and  rebellious,  averse  to  the  service  of 
God,  and  to  the  plan  of  salvation  which  he  has  devised.  The  psalmist, 
David,  sensible  of  his  blindness  to  spiritual  things,  the  glorious  truths  of 
revelation,  offered  this  prayer  :  "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  be- 
hold wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law,"- — Ps.  cxix.  18.  The  law  of  God, 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  knew  contained  wonderful  things  ;  but,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  sinful  blindness,  he  did  not  behold  them  clearly  and  distinctly. 
He  therefore  prayed,  not  for  an  additional  revelation,  but  for  spiritual  illu- 
mination, for  sanctification,  that  the  cause  of  his  blindness  being  removed, 
he  might  see  those  things  in  their  true  nature ;  that,  "  with  open  face 
he  might  behold,  as  in  a  glass,  the  glory  of  the  Lord." 

This  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  influence,  is  a  complete  an- 
swer to  the  argument  of  Mr.  Campbell,  that  those  who  profess  to  have 
been  regenerated  by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  re- 
ceived no  new  ideas  which  are  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  Regen- 
eration consists  not  in  giving  a  new  revelation,  but  a  new  heart. 

In  further  elucidation  of  this  subject,  I  remark,  that  the  modus  oper- 
andi, the  manner  in  which  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  human  heart,  we 
do  not  pretend  to  comprehend.  Nor  is  the  mysteriousness  of  the  influ- 
ence,  as  to  the  mode  of  it,  an  objection  against  the  doctrine.  That  God 
created  mind  and  matter,  is  perfecfly  clear,  and  easily  apprehended  ;  but 
hoiv  he  created  either  the  one  or  the  other,  none  can  understand.  The 
fact,  that  the  mind  acts  through  the  body,  is  clear ;  but  how  it  acts,  no 
philosopher  can  explain.  Nicodemus,  the  Jewish  ruler,  objected  to  this 
doctrine  as  mysterious,  and  the  Savior  replied,  "  The  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth ;  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  Spirit," — John  iii.  We  feel  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  and  perceive 
its  effects  ;  but  hoio  it  blows,  "  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth," 
is  a  mystery.  The  Spirit  renews  the  heart.  We  can  realize  the  effects 
in  ourselves,  and  see  them  in  others  ;  but  how  He  operates,  we  cannot 
comprehend.  No  man  denies  that  the  wind  blows,  because  he  cannot 
explain  how  it  blows ;  for  he  sees  and  feels  the  effects.  The  effects  of 
the  Spirit's  agency  are  equally  manifest.  We  see  the  wicked  man 
turning  from  his  wickedness,  and  delighting  himself  in  the  service  of  the 
Holy  One  of  Heaven.  We  ascribe  the  marvellous  effect  to  an  adequate 
cause.  That  cause,  the  Scriptures  teach  ns,  is  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  the 
manner  of  his  operation  they  do  not  explain,  nor  does  it  become  us  to  in- 
quire concerning  it. 

Again,  I  remark,  the  necessity  of  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  heart,  in  addition  to  the  Word  of  Truth,  does  not  arise  from  any  lack 

3g2 


630  DEBATE  ON  THE 

of  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God.  For,  to  every  candid 
mind,  who  will  weigh  the  evidence,  it  is  not  only  conclusive,  but  over- 
whelming. Nor  does  it  arise  from  any  obscurity  with  which  its  instruc- 
tions are  conveyed  ;  for  the  inspired  pen-men  wrote  with  inimitable  sim- 
plicity. The  great  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity  are  so  clearly 
presented,  and  so  variously  illustrated,  that  all  who  are  willing  to  know 
and  obey  the  truth,  must  understand  them.  "  The  King's  high-way"  is 
made  so  plain,  that  "  the  way-faring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err  there- 
in." Nor  does  it  arise  from  any  defect  in  the  motives  presented  in  the 
gospel,  to  induce  men  to  serve  God :  for  they  are  high  as  heaven,  deep  as 
hell,  vast  as  eternity,  and  melting  as  the  dying  agonies  of  the  Son  of  God. 
Nor  is  a  special  divine  influence  necessary,  because  man  is  not  a  free 
moral  agent ;  for  he  is  as  free  as  an  angel  to  consider  the  motives  placed 
before  him,  and  to  choose  his  own  course.  All  that  we  mean,  or  can 
mean,  by  free  moral  agency,  is,  that  men,  looking  at  the  motives  which 
present  themselves  to  their  minds,  voluntarily  clioose  their  own  course. 
They  do  as  they  please — they  are  under  no  compulsion. 

Why,  then,  it  will  be  asked,  is  it  necessary  that  there  should  be  an 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition  to  that  of  the  Word,  and  distinct  from 
it?  The  necessity  arises  simply  from  the  depravity  of  the  human  heart — 
its  pride,  its  love  of  sin,  and  its  deep-rooted  aversion  to  the  character  of  God, 
to  his  pure  law,  and  his  soul-humbling  gospel.  To  secure  the  perfect  and 
perpetual  obedience  of  the  angels,  it  is  enough  that  the  will  of  God  be 
made  known  to  them  ;  for  they  are  holy — they  love  God  with  all  their  pow- 
ers, and  their  fellow-beings  as  themselves.  Their  higliest  joy  is  derived  from 
his  service.     They  fly,  swift  as  lightning,  in  obedience  to  his  commands. 

But  such  is  not  the  character  of  man.  He  was  created  in  the  image 
of  his  Maker ;  but  he  is  fallen — greatly  fallen.  The  divine  image  has 
been  defaced.  The  character  of  God,  so  glorious  in  the  eyes  of  angels, 
has  no  attractions  for  him.  Pride  reigns  in  his  heart.  Angels  prostrate 
themselves  with  adoring  wonder  and  love,  before  the  throne  of  God ; 
but  man  is  too  proud  to  kneel  before  Jehovah.  Angels  find  the  perfect 
gratification  of  their  pure  affections,  and  the  highest  possible  happiness, 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  works  and  perfections  of  God,  in  communion 
with  Him,  and  in  his  holy  service.  But  man  is  fearfully  degraded.  He 
worships  and  serves  the  creature,  and  forgets  the  Creator.  He  loves 
earth,  and  its  low  and  degrading  pleasures.  His  afi'ections  are  entwined 
around  them.  Appeals  to  his  gratitude  and  to  his  interest,  fail  to  with- 
draw them  from  earth,  and  fix  them  on  heaven. 

How  shall  we  account  for  the  widely  different  and  opposite  courses  of 
conduct  pursued  by  angels  and  men  ?  Both  are  rational  and  accountable 
creatures,  under  the  government  of  the  same  God,  having  the  same  mo- 
tives to  obedience.  Why  do  they  not  see,  feel,  and  act  alike  ?  The  an- 
swer is  plain.  The  angels  are  holy,  and  men  are  sinful — deeply  de- 
praved. Hence  the  necessity  of  a  special  divine  influence,  in  addition 
to,  and  distinct  from,  the  Word.  Motives  are  sufficient  to  secure  the  obe- 
dience of  angels;  for  they  are  holy;  they  are  disposed  to  do  their  whole 
duty.  Motives  will  not  secure  the  obedience  of  men ;  for  they  are  sinful ; 
they  are  disposed  to  rebel.  Consequendy,  if  any  of  the  human  family 
love  and  serve  God,  it  is  because  He  "  worketh  in  them  to  will  and  to 
do,  of  his  good  pleasure."  If  those  who  have  entered  upon  his  service, 
persevere  to  the  end,  it  is  because  •*  He  who  began  the  good  work  in 
them,  will  perform  it  unto  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ." 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  631 

What  are  the  effects  of  man's  depravity,  with  regard  to  his  reception 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ?  The  following  are  some  of  them: 

1.  Their  minds,  their  affections,  and  their  thoughts,  are  occupied  with 
earthly  objects  ;  so  that,  like  Gallio,  they  "  care  for  none  of  these  things." 
They  cannot  be  induced  to  hear  and  to  consider.  The  cares  of  the  world, 
and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  choke  the  word.  "  Israel  doth  not  know; 
my  people  do  not  consider."  They  are  unwilling  to  be  taught  the  truths 
of  revelation. 

2.  Others  hear  and  think  :  bnt  they  are  deeply  averse  to  the  soul-hum- 
bling doctrines  of  the  cross,  and  its  pure  principles  and  precepts.  "Man, 
through  the  pride  of  his  countenance,  will  not  seek  after  God."  Desir- 
ing to  take  the  world  as  their  portion,  they  catch  at  every  cavil  against 
the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and  become  infidels :  or  perverting  its  plain  in- 
structions, and  seeking  a  broader  way  to  heaven,  they  become  heretics. 

3.  Others  still,  admitting  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  truth 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  cross,  are  mere  speculative  believers ;  and  loving 
the  world  and  the  things  thereof,  they  reject  the  council  of  God  against 
their  own  souls.  They  barter  their  immortal  interests  for  the  pursuits  and 
pleasures  of  earth. 

Such,  briefly,  are  some  of  the  effects  of  human  depravity.  It  fills  the 
mind  with  trifles,  makes  it  averse  to  the  truths  of  revelation,  and  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  thus  closes  it  against  the  appeals  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ. 

In  conversion  and  sanctification,  this  corruption  of  nature  is  to  be  sub- 
dued and  eradicated.  No  individual,  it  is  certain,  will  ever  become  a 
true  christian,  until  he  sees  sin  to  be  odious,  and  hates  it;  till  he  sees  the 
character  of  God  to  be  glorious,  and  loves  it ;  till  he  perceives  his  lost 
condition,  and  the  precise  adaptation  of  the  Gospel  to  secure  his  salva- 
tion, and  cordially  embraces  it ;  in  a  word,  till  the  service  of  God  is  his 
joy  and  his  rejoicing.  A  radical  moral  change  must  be  experienced,  be- 
fore the  sinner  will,  or  can,  become  a  disciple  of  Christ. 

That  I  have  given  a  correct  account  of  the  character  of  man,  I  will  now 
prove,  by  a  number  of  plain  declarations  of  Scripture.  Indeed,  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  for  me  to  enlarge  on  this  branch  of  the  subject:  for 
we  have  just  heard  read,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  several  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  present  a  very  dark  picture  of  human  nature.  To  those  I  will  add 
several  others.  In  John  iii.  6,  the  Savior,  giving  the  reason  why  the 
new  birth  is  necessary,  says  :  "  For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  The  meaning  of 
this  passage  will  be  clear,  if  we  can  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Jiesh,  This  word  has,  in  the  Scriptures,  several  meanings ;  but  when 
used  with  reference  to  moral  character,  it  always  signifies  depravity,  sin- 
fulness. Thus  it  is  used  in  Galatians  v.  19 — 21,  "  Now  the  works  of 
the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these,  adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness, 
lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath, 
strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings.  murders,  drunkenness,  revilings,  and 
such  like."  These  are  the  works  of  ihejlesh,  the  legitimate  products  of 
man's  corrupt  nature,  left  to  itself.  Here  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  the  cause  in  man  from  which  flow 
the  dreadful  evils  here  enumerated  ;  it  is  his  corrupt  nature  or  disposi- 
tion. And  let  it  be  remarked,  no  good  is  said  to  proceed  from  this  na- 
ture ;  its  fruits  are  '♦  evil,  and  only  evil,  continually."  In  the  same  sense 
the  word  Jlesh  is  used  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  viii.  1,  6, 8,  9,  "There 


632  DEBATE  ON  THE 

is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ,  who  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  "  To  walk  after  the  flesh  is  to  be 
wicked,  to  walk  after  the  Spirit  is  to  be  holy."  Again,  "  So  then,  they 
that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but 
in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  They  who 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is 
nothing  morally  good  in  them  ;  for  God  is  pleased  with  goodness  where- 
ever  he  sees  it.  But  who  are  in  the  flesh?  All  are  in  the  flesh,  unless 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  them.  It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear,  that  the 
passage — "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh," — means,  that  by 
the  natural  birth  all  are  depraved,  entirely  depraved  ;  for  the  flesh,  as  we 
have  seen,  produces  nothing  but  evil. 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  Gen.  viii.  21,  "And  the  Lord  smelled 
a  sweet  savor  ;  and  the  Lord  said  in  his  heart,  I  will  not  again  curse  the 
ground  any  more  for  man's  sake  ;  for  [or  thougfi]  the  imagination  of  his 
heart  is  evil  from  his  youth."  I  do  not  read  the  description  of  man's 
character,  as  given  in  Genesis  vi.,  because  some  have  pretended,  that  it 
applied  only  to  the  corrupt  generation  then  living ;  and  I  desire  to  prove, 
that  after  the  flood,  when  only  INoah  and  his  family  remained  on  earth, 
the  same  doctrine  was  taught  in  the  most  unqualified  terms — "  The  ima- 
gination of  his  heart,  [the  human  heart]  is  evil  from  his  youth."  It  is 
evil  from  the  earliest  period  of  his  being. 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught,  in  the  strongest  language,  in  Psalm  li.  5 : 
"  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity ;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me."  Again,  Psalm  Iviii.  .3 — 5  :  "  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the 
womb ;  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies.  Their 
poison  is  like  the  poison  of  a  serpent ;  they  are  like  the  deaf  adder  that 
stoppeth  her  ear;  which  will  not  hearken  to  the  voice  of  charmers, 
charming  never  so  wisely."  These  passages  teach  the  doctrine  of  the 
original  and  entire  depravity  of  man  from  his  birth,  in  language  so  clear 
and  so  strong,  that  comment  is  unnecessary. 

The  same  exhibition  of  the  character  of  man  is  made  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  chap.  xvii.  9,  10:  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked;  who  can  know  it?  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart; 
I  try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to  his  ways,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  fruit  of  his  doings."  Observe,  he  does  not  say  the  hearts 
of  some  men,  or  of  some  classes  of  men,  are  thus  deceitful  and  desperate- 
ly wicked ;  but  the  heart,  using  the  most  general  expression  in  human 
language,  without  qualification.  How  dark  is  the  picture — "deceitful 
above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked;  who  can  know  it!" 

In  the  third  chapter  to  the  Romans,  Paul  gives  an  infallible  description 
of  man,  as  he  is  in  heart  and  in  life.  "  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not 
one ;  there  is  none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none  that  seekelh  after 
God.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way ;  they  are  together  become  un- 
profitable ;  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  Their  throat  is 
an  open  sepulchre  ;  with  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit ;  the  poison 
of  asps  is  under  their  lips  ;  whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness. 
Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood.  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their 
ways  ;  and  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known.  There  is  no  fear  of 
God  before  their  eyes."  Thus  Paul  presents  the  deep  and  total  corrup- 
tion of  man's  nature.  The  description  belongs  not  to  one  class,  or  to  one 
nation,  or  to  one  age.  He  pronounces  it  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  char- 
acter of  both  Jews  and  gentiles.  All  men  do  not  actually  commit  all  kinds 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT, 

of  sin ;  nor  do  all  proceed  to  the  same  length  in  any  one  course.  But 
there  are  in  man  the  seeds  of  all  evil — a  nature  which,  freed  from  re- 
straint, and  exposed  to  temptation,  will  run  headlong  into  crimes  of  all 
kinds.  Such  is,  in  fact,  the  character  of  the  human  race,  that  John,  the 
apostle,  says,  without  qualification,  "  The  whole  world  lielh  in  wicked- 
ness."  1  John  V.  19. 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  man's  total  depravity,  if  in- 
deed the  evidence  can  be  increased,  I  will  state  an  important  fact,  viz  : 
that  all  that  is  morally  good  in  any  man  is  by  the  Scriptures  ascribed 
to  a  radical  change  of  heart,  of  luhich  God  is  the  author.  Does  any 
one  do  good  works  ?  Paul  ascribes  it  to  a  new  creation.  "  For  we  are 
his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  into  good  works,  which  God 
hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them,"  Eph.  ii.  10.  Does 
any  one  love  God  and  his  fellow-creatures?  John  says,  "He  that  loveth 
is  born  of  God,''''  1  John  iv.  7.  Does  any  one  believe,  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  ?  The  same  apostle  says,  he  "  is  born  of  God,"  ch.  v.  1.  Since, 
then,  all  that  is  good  in  man  is  ascribed  to  a  great  change  wrought  in  his 
heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all  that  is  evil  is  ascribed  to  his  nature ;  it 
follows  inevitably,  that  he  is  entirely  corrupt. 

Such  being  the  character  of  men,  it  is  impossible,  till  their  hearts  are 
renewed,  that  the}'-  shall  love  God,  his  law,  or  his  gospel,  or  find  pleasure 
in  his  service.  The  reason  is  this :  No  human  being  ever  admired  and 
loved  a  moral  character  just  the  opposite  of  his  own.  Both  the  judgment 
and  the  conscience  of  a  wicked  man  may  constrain  him  to  acknowledge, 
that  his  virtuous  neighbor  is  better  than  he ;  but  he  will  not  choose  him 
as  a  companion,  because  of  his  purity  of  heart  and  life,  nor  find  pleasure 
in  his  society.  "The  light  shineth  in  darkness;  and  the  darkness  com- 
prehendeth  it  not."  Our  Savior  appeared  amongst  the  Jcm's  in  all  the 
perfection  and  loveliness  of  human  nature  and  in  the  glory  of  divinity — 
"  the  glory  as  of  the  Only-begotten  of  the  Father ;"  and  yet  they  hated 
him,  because  his  character  was  to  theirs,  as  light  to  darkness.  "For 
what  fellowship  hath  righteousness  with  unrighteousness?  and  what  com- 
munion hath  light  with  darkness?"  2  Cor.  vi.  14. 

It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear,  that  every  individual  must  experience  a  rad- 
ical change  in  his  moral  character,  before  he  ever  will  love  God  or  em- 
brace the  gospel  of  Christ.  But  are  the  truths  of  revelation  sufficient  to 
effect  this  change  ?  They  are  not.  If  a  man  has  conceived  a  strong 
prejudice  against  his  neighbor,  through  a  mistaken  view  of  his  character 
and  conduct,  you  may  remove  the  prejudice  by  giving  him  correct  infot- 
niation.  Or  if  one  man  entertains  unkind  feelings  towards  another,  only 
because  of  some  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  happen  to  be  placed 
in  relation  to  each  other;  a  change  of  circumstances  may  produce  a 
change  of  feelings — reconciliation  may  take  place.  Thus  Joseph's  breth- 
ren hated  him,  because  they  looked  upon  him  as  a  successful  rival  in  the 
affections  of  their  father.  But  when  the  circumstances  were  changed, 
and,  instead  of  regarding  him  as  a  rival,  they  looked  up  to  him  as  a  bene- 
factor; their  feelings  were  changed,  and  they  were  reconciled.  But  if  a 
man  hate  the  true  character  of  his  neighbor;  if  he  dislike  him,  not  viewed 
through  erroneous  information,  but  as  he  really  is  ;  the  one  or  the  other 
must  greatly  change,  or  they  will  never  come  together  as  friends.  You 
cannot  induce  the  man  who  hates  the  real  character  of  his  fellow-man,  to 
love  him,  by  presenting  the  hated  qualities  more  distinctly  to  his  view. 
The   more  distinctly  he  sees   that   which   he   dislikes,   the   stronger,  of 


634  DEBATE  ON  THE 

course,  is  his  aversion  to  it.  Suppose,  for  example,  an  individual  has  a 
most  inveterate  dislike  to  some  particular  color,  red,  if  you  please.  Will 
you  be  able  to  make  him  admire  it  by  placing  it  before  his  eyes  in  the 
clearest  possible  light  ?  The  color  is  the  very  thing  he  dislikes ;  and  you 
present  it  to  him  in  its  scarlet  hue  with  the  hope  of  inducing  him  to  ad- 
mire it!  Evidently  until  his  taste,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  is  changed,  no 
clearness  of  light  through  which  it  is  seen,  will  cause  him  to  admire  it. 

Let  me  apply  the  illustration.  God  is  infinitely  pure ;  his  law  is 
"holy,  just,  and  good;"  and  his  gospel  is  like  its  glorious  author.  The 
character  of  man  is  just  the  opposite.  Consequently  his  aversion  to  God 
does  not  arise  either  from  mistake,  or  from  any  unfavorable  circumstances, 
which  might  be  changed.  He  is  sinful ;  God  is  infinitely  pure ;  therefore 
there  is  in  his  heart  a  deep-rooted  aversion  to  God.  "The  cainal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God."  The  word  of  God  is  compared  to  light. 
It  is  the  medium  through  which  we  see  the  objects  of  revelation.  Light 
is  the  medium  through  which  you  see  objects  around  you.  It  presents 
to  your  view  many  things  that  please,  and  many  that  ofiend.  Select,  if 
you  please,  one  of  the  objects  to  which  you  have  the  greatest  aversion. 
Concentrate  upon  it  as  much  light  as  possible,  so  that  you  distinctly  see 
its  every  feature.  Now  let  me  ask,  will  this  concentration  of  light  upon 
an  object  to  which  you  have  the  strongest  aversion,  cause  you  to  admire 
and  love  it?  You  say,  it  will  not.  Light  cannot  change  your  feelings 
toward  an  object  which  you  dislike.  Either  the  object  must  change,  or 
you  must  change  before  you  will  love  it.  Let  your  mind  be  changed  ; 
and  the  same  light  which  before  revealed  its  apparent  deformity,  will  now 
reveal  its  beauty  and  loveliness. 

So  through  the  light  of  revelation  we  have  presented  to  our  minds  the 
character  of  God,  his  law,  his  gospel,  heaven  and  hell.  This  revelation 
presents  these  objects  in  their  true  character;  but  men,  because  of  their 
depravity,  feel  a  strong  aversion  to  them.  They  are  not  averse  to  the 
character  of  God  and  the  gospel  of  Christ  through  mistake,  but  they  dislike 
these  glorious  objects  in  their  real  character.  Now  when  a  man  whose 
heart  is  enmity  to  God  in  his  true  character,  has  that  character  presented 
to  his  mind  by  the  light  of  Divine  Truth ;  will  the  light  cause  him  to  ad- 
mire and  to  love  it  ?  Or  will  he  whose  proud  heart  rises  in  rebellion 
against  the  pure  and  soul-humbling  gospel,  be  induced  to  love  and  em- 
brace it  by  having  it  very  clearly  presented  to  his  view  ?  Surely  not. 
It  is  clear,  then,  that  man  must  experience  a  radical  moral  renovation — 
must  be  greatly  changed,  or  he  never  will  love  God  and  obey  the  gospel 
of  Christ. 

This  I  take  to  be  correct  philosophy,  as  well  as  correct  theology. 
There  is  no  mysticism  and  no  abstruse  speculation  in  it.  It  requires 
not  the  mind  of  a  Newton,  a  Locke,  or  a  Bacon  to  perceive  its  truth.  It 
strikes  the  common  sense  of  every  reflecting  mind ;  and  it  presents  to 
view  the  reason  why  conversion  and  sanctification  never  can  be  secured, 
in  the  case  of  any  one  of  our  race,  without  an  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  addition  to  the  truth,  and  distinct  from  it. 

Having  thus  briefly  explained  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend,  and 
proved  the  necessity  of  a  direct  divine  influence  in  conversion  and  sanc- 
tification, I  wish  now  to  off'er  some  further  arguments  against  the  doctrine 
believed  and  taught  by  Mr.  Campbell. 

I.  My  first  argument  is  this  : — It  prescribes  to  the  power  of  God  over 
the  human  mind,  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  limitation.     I  can 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  635 

never  subscribe  to  the  doctrine,  that  God  can  exert  over  the  human  mind 
no  more  power  than  I,  except  that  he  may  employ  stronger  arguments ; 
that  the  Creator  can  influence  men  morally,  only  as  they  may  be  pleased 
to  listen  to  his  arguments.  I  can  never  consent  to  place  the  Holy  Spirit 
on  a  perfect  equality  with  man,  except  that  he  is  a  better  preacher. 

1st.  The  doctrine  which  thus  limits  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  is  most 
unreasonable  as  well  as  most  unscriptural.  God  created  man  holy  in 
the  beginning,  and  he  did  it  widiout  words  and  arguments.  Gen.  i.  26, 
27,  "And  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness. 

So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created 

he  him."  "  Lo  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  hath  made  man  upright, 
but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions."  Now,  if  God  could  origi- 
nally create  man  holy,  without  words  and  arguments,  who  shall  presume 
to  assert  that  he  cannot  create  him  anew,  and  restore  his  lost  image,  with- 
out them  ;  or  that  he  has  now  no  power  over  the  human  mind,  beyond 
that  of  argument  and  motive?  The  gentleman  may  phdosophise  and 
speculate  as  much  as  he  pleases,  to  prove  that  God  has  no  more  power 
over  the  heart  of  man  than  a  fellow  creature  ;  but  the  simple  fact  now 
stated,  that  originally  he  made  him  upright  without  words  or  arguments, 
is  abundantly  sufFicient  to  refute  his  theory. 

As  he  created  man  holy,  so  can  he  new-create  him.  As  he  created 
Adam  in  his  own  image  without  words,  so  can  he  renew  the  infant  mind, 
and  prepare  it  for  heaven,  though  it  cannot  receive  the  truth. 

Mr.  Campbell  will  not  deny  that  God  created  man  upright,  since  in 
his  Christian  System  he  has  so  taught:  (pp,  26,  28.) 

"  Man,  then,  in  his  natural  state,  was  not  merely  an  animal,  but  an  intel- 
lectual, mora],  pure,  and  holy  being." 

Again : 

'•God  made  man  upright,  but  they  sought  out  many  inventions.  Adam 
rebelled.     The  natural  man  became  preternatural,"  &c. 

If,  then,  God  made  man  upright  without  words  and  arguments,  exert- 
ing a  moral  influence  over  his  mind  without  motives;  who  can  prove, 
that  now  his  power  is  limited  to  mere  words  and  arguments? 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  light  of  revelation  is  necessary  to  call  into  exer- 
cise proper  feelings  and  afiections,  and  to  prompt  to  a  right  course  of 
conduct ;  for  we  cannot  love  an  object  of  which  we  know  nothing,  nor 
obey  a  law  concerning  the  requirements  of  which  we  are  not  informed. 
But  whether  the  light  will  call  into  exercise  such  feelings,  depends  upon 
the  moral  character  or  state  of  the  mind.  The  Jews  beheld  the  miracles 
wrought  by  the  Messiah  in  proof  of  his  divinity  and  of  his  mission  to 
save  men  ;  but  such  was  the  state  of  their  minds,  that  they  were  either 
unconvinced  or  unwilling  to  become  his  followers.  Thus  Paul  accounted 
for  their  blindness  in  reading  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  rejecting  the 
very  truths  which  it  most  clearly  revealed.  "  But  their  minds  were  blind- 
ed, for  until  this  day  remaineth  the  same  veil  untaken  away  in  the  read- 
ing of  the  Old  Testament,"  2  Cor.  iii.  14. 

The  gentleman  would  make  the  impression  on  your  minds,  that  accord- 
ing to  our  doctrine  there  is  no  need  of  the  gospel  at  all.  But  this  is  not 
true.  The  light  is  necessary  as  the  medium  through  which  we  may  see 
the  objects  around  us ;  but  the  light  will  not  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind. 
The  sun  may  shine  with  noon-day  brightness,  but  the  blind  man  will  be 
blind  still ;  or  if  a  man  hate  the  light  and  shut  his  eyes  against  it,  he  will 
not  see.     This  is  not  owing  to  any  defect  in  the  light,  but  to  the  defect 


636  DEBATE  ON  THE 

in  his  eyes  in  the  one  case,  and  to  hatred  of  light  in  the  other.  So  the 
light  of  revealed  truth  is  necessary  to  present  to  the  mind  the  objects  cal- 
culated to  call  into  exercise  holy  aflections  ;  bat  whether  the  effect  will  be 
produced,  depends  upon  the  state  of  the  heart.  The  fact,  that  men  love 
darkness  more  than  light,  and  turn  from  beholding  it,  argues  no  imperfec- 
tion in  the  light. 

The  light  is  still  necessary,  though  of  itself  it  cannot  cause  the  blind 
to  see.  The  gospel  is  equally  necessary,  though  of  itself  insufficient  to 
renew  and  sanctify  the  depraved  hearts  of  men.  If  a  man  were  suddenly 
made  as  holy  as  an  angel,  he  could  not  love  God,  unless  he  knew  him  ; 
nor  embrace  the  gospel,  unless  it  were  presented  to  him  ;  nor  do  his 
work,  unless  it  were  made  known  to  him  ;  nor  aspire  to  heaven,  unless  it 
were  revealed  to  him.  But  when,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  heart  of  the 
sinner  has  been  renewed,  he  is  filled  with  adoring  gratitude,  and  with  deep 
penitence,  as  the  cross  of  Christ  is  presented  to  his  view.  He  beholds 
an  adaptation  in  the  plan  of  salvation  to  his  situation,  which  he  never  saw 
before ;  and  a  glory  in  the  character  of  the  blessed  Redeemer,  he  never 
before  beheld.  In  the  beginning  God  made  man  upright ;  yet  a  revelation 
of  himself  and  of  his  will,  was  absolutely  necessary,  that  he  might  love 
and  obey  him.  For  similar  reasons,  the  gospel  is  necessary,  though  alone 
it  cannot  purify  man. 

2d.  That  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  prescribes  an  unreasonable  and  im- 
fcriptural  limitation  to  the  power  of  God  over  the  human  mind,  is  proved 
conclusively  by  the  fact,  that  God  does,  in  the  course  of  his  providence, 
exert  over  the  moral  conduct  of  man,  a  controlling  influence,  which  is 
not  simply  nor  chiefly  by  ivords  and  arguments.  And  if  he  can  control 
them  at  all,  without  words  and  arguments,  he  can  control  them  to  any 
extent.  This  fact  I  will  prove  by  several  declarations  of  Scripture.  Exod. 
xxxiv.  24.  All  the  adult  males  of  the  Jews  were  required  to  go  to  Jeru- 
salem thrice  every  year,  to  attend  their  three  principal  festivals.  But  how 
could  they  safely  leave  their  families  and  their  possessions  exposed,  as 
they  must  be,  to  the  incursions  of  malignant  enemies  on  their  borders  ?  To 
free  their  minds  from  apprehension,  God  gave  them  the  following  promise: 
"  For  I  will  cast  out  the  nations  before  thee,  and  enlarge  thy  borders ; 
neither  shall  any  man  desire  thy  land,  when  thou  shalt  go  up  to  appear 
before  the  Lord."  Does  not  this  promise  proclaim  the  truth,  that  God 
could  and  would  exercise  a  controlling  influence  over  the  desires  of  the 
surrounding  nations  ?  He  not  only  said,  that  they  should  not  invade  the 
territory  of  his  people,  but  that  they  should  not  desire  their  land.  Had 
he  no  power  to  control  their  desires  ?  or  did  he  restrain  them  by  words 
and  arguments  ? 

Again,  Prov.  xxi.  1  :  "  The  king's  heart  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  :  as 
the  rivers  of  water,  he  turneth  it  whithersoever  he  will."  Does  Solomon 
mean  that  God  turns  the  hearts  of  kings  by  words  and  arguments?  Ob- 
serve, the  language  is  very  emphatic — expressing  the  entire  control  which 
God  can  and  does  exercise  over  the  hearts  of  kings.  "  He  turneth  it  whith- 
ersoever he  will,  even  as  he  turns  the  rivers  of  water."  And  if  he  can,  and 
does  thus  completely  turn  the  hearts  of  kings,  can  he  not,  and  does  he  not 
also  turn  the  hearts  of  others,  not  by  words  and  arguments  only  ?  We 
cannot  avoid  seeing,  that  in  this  passage  God  claims  to  govern  men  by  an 
influence  far  more  powerful  than  mere  motive. 

The  same  truth  is  taught  with  equal  clearness  in  Ezra  vi,  22.  The 
Jews,  who  had  returned  from  captivity  in  Babylon,  "kept  the  feast  of 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  537 

unleavened  bread  seven  days  w^ith  joy:  for  the  Lord  had  made  them  joy- 
ful, and  turned  the  heart  of  the  king  of  Assyria  unto  them,  to  strengthen 
their  hands  in  the  work  of  the  house  of  God,  the  God  of  Israel.'"  Here 
we  have  a  very  remarkable  instance  of  the  exertion  of  a  divine  influence 
over  the  moral  conduct  of  a  pagan  king — a  man  who  believed  not  in  God's 
revelation,  but  was  an  idolater.  He  turned  the  proud  heart  of  this  king 
to  his  people,  so  that  he  aided  them  in  the  building  of  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. Did  he  influence  this  king  by  words  and  arguments?  Was  this 
remarkable  conduct  of  the  king  the  effect  of  mere  motives? 

Again,  chap.  viii.  27,  28  :  "  This  Ezra  went  up  from  B;ibylon  ;  and  he 
was  a  reody  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses,  wliich  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  had 
given:  and  the  king  granted  him  all  his  request,  according  to  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  his  God  upon  him."  Ezra  having  obtained  a  decree  of  the  king, 
in  favor  of  the  work  of  building  the  temple,  uttered  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  our  fathers,  which  liath  put  such  a 
thing  as  this  in  the  king's  heart,  to  beautify  the  house  of  the  Lord,  which 
is  in  Jerusalem;  and  hath  extended  mercy  unto  me  before  the  king  and 
his  counsellors,  and  before  all  the  king's  mighty  princes."  Ezra  recog- 
nized the  hand  of  the  Lord  in  his  success  ;  a  divine  influence  on  the 
hearts  of  proud  and  ungodly  idolaters  ;  and  he,  therefore,  offers  thanks  to 
God  for  this  remarkable  interposition.  Was  this  an  influence  exerted  by 
words  and  arguments  ?  Did  not  God  control  the  moral  conduct  of  those 
men  by  another,  and  more  powerful  influence  ? 

The  same  doctrine  is  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  Neh.  i.  11.  Nehe- 
miah  had  heard  of  the  deplorable  condition  of  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabit- 
ants;  and  he  desired  to  go  and  rebuild  the  temple  and  the  city.  It  was 
necessary  to  gain  the  consent  of  the  king  of  Babylon  ;  and,  therefore,  he 
prays — "O  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  let  now  thine  ear  be  attentive  to  the 
prayer  of  thy  servant,  and  to  the  prayer  of  thy  servants,  who  desire  to  fear 
thy  name;  and  prosper,  I  pray  thee,  thy  servant  this  day,  and  grant  him 
mercy  in  the  sight  of  this  man."  Nehemiah  prayed  for  what?  That  the 
Lord  would  so  influence  the  miud  of  the  king,  that  he  would  grant  him 
his  request.  And  his  prayer  was  answered — "  And  the  king  granted  me, 
according  to  the  good  hand  of  my  God  upon  me." — chap.  ii.  8. 

These  passages,  and  many  others,  prove,  beyond  controversy,  that  God 
can,  and  does  exert  upon  the  minds  of  men  a  controlling  influence,  dis- 
tinct from  words  and  arguments.  Consequently  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Campbell,  which  denies  that  he  does,  or  can  exert  any  other  moral  influ- 
ence than  that  of  mere  motives,  is  not  true. 

I  will  now  offer  a  second  argument  against  the  gentleman's  doctrine. 
By  the  way,  1  should  have  been  disposed  to  follow  him  in  his  argument, 
if  he  had  made  any  distinct  statement  of  his  doctrine,  and  attempted  to 
prove  it.  But  it  cannot  be  expected  that  I  should  follow  him  in  such  a 
dissertation  as  that  we  have  heard  this  morning ;  in  which  there  is  no 
clear  and  definite  statement  of  the  points  at  issue,  and,  of  course,  no  clear 
and  pointed  argument.  It  has,  therefore,  become  necessary  for  me  to 
state  his  doctrine  from  his  published  works,  and  to  advance  arguments 
against  it. 

II  The  argument  I  was  about  to  offer,  is  this :  Mr.  CampbclPs  doc- 
trine necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  all  infants  and  idiots.  I 
do  not  say,  that  he  holds  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  ;  but  I  do  say, 
that,  to  be  consistent,  he  must  hold  it — for  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence, if  his  doctrine  concerning  divine  influence  is  true. 

3H 


638  DEBATE  ON  THE 

The  gentleman,  I  must  so  far  digress  as  to  remark,  is  yet  in  trouble  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  He  has  brought  it  up  again.  I  did  sup- 
pose, that,  after  calling  it  up  in  almost  every  speech  since  the  subject  was 
disposed  of,  he  had  at  last  fully  delivered  himself  upon  it;  but  I  was  mis- 
taken. If  I  understand  his  remarks  correctly,  he  said,  that  all  infants, 
baptized  or  not,  are  saved.  Is  he  not  aware,  that  no  Presbyterian,  Meth- 
odist, or  evangelical  Pedo-baptist  baptizes  infants  for  the  purpose  of  sav- 
ing them  from  hell,  should  they  die  in  infancy  ?  Many  things  in  the 
plan  of  salvation  we  regard  as  useful,  that  are  not  absolutely  essential  to  the 
salvation  of  the  soul.  We  esteem  it  a  precious  privilege  and  a  solemn 
duty  to  enter  into  covenant  with  God  to  ti-ain  up  our  children  in  his  nur- 
ture and  admonition,  and  humbly  to  claim  his  promise  to  be  a  God  to  us 
and  to  our  seed.  God  has  commanded  us  to  bring  our  children  with  us 
into  the  covenant  and  into  the  church  ;  and  we  think  it  wise  and  useful  to 
obey  him.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  now  be  satisfied;  but  if  he  still 
feels  uneasy,  he  must  still  scatter  his  remarks  about  infant  baptism  through 
all  his  speeches  to  the  close  of  the  debate. 

But  to  retuni.  The  gentleman's  doctrine,  I  have  said,  necessarily  in- 
volves the  damnation  of  infants  and  idiots.  This  is  an  important  argu- 
ment; for  more  than  one  third  of  the  human  race  die  in  infancy.  And 
although  I  do  not  suppose,  that  his  views  will  affect  the  safety  of  infants ; 
still  it  is  a  subject  which  very  deeply  interests  the  feelings  of  every  aflec- 
tionate  parent.  It  would  indeed  be  difficult  to  induce  them  to  believe, 
that  infants,  incapable  of  knowing  right  or  wrong,  are  sent  to  hell. 

It  is  a  truth,  clearly  taught  in  Scripture  and  admitted  by  Mr.  C,  that 
infants  and  idiots  are  by  nature  depraved.  Our  Savior  said — "  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh."  By  the  natural  birth  all  are  depraved. 
This,  I  say,  Mr.  Campbell  admits.  I  will  read  an  extract  or  two  from 
his  Christian  System,  where  he  has  presented  his  views  on  this  subject. 

"  This  alarming  and  most  strangely  pregnant  of  all  the  facts  in  human 
history,  proves  that  Adam  was  not  only  the  common  father,  but  the  actual 
representative  of  all  his  children.  *  *  *  There  is  therefore  a  sin  of  our 
nature,  as  well  as  personal  transgression.  Some  inappositely  call  the  sin 
of  our  nature  our  '  original  sin  ;'  as  if  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  personal 
offence  of  all  his  children.  True  indeed  it  is,  our  nature  was  corrupted  by 
the  fall  of  Adam  before  it  was  transmitted  to  us;  and  hence,  that  heredita- 
ry imbecility  to  do  good,  and  that  proneness  to  do  evil,  so  universally  appar- 
ent in  all  human  beings.  Let  no  man  open  his  mouth  against  the  transmis- 
sion of  a  moral  distemper,  until  he  satisfactorily  explain  the  fact,  that  the 
special  characteristic  vices  of  parents  appear  in  their  children  as  much  as 
the  color  of  their  skin,  their  hair,  or  the  contour  of  their  faces.  A  disease 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  any  physical 
taint,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  biography,  or  human  observation. 

Still  man,  with  all  his  hereditary  imbecility,  is  not  under  an  invincible 
necessity  to  sin.  Greatly  prone  to  evil,  easily  seduced  into  transgression, 
he  may  or  may  not  yield  to  passion  and  seduction.  Hence  the  differences 
we  so  often  discover  in  the  corruption  and  depravity  of  man.  All  inherit  a 
fallen,  consequently  a  sinful  nature  ;  though  all  are  not  equally  depraved. 
*  *  *  Condemned  to  natural  death,  and  greatly  fallen  and  depraved  in 
our  whole  moral  constitution  though  we  certainly  are,  in  consequence  of 
the  sin  of  Adam  ;  still,  because  of  the  interposition  of  the  second  Adam, 
none  are  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  but  those  who  actually  and  voluntarily  sin  against  a  dispensation  of 
mercy  under  which  they  are  placed." 

This  system  is  indeed  quite  orthodox ;  and  since  this  is  the  gentle- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  639 

man's  second  confession  of  faith,  we  may  hope  that  his  third  will  bring 
him  very  nearly  right !  There  is,  then,  he  acknowledges,  "  a  sin  of  our 
nature,  as  well  as  personal  transgression;"  there  is  "a  disease  in  the 
moral  constitution  of  man;"  and  he  is  "greatly  fallen  and  depraved  in 
his  whole  moral  constitution."  Now  the  question  is — how  are  infants, 
thus  fallen  and  depraved,  to  be  saved?  The  gentleman,  with  singular 
inconsistency,  admits  their  depravity,  denies  any  divine  influence  by 
which  they  can  be  sanctified,  and  still  expresses  the  opinion,  that  they  may 
be  saved ! 

Infants,  it  is  admitted,  are  depraved.  Then,  concerning  all  that  die  in 
infancy,  one  of  three  things  is  necessarily  true,  viz  :  either  they  go  to  hell, 
or  they  go  to  heaven,  ^?^  their  depravity ;  or  they  are  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  ivithout  the  truth.  But  we  know,  that  they  cannot  go  to  heaven 
in  their  depravity ;  we  know,  that  they  cannot  be  sanctified  through  the 
truth,  which  they  cannot  comprehend ;  and  Mr.  Campbell  denies,  that 
they  can  be  sanctified  ivithout  the  truth.  We  are,  therefore,  forced  to  the 
horrible  conclusion,  if  his  doctrine  be  true,  that  they  die  in  depravity,  and 
are  forever  lost!  With  his  opinions  on  this  subject  I  have  nothing  to  do. 
They  directly  contradict  his  doctrine;  and,  therefore,  the  one  or  the 
other  is  false.  But  here  I  will,  for  the  present,  close  my  argument. — 
[^Time  expired. 

[mr.  Campbell's  second  address.] 

Monday,  Nov.  27 — 12  o'clock,  M. 

Mr.  President — I  have  had  reasons  numerous  and  various,  before 
to-day,  to  conclude  that  my  zealous  opponent  has  fallen  upon  a  rather 
singular  mode  of  conducting  the  defence  of  the  dogmata  of  his  party,  and 
of  assailing  us.  When  the  Presbyterians  first  proposed  the  discussion  to 
me,  it  was  distincly  stated  and  agreed  upon,  that  we  should  severally 
maintain  and  defend  the  doctrines  which  we  teach,  in  such  words  and 
propositions  as  we  respectively  preferred.  The  points  selected  were 
supposed  to  comprehend  the  points  at  issue.  It  was  also  always  contem- 
plated and  understood  on  my  part,  that  we  should  have  an  equal  number 
of  afiirmatives  and  negatives,  as  our  correspondence  will  exhibit,  when 
examined  from  first  to  last.  We  have  now  had  the  experience  of  ten 
days,  and  upon  an  impartial  retrospect  of  the  past,  and  of  the  speech  of 
this  morning,  I  must  say,  that  I  have  never  before  been  placed  exactly 
in  the  same  circumstances.  I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  conduct- 
ing popular  discussions,  and  have  had  a  considerable  variety  of  opponents, 
some  that  sought  always  to  lead,  and  some  who  preferred  to  follow  ;  but  I 
have  never  before  found  just  such  an  opponent  as  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice, 
one  that  will  neither  lead  nor  follow.  [A  laugh.]  This  is  precisely  the 
state  of  the  case.  He  has  conducted  the  discussion  of  two  afiirmatives. 
I  did  not  wish  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  man,  his  talents,  or  his  policies, 
from  his  management  of  the  first.  But  I  have  now  all  the  data  before 
me,  which  the  present  occasion  will  aff"ord.  He  has  done  with  his  affirm- 
ative propositions.     He  is  now,  for  the  third  time,  on  the  negative. 

On  the  first  affirmative,  I  was  curious  to  comprehend  his  resources, 
and  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  his  powers  of  defence.  After  speaking 
nearly  half  an  hour,  lie  took  out  his  watch,  and  during  twenty  minutes 
looked  at  it  no  less  than  five  times.  Finally,  before  his  time  expired,  he 
asked  the  moderators  if  his  time  was  not  nearly  expended.  On  learning 
that  he  had  still  a  few  minutes,  he  sat  down.  Thus  toiled  he  under  the 
onus  probandi  of  an  infant  subject  of  baptism.     On  Saturday  last,  as 


640  DEBATE  ON  THE 

most  of  you  will  remember,  when  his  other  affirmative  was  on  hand, 
after  various  efforts  in  his  opening  speech,  to  advance  into  the  merits  of 
the  question,  after  the  fourth  appeal  to  his  tardy  watch,  he  sat  down  at 
the  end  of  forty  minutes  ! 

He  looks  to  me,  sir,  for  matter  of  argumentation.  He  is  made  for 
contradiction.  I  have  then  to  furnish  materials  for  both  sides.  Instead 
of  responding  to  the  proper  issue,  already  formed,  he  seeks  in  my  ad- 
dresses new  points  from  which  to  digress  into  new  regions  of  negations  ; 
that  is  to  say,  I  must  give  him  data  out  of  which  to  excogitate  new, 
adventitious,  and  foreign  subjects — on  which  to  wrangle  in  the  way  of 
digression.  He  endeavors  to  make  me  always  affirm,  even  while  on  the 
negative  side,  that  he  may  occupy  a  negative  position  as  often  as  conve- 
nient. 

Of  all  this  I  ought  not,  probably,  to  complain.  It  is  the  best,  the  very 
best  mode  of  defence  which  his  cause  affords.  I  must,  however,  because 
of  his  boastful  manner,  expose  the  awkwardness  of  his  position,  aud  the 
barrenness  of  tlie  soil  which  he  occupies.     He  can  do  no  better. 

The  gentleman  knew  that  he  had  not  one  argument,  not  one  precept, 
or  precedent  in  the  Bible  in  support  of  either  of  his  affirmations.  His 
hope,  then,  rested  upon  remote  questions,  far  off  inferences,  involved  rea- 
sonings, irrelevant  or  false  issues  and  contingencies.  And  while  I  affirm 
and  file  off  my  arguments  numerically,  challenging  investigation,  why 
does  he  not,  why  can  he  not,  respond  to  them  as  in  duty  bound,  according 
to  all  the  laws  of  disputation  ?  Has  he  then,  sirs,  at  all  responded  to  my 
opening  speech  on  this  grand  proposition  ?  With  all  reasonable  em- 
phasis, I  pronounced  argument  first,  second,  third,  &.c.,  in  order  to  chal- 
lenge his  special  attention.  But  I  could  not  succeed.  The  gentleman  is 
not  to  be  moved  in  that  way.  I  have  then,  sir,  really  and  in  truth,  no 
opponent  on  this  occasion.  In  a  speech  of  one  hour,  he  did  not  come  up 
to  one  of  my  arguments,  as  though  he  felt  it  neither  necessary  or  impor- 
tant formally  to  encounter  them. 

These  arguments  I  introduced  by  a  considerable  preface,  containing 
very  important  items  of  thought,  and  even  of  argument,  as  I  supposed, 
demanding  some  notice.  Even  that,  too,  the  gentleman  found  it  most 
convenient  to  pass  in  a  respectful  silence.  But  he  was  pleased  to  say, 
that  I  do  not  state  the  issue,  nor  make  out  the  difference  between  us. 
Did  I  not  read  the  proposition?  Did  I  not  distinctly  affirm  "That  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctification  only  through  the 
truth?''''  This  I  solemnly  affirm  as  my  belief.  This  he  denies.  He 
maintains  another  proposition,  viz  :  That  the  Spirit  of  God  operates 
in  conversion  and  sanctification,  not  only  through  the  truth,  but  some- 
times without  it.  The  issue,  then,  was  fairly  stated  and  definitely  made 
out.  There  is  no  necessitj'  for  expatiating  much  more  on  this  subject.  I 
submitted  seven  arguments  in  proof  of  the  issue  agreed  upon.  He  has 
formally  responded  to  none  of  them.  In  so  doing  I  cannot  but  conclude 
that  the  argument,  the  real  issue,  is  given  up,  and  the  gentleman  cannot 
at  all  respond  to  my  proof.  This  is  my  conscientious  conviction.  I 
may,  then,  either  sit  down,  or  proceed  for  the  gratification  of  the  audience, 
to  state  some  other  arguments  and  proofs.  I  opine  the  gentleman  will 
never  answer  those  now  on  hand ;  indeed,  I  feel  confident  he  cannot. 

He  has  given  us  a  few  of  the  dry  remains  of  some  old  harangues  or 
lectures  upon  total  depravity,  which  he  may  have  preached  around  th« 
country  I  know  not  how  many  times.     This  matter  is  wholly  foreign  to 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  641 

the  subject.  The  question  is  not  about  total  depravity.  I  believe  man 
is  depraved.  He  is  proving  a  proposition,  wide  as  the  breadth  of  the  heav- 
ens of  the  subject  before  us.  I  believe  that  God  presides  over  all  the 
works  of  his  hands.  But  that  is  not  the  point  of  debate  ;  nor  is  the  ques- 
tion about  what  God  can  or  cannot  do — whether  or  not  he  turns  the 
hearts  of  kings  and  mortals,  as  the  channels  of  the  rivers  or  the  seas  are 
turned.  Wliether  he  disposes  the  hearts  of  men,  without  words,  is  not 
the  question :  for  were  it  proved  that  he  can  move  kings  and  princes,  and 
men  of  all  ranks  and  degrees,  as  I  believe,  without  the  Bible,  and  without 
words,  that  reaches  not  this  issue  at  all.  The  question  before  us  is  about 
sanctification,  about  conversion.  These  are  but  sallies,  feints,  mock  as- 
saults, wholly  alien  to  the  issue.  The  question  is,  whether  God  converts 
men  to  Christ,  or  sanctifies  christians,  ivithoiit  the  truth  of  the  Bible. 
If  I  could  now  marvel  at  any  course  the  gentleman  might  adopt,  I  would 
at  his  present  singular  attitude.  Neither  as  affirmant  or  respondent  v/ill 
he  keep  to  the  Bible.  I  truly  regret  this  truckling  and  catering  to  vulgar 
prejudices — this  ad  captandum  rhetoric.  When  he  will  rise,  he  may 
tell  you  with  a  smile,  "  Well,  I  cannot  please  my  friend,  j\Ir.  Campbell, 
nor  do  I  expect  to  please  him."  Mighty  logic,  indeed  1  Unanswerable 
argument,  truly !  Alas  ! — as  my  friend  would  say — alas  !  for  the  cause 
that  depends  upon  such  logical  legerdemain  ! 

While  on  this  subject,  I  beg  leave  to  expatiate  for  a  moment  on  the 
scenes  transpiring  around  us.  I  came  here,  at  considerable  sacrifice,  to 
debate  certain  great  principles  with  the  elect  representative  of  a  respec- 
table religious  denomination,  claiming  the  advantages  of  an  elevated  cleri- 
cal character,  and  some  antiquity  in  some  of  its  tenets  and  forms.  Dur- 
ing ten  days,  I  have  carefully  observed  the  management,  the  tactics  and 
developments  of  my  respondent  and  his  party.  I  do  not  recollect  on  any 
occasion,  certainly  at  no  discussion  of  any  great  religious  question,  to 
have  noticed  so  much  homage  and  condescension  to  catch,  if  not  to  man- 
ufacture, public  opinion — and  to  set  on  foot  the  opinion  that  Mr.  R.  had 
gained  a  glorious  victory,  in  the  cause  of  immersion  at  least.  Touching 
this  love  of  partizan  triumph,  I  am  aware  that  this  is  common  to  such 
occasions ;  but  the  means  by  which  it  is  sought  on  the  present  occasion, 
really  surpass  every  thing  I  have  ever  known  or  witnessed. 

I  was,  indeed,  expecting  something  of  the  kind  ;  but  my  anticipations 
have  been  gready  transcended.  On  arriving  in  this  city,  I  asked  a  gen- 
tleman whom  I  now  see  standing  in  this  audience,  how  many  newspapers 
were  published  in  this  city,  and  by  whom,  and  to  what  parlies  the  editors 
belonged.  Being  informed  on  these  points,  the  gentleman  wished  to 
know  ray  reasons  for  making  these  inquiries.  I  responded,  that  I  simply 
desired  to  know  what  facilities  my  Presbyterian  friends  might  have  for 
manufacturing  public  opinion.  My  experience  led  me  to  expect  that  ef- 
forts of  this  kind  would  be  made ;  for,  in  my  debate  with  Mr.  McCalla, 
past  twenty  years  ago,  that  indefatigable  party  had  spared  no  pains  to 
propagate  and  circulate  a  glorious  Pedo-baptist  victory,  and  so  continued 
for  several  days,  until  Pedo-baptism  became  so  perfectly  bald  and  naked, 
that  none  seemed  disposed  to  do  it  homage.  For  at  least  two  or  three 
days,  rumors  were  sent  abroad  all  over  the  land,  that  Mr.  McCalla  had 
gloriously  maintained  the  cause.  A  reverend  gentleman,  now  in  this  as- 
sembly, one  of  the  moderators  of  that  discussion,  on  his  return  to  Flem- 
ingsburgh,  as  I  learn  from  good  authority,  very  ingeniously  explained 
the  result  of  that  discussion,  very  much  to  the  credit  of  the  party.  The 
41  3h3 


642  DEBATE  ON  THE 

excited  community,  on  hearing  of  his  arrival,  were  anxious  to  hear  his 
opinion  as  to  the  final  result.  Some  of  the  elders  of  his  church  approach- 
ing him,  said,  "  Well,  sir,  what  of  the  debate  ? — how  did  it  close  ?" 
"  Why,  sir,"  said  he,  "  Campbell  would  prove  that  a  croiv  was  white,  if  . 
you  would  listen  to  him."  This  sage  remark  saved  the  cause,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  my  reputation.  It  was  the  man  that  was  defeated,  and  not  the 
cause  of  infant  baptism. 

On  the  present  occasion,  I  learn  a  more  extended  system  has  been  got 
up.  Runners  spread  the  tidings  abroad — letters  are  written  to  distant 
places  ;  even  the  Presbyterian  press  has  proclaimed  all  over  the  land  a 
glorious  victory.  To  the  old  system  more  thoroughly  carried  out,  has, 
in  this  age  of  the  march  of  mind,  been  added  a  new  invention.  True, 
indeed,  something  like  it  in  days  of  yore,  seems  to  have  occurred  at  Drury 
Lane  and  other  London  theatres,  when  some  new  actor  was  about  to 
make  his  debut.  In  order  to  stimulate  his  energies,  and  to  manufacture 
fame,  a  few  friends  were  stationed  in  the  galleries  above,  with  a  previous 
understanding  when  to  clap,  express  their  plaudits,  and  to  encore  his 
performances.  As  an  improvement,  I  learn  a  laughing  committee  has 
been  organized,  with  a  clerical  fugleman,  at  whose  signal  certain  persons 
are  to  smile  a  little  broad,  and  thus  encourage  my  worthy  friend !  I 
have,  indeed,  in  these  particulars,  been  somewhat  disappointed.  My 
Pedo-baptist  friends  have  rather  gone  ahead  of  all  my  past  experiences 
and  expectations. 

During  the  Roman  Catholic  discussion  at  Cincinnati,  in  1836,  I  had  a 
second  lesson  in  this  school  of  experience.  A  certain  Protestant  editor, 
who  would  at  this  day  take  rank  among  Puseyites  of  the  first  class,  soon 
as  the  discussion  began,  set  on  foot  a  manufacturing  of  public  opinion- 
He  observed,  very  frankly,  one  day,  that  it  was  due  to  Protestantism  that 
should  not  triumph  over  the  bishop,  on  some  of  the  questions  at  least ;  I 
for,  said  he,  we  ought  all  to  know  that  our  bishops  stand  or  fall  with 
those  of  the  Roman  hierarchy.  "  If  Mr.  Campbell  destroys  the  succession, 
on  what  shall  we  hang  our  plea?  our  episcopacy  goes  by  the  board!" 
Still  I  was  not  prepared  for  all  that  I  have  seen,  and  read,  and  heard  on 
this  occasion.  I  had  hoped  the  dignity  of  the  discussion  and  the  solem- 
nity of  the  occasion  would  have  prevented  any  thing  of  this  sort. 

For  myself,  I  contend  for  truth,  and  not  for  victory  without  truth.  My 
prayer  is,  that  truth,  immutable,  eternal  truth,  may  prevail.  The  occa- 
sion demands  a  calm,  dignified,  religious  investigation  of  these  grand 
principles.  It  is  all-important  that  it  should  be  so.  We  are  getting  up  a 
book  for  the  public,  and  we  desire  to  give  it  to  them  without  prejudice 
and  without  bribe.  Our  motto  is,  Read,  think,  judge,  and  decide  every 
man  for  himself. 

I  did  not  come  here  to  gain  a  triumph  of  that  sort.  I  did  not  consider 
there  were  any  laurels  to  be  won,  nor  any  honors  to  be  gained  in  this 
field,  nor  from  my  present  opponent,  I  presume  no  one  of  reflection 
thinks  otherwise.  I  never  felt  more  the  dignity,  grandeur,  and  power  of 
truth  than  on  the  present  occasion.  She,  standing  erect,  with  lofty  mien, 
and  heaven-directed  eye,  deigns  not  to  use  any  other  arguments  or  to 
employ  any  other  means  than  consience,  religion,  and  the  God  of  truth  will 
sanction  and  approve.  Her  reliance  is  not  on  human  passion,  temporal 
interest,  nor  fleshly  policies  ;  but  on  solid  facts,  substantial  reasons,  and 
dignified  argumentation.  Entering  upon  a  new  week  and  upon  a  new 
subject,  I  regard  it  due  to  myself,  my  brethren,  the  public,  and  the  tri- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  643 

umphing  cause  of  Divine  Trutli,  to  offer  this  critique  upon  the  past ;  that, 
if  possible,  we  may  redeem  time  and  proceed  in  a  manner  more  worthy 
of  ourselves  and  the  cause  we  advocate.  To  proceed,  then,  to  the  sub- 
ject offered  by  Mr.  Rice  in  his  last  speech. 

Human  depravity  and  special  providence  are  not  the  topics  on  hand. 
The  gendeman  must  reply  to  me  or  admit  that  he  cannot.  It  is  my  duty 
noAV  to  lead,  and  his  to  follow,  if  he  can.  Meantime,  I  have  nothing  to 
defend,  and  nothing  to  do  in  further  maintaining  my  position — it  seems  to 
be  established.  I  will,  therefore,  make  some  remarks  on  the  gentleman's 
use  of  my  writings.  I  do  not  shrink  from  the  discussion  of  any  thing  I 
have  ever  written  on  this  subject.  Yet  it  would  be  more  than  human, 
more  than  any  mortal  man  has  yet  achieved,  if,  in  twenty  years'  MTiting, 
and  in  issuing  one  magazine  of  forty-eight  octavo  pages  every  month, 
written  both  at  home  and  abroad,  in  steamboats,  hotels,  and  in  the  houses 
of  my  private  friends  and  brethren ;  I  should  have  so  carefully,  definitely, 
and  congruously  expressed  myself  on  every  occasion,  on  these  much  con- 
troverted subjects,  as  to  furnish  no  occasion  to  our  adversaries  to  extract  a 
sentence  or  a  passage  which,  when  put  into  their  crucible  and  mixed  with 
other  ingredients,  might  not  be  made  to  appear  somewhat  different  from 
itself,  and  myself,  and  my  other  writings.  To  seal  the  lips  of  cavilling 
sectarians  and  captious  priests,  is  a  natural  impossibility.  The  Great 
Teacher  himself  could  not,  at  least  he  did  not  do  it. 

I  state  it  as  a  fact  somewhat  curious,  that  for  several  years  I  have  not 
looked  over  my  first  volumes  ;  nor  do  I,  when  about  to  write  upon  a  sub- 
ject, feel  it  necessary  to  examine  all  that  I  have  previously  said  about  it. 
I  am  at  no  such  pains  to  prevent  contradictions,  real  or  apparent.  The 
secret  is,  I  have,  like  the  four  cardinal  points,  certain  grand  principles 
clearly  defined  and  solidly  fixed  in  my  own  mind.  These  I  cannot  for- 
get nor  contradict.  I  can  aifirm,  off-hand,  what  I  have  not  written,  if  I 
cannot  always  say  what  I  have  written.  I  cannot  contradict  these  funda- 
mentals— they  are  sternly  fixed  in  my  mind.  As  the  first  principle  of 
mathematics  can  never  be  forgotten,  nor  lost  sight  of,  while  the  mind  is 
master  of  itself;  so  the  grand  fundamental  principles  of  Christianity  can 
never  be  forgotten  by  him  Avho  has  once  clearly  apprehended  and  sin- 
cerely embraced  them.  We  may  not,  however,  always  express  ourselves 
with  equal  clearness  and  precision. 

As  respects  the  passages  read  from  Christianity  Restored,  I  will  say 
that  the  gentleman  has  very  greatly  misrepresented  me.  I  was  explain- 
ing what  is  usually  called  moral  power  in  contradistinction  from  physical 
power,  or  what  some  call  spiritual  power,  as  defined  by  some  of  our 
schoolmen.  Physical  force  and  the  power  of  motives  are  very  different 
things.  Reasons,  containing  motives,  constitute  the  elements  and  materi- 
als of  all  moral,  converting  or  sanctifying  power,  so  far  as  known  to 
man.  God's  power  is  omnipotent,  but  it  is  consistent  with  himself  and 
itself.  The  gospel,  Paul  says,  is  '■'■the  poiver  of  God  unto  salvation.^' 
Hence  the  moral  omnipotence  of  God  is  in  the  document  called  the  gos- 
pel. God's  moral  power  is  infinitely  superior  to  ours.  Vet  all  that 
power  is  in  the  gospel,  and  this  is  all  we  mean  by  all  the  converting 
power  being  in  the  Word  of  God.  God  may  employ  other  means,  other 
power,  if  you  please,  in  converting  men ;  but  nothing  finally  converts 
them  but  the  light  and  love  of  God  in  the  gospel. 

Every  word  of  God  has  life  in  it.  If  I  might  explain  myself  by  one 
of  the  divine  metaphors: — Tlie  seed,  said  Jesus,  is  the  JVord  of  God. 


644  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Now  everv  grain  of  wheat,  sound  and  good,  has  life,  in  it ;  but  it  must  be 
placed  in  a  soil  and  under  circumstances  favorable  to  its  development.  It 
■will  not  gerniinate  nor  grow  but  under  those  circumstances.  Hence, 
when  the  Word  of  God  is  sown  in  the  heart,  it  will  grow  and  develop 
itself  in  all  the  fruits  of  righteousness  and  holiness.  The  question  is  not, 
how  it  is  sown,  how  it  gets  into  the  heart ;  but  the  question  is,  as  to  the 
power  developed  and  exhibited  when  there.  Whenever  the  seed  of  the 
Word  is  planted  in  the  moral  constitution  of  man,  1  believe  it  will  vege^ 
tate,  grow,  blossom,  and  fructify  unto  eternal  life. 

With  Mr.  Rice  conversion  and  sanctification  seem  to  be  by  the  Spirit 
alone.  If  this  be  so  in  one  case,  it  is  so  in  all  cases.  This  is  one  of  my 
main  arguments ;  for,  as  before  affirmed,  whatever  will  produce  one  ear 
of  corn  will  produce  an  indefinite  number ;  seeing  that  all  that  is  essential 
in  any  one  case,  is  essential,  neither  more  nor  less,  in  every  other  case. 
So  observation  and  experience  testify  in  all  vegetable  and  animal  products. 
Is  it  not  so,  also,  in  the  spiritual  ?  If  the  Bible  is  to  be  our  only  guide, 
that  it  is  so,  can  be  made  most  evident.  It  is  thus  that  we  use  and  apply 
those  offensive  words,  that  all  the  converting  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  in  the  Word.  All  the  motives,  arguments,  and  persuasions  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  found  in  the  record.  He  uses  no  other  in  the  work  of 
conversion,  or  in  the  work  of  sanctification.  "  Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth."  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul.'"  So 
far  as  moral  influence  is  concerned  there  is  none  besides,  none  beyond 
this. 

If  there  be  any  other  moral  or  spiritual  influence  in  the  new  creation 
of  man,  we  call  for  the  testimony  and  the  definition  of  it.  If  the  Lord 
converts,  sanctifies,  and  saves  an  infant  without  the  Word,  the  gospel  of 
Christ — sanctification  or  conversion,  then,  is  independent  of  the  Word; 
and  seeing  it  is  so,  the  Word  ceases  to  be  the  means  of  grace  and  of  conver- 
sion. The  fact  that  whatever  is  essential  to  one  product,  whether  ani- 
mal, vegetable,  intellectual,  moral  or  spiritual,  is  essential  to  every  other 
result  of  the  same  kind,  will  one  day  explode  this  mystic,  unintelligible, 
unscriptural  jargon,  which  makes  void  and  of  non-effect  the  Word  of  the 
living  God. 

The  doctrine  which  I  oppose,  so  far  as  it  is  really  believed  and  acted 
upon,  neutralizes  preaching,  annuls  the  Bible,  and  perfectly  annihilates 
human  responsibility.  I  know  of  no  doctrine  more  fatal.  For  if  God, 
by  some  mysterious  power,  without  light,  knowledge,  a  new  idea,  view 
or  reflection,  touch  the  soul  of  A,  B,  or  C,  and  make  it  holy  by  "  infu- 
sing a  holy  principle,"  if  he  does  this  without  any  thought,  motive,  or 
argument,  instantaneously  and  immediately,  what  comes  of  the  doctrine 
of  human  responsibility !  Of  what  use  is  preaching,  or  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  or  any  instrumentality  whatever ! !  While,  then,  I  believe 
and  teach,  and  rejoice  in  the  presence,  and  power,  and  positive  influence 
of  God's  Spirit  in  the  work  of  conversion  and  sanctification;  I  do  repu- 
diate a  doctrine  full  of  desolation — which  makes  man  a  mere  machine, 
annihilates  all  rational  liberty,  destroys  human  responsibility,  and  makes 
the  Word  of  God  a  mere  superfluity,  of  no  essential  importance,  of  no 
salutary  instrumentality  in  the  great  work  of  regeneration. — [^Time  ex- 
pired 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  645 

Monday,  Nov.  27— 12§  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President — 1  have  had  some  little  experience  in  public  debates ; 
and  I  have  uniformly  observed,  that  when  men  find  themselves  pressed 
with  arguments  which  they  are  conscious  of  being  unable  to  answer,  thel' 
€fiort  is  to  induce  the  audience  to  believe  that  their  opponents  are  saying 
absolutely  nothing  to  the  point.  Such,  as  you  are  aware,  has  been  the 
course  pursued  by  my  opponent  from  the  commencement  of  this  discus- 
sion. Fearful  that  the  audience,  in  their  simplicity,  would  believe  that  his 
arguments  had  been  answered,  and  his  doctrine  overthrown,  he  has  again 
and  again  most  solemnly  asseverated,  as  if  divinely  commissioned,  that  I 
had  advanced  not  an  argument,  had  said  not  one  word  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject before  us.  Such  are  the  means  by  which  he  vainly  seeks,  in  his 
trouble,  to  save  a  sinking  cause.  Such  are  the  means  to  which  it  is  com- 
mon for  men  to  resort,  when  defending  a  bad  cause. 

But  the  gentleman  has,  at  length,  put  forth  his  high  decree,  that  Mr. 
Rice  must  follow  him,  or  confess  that  he  cannot.  And  it  is  now  time  for 
me  to  say  to  Mr.  Campbell  distinctly,  that  we  have  moderators,  whose 
business  it  is  to  determine  when  I  am  out  of  order,  to  whose  decisions  I 
shall  cheerfully  submit;  but  that  Mr.  Campbell  cannot  moderate  me.  To 
his  dictation  I  most  assuredly  will  not  submit. 

His  statements  concerning  my  previous  course  in  this  discussion,  are 
not  true,  I  will  not  say,  that  he  knows  them  to  be  untrue.  I  will  not 
violate  the  rules  of  this  discussion,  and  of  common  courtesy,  as  he  has  re- 
peatedly done,  by  throwing  out  against  him  personal  imputations ;  but  I 
will  say,  he  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  submit  to  the  Moderators  whether  I  have  violated  the 
rules  o^  this  discussion. 

Mr.  Rice.  I  will,  then,  mention  some  of  his  expressions:  "licentious- 
ness of  the  tongue;" — "base  aspersion,"  &c. 

Mr.  Campbell.  If  I  say,  an  author  has  written  a  base  aspersion,  does 
thi.-^  involve  the  moral  character  of  my  opponent? 

Coi.  Speed  Smith.  I  understood  the  expression,  "base  aspersion,"  to 
be  used  concerning  the  author  read  ? 

Mr.  Rice.  I  read  only  two  authors,  Perrin  and  Jones.  Perrin  wrote 
a  hundred  years  before  Jones,  and,  therefore,  could  not  have  written 
against  him  a  base  aspersion.     The  charge  was  against  myself. 

Mr.  Campbell.     It  was  Faber  to  whom  I  referred,  and  not  Perrin. 

M;-.  Rice.  I  have  never  seen  any  thing  from  Faber  on  this  subject.  I 
read  the  paragraph  from  Perrin,  and  compared  Jones'  quotation  with  the 
original;  proving,  that  whilst  he  professed  to  quote  Perrin,  he  omitted 
what  related  to  infant  baptism.     The  gentleman  cannot  escape. 

When  a  man  so  accustomed  to  debate  as  Mr.  Campbell,  and  so  remark- 
able for  his  coolness  and  self-possession,  displays  so  much  temper,  as  the 
audience  witnessed  in  his  last  speech,  there  is  sad  evidence  that  something 
is  wrong.  Men  do  not  ordinarily  lose  their  temper,  when  successful  in 
argument,  I  will  not  now  detain  to  reply  to  his  singular  assertions  con- 
cerning my  course  in  this  discussion.  I  A-erily  believe,  that  the  sole  cause 
of  his  trouble  is,  that  I  adhere  too  closely  to  the  point.  Every  argument 
I  have  advanced  bears  directly  on  the  subject  in  debate,  unless  when  I  am 
diverted  from  it,  in  pursuit  of  my  opponent. 

He,  of  course,  expects  you  to  believe,  that  he  never  wanders  from  the 
subject.     Yet  a  part  of  his  first  speech  was  against  infant  baptism!     The 


646  DEBATE  ON  THE 

argument,  I  presume,  would  be  this :  Infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized ; 
therefore  the  Spirit,  in  conversion  and  sanctificalion,  operates  only  through 
the  truth  ! !  He  is  always  in  order — precisely  to  the  point !  All  this  is 
very  easily  understood. 

His  statements  concerning  the  debate  with  McCalla — the  runners  who 
proclaimed  victory,  &c.,  require  proof.  JMoreover,  the  assertion  that  Mc- 
Calla was  defeated,  needs  to  be  proved.  I  also  desire  some  evidence  that 
Mr.  Burch,  one  of  the  moderators,  made  the  remark  charged  upon  him. 
I  have  the  very  best  reason  for  asserting  that  it  is  not  true.  No  doubt  Mr. 
Campbell  has  been  so  informed  ;  but  when  he  makes  statements  that  are 
to  be  stereotyped,  and  go  forth  to  be  read  by  thousands,  he  is  solemnly 
bound  to  have  his  proof  at  hand.  Who  does  not  know,  that  thousands  of 
rumors  get  afloat  on  such  occasions,  Avhich  have  absolutely  no  foundation 
in  truth?  The  gentleman  really  seems  to  have  greedily  swallowed  all 
that  his  friends  and  his  flatterers  told  him  ;  and  hence  he  found  no  diffi- 
culty in  believing  that  every  body  ascribed  to  him  a  glorious  victory. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  subject  under  discussion  ?  Quite 
as  much,  no  doubt,  as  his  ad  r,aptandum  closing  speech  on  Saturday  had 
to  do  with  the  administrator  of  baptism.  To  prove,  of  course,  how 
closely  he  always  adheres  to  the  subject  in  debate,  he  gave  us  a  long 
harangue  about  going  for  faith  to  Geneva,  to  Westminster,  to  Rome,  &c. ! 
So  now  he  has  given  us  a  variety  of  statements,  none  of  which  are  true, 
about  my  mode  of  conducting  the  discussion;  the  debate  with  McCalla; 
manufacturing  public  sentiment,  &c. — all,  of  course,  to  prove,  that  in  con- 
version and  sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth  ! ! 

In  reading  the  gentleman's  writings  for  the  purpose  of  having  his  views 
distinctly  before  the  audience,  I  was  acting  precisely  in  accordance  with 
our  written  agreement,  as  the  correspondence  will  show.  I  was  not  pleas- 
ed with  the  wording  of  the  proposition  now  undor  discussion ;  and  I 
agreed  to  debate  it  Avith  the  distinct  understanding  and  agreement  on  his 
part,  that  I  would  appeal  to  his  writings  in  determining  its  true  meaning. 
But  I  discover,  that  he  is  never  so  much  out  of  temper,  as  when  I  read  to 
the  audience  from  his  own  works  ! 

But  the  gentleman,  in  his  excitement,  told  you,  that  I  was  delivermg 
to  you  the  dry  remains  of  old  harangues  which  had  been  delivered  he 
knew  not  how  often.  This  he  asserts  as  a  fact.  Now,  pray,  how  does 
he  know  ?  What  are  we  to  think  of  a  man  who  will  stand  up  and  boldly 
assert  facts,  of  the  truth  of  which  he  cannot  have  evidence  ? 

But  he  tells  the  audience,  as  usual,  that  his  arguments  have  not  been 
answered.  Let  us  see  whether  they  have  or  not.  True,  I  did  not 
choose  to  number  them,  one,  two,  three,  &c.;  but  they  have  been  effect- 
ually answered. 

His  first  argument  to  prove,  that  there  can  be  no  divine  influence  on 
the  human  mind,  except  words  and  arguments,  was  based  on  his  notion 
concerning  its  nature  and  constitution.  This  I  was  under  no  obligation 
to  answer.  If  he  will  produce  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  to  sustain  his 
doctrine,  I  will  at  once  yield  the  point ;  but  I  am  not  concerned  to  an- 
swer a  long  metaphysical  argument,  based  on  what  lie  conceives  to  be  the 
constitution  of  the  mind.  He  has  professedly  repudiated  human  philoso- 
phy, and  taken  the  Bible  alone  as  his  guide ;  and  yet,  in  the  discussion 
of  a  scriptural  doctrine,  he  hurries  us  immediately  into  the  dark  regions 
of  metaphysical  speculation !  Does  the  Bible  say,  that  such  is  the  con- 
stitution of  the  human  mind,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  can  exert  over  it  no 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  047 

moral  influence,  except  by  words  and  arguments  ?  Mr.  Campbell's  phi- 
losophy says  so ;  but  where  is  the  passage  in  God's  word,  that  does  so 
teach  ? 

Now  although  I  was  under  no  obligation  to  answer  such  an  argument, 
I  did  expose  it  by  presenting  the  simple  and  indisputable  fact,  that 
originally  God  did  create  man  holy,  and  that  he  did  it  without  words  and 
arguments.  I  also  proved  by  the  Scriptures,  that  God  in  his  providence 
can  and  does  exert  a  controlling  influence  over  the  moral  conduct  of  men 
by  his  Spirit,  and  not  simply  or  mainly  by  argument  and  motive.  These 
simple  and  incontrovertible  Bible  facts  demolish  effectually  his  fine-spun 
metaphysical  argument,  written  out  with  so  much  labor. 

His  second  argument  was,  that  there  are  among  pagans,  who  have  not 
the  Bible,  no  spiritual  ideas.  This  was  answered  by  showing,  that,  ac- 
cording to  our  views,  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  designed  to 
communicate  new  ideas,  but  to  enlighten  the  mind  by  removing  sin,  the 
cause  of  its  blindness,  that  it  may  see,  in  their  true  light,  the  truths  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures.     The  gentleman  could  not  hear  my  reply. 

His  third  argument  Avas,  that  whatever  is  essential  to  regeneration  in 
one  case,  is  essential  in  all  eases ;  and,  therefore,  if  the  Word  of  Truth  is 
necessary  in  any  case,  it  is  necessary  in  all.  This  was  fully  answered 
by  proving,  that  God  has  never  limited  himself  in  the  bestowment  of  his 
blessings,  to  any  particular  means  and  instrumentalities.  Ordinarily  he 
has  given  his  people  food  in  the  use  of  means  ;  but  when  they  have  been 
placed  in  circumstances  where  means  could  not  be  employed,  as  in  their 
journey  through  the  wilderness,  he  has  fed  them  without  me;ins.  Wlien 
the  multitudes  were  with  the  Savior  in  a  desert  place,  he  gave  them  bread 
miraculously.  So  when  infants  are  called  from  earth  before  they  can  be 
sanctified  through  the  truth,  they  are  sanctified  without  it.  Surely  if  God 
would  feed  the  bodies  of  his  people  without  the  oriiinary  means,  he 
would  not  refuse  to  the  soul  of  an  infant  the  bread  of  life.  The  soul  is 
worth  infinitely  more  than  the  body,  and  eternal  life  than  the  temporal. 
Such  was  my  reply  to  his  third  argument;  and  I  regard  it  as  perfectly 
conclusive. 

His  fourth  argument  was,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  addressed  ivords 
and  arguments  to  men.  This  is  true ;  but  does  this  fact  prove,  tliat  in 
conversion  and  sanctification  he  operates  only  through  the  truth?  He 
can  easily  prove,  that  ordinarily  the  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth; 
but  he  cannot  prove,  that  he  operates  only  through  the  truth.  Yet  this 
is  precisely  what  he  has  undertaken  to  prove.  His  proof,  therefore,  falls 
very  far  short  of  his  proposition. 

His  fifth  argument  was,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  an  advocate.  This 
is  but  a  repetition  of  the  other.  But  as  an  advocate,  does  he  influence 
the  mind  only  by  words  and  arguments  ?  The  gentleman  has  not  produced 
a  passage  of  Scripture,  which  so  teaches.  He  boasts,  that  for  every  arti- 
cle of  his  faith  he  has  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  Has  he,  I  ask  vou,  my 
friends,  produced  one  passage  of  Scripture  that  sustains  his  proposition  ? 
He  has  not,  and  he  cannot.  Yet  he  has  heaped  on  me  no  slight  reproach 
and  abuse,  because,  as  he  pretends,  I  did  not  answer  all  his  metaphysics  ! 

Before  proceeding  farther  in  the  regular  course  of  argument,  I  must 
make  a  few  remarks  which  I  forgot  at  the  proper  time.  The  gendeman, 
in  the  recklessness  of  despair,  has  charged  the  Presbyterians  of  this 
community  with  attempting  by  unfair  means  to  manufacture  public  senti- 
ment against  him.     The  charge  is  not  true — not  a  word  of  truth  in  it. 


648  DEBATE  ON  THE 

If  he  believes  what  he  has  said,  it  only  proves,  that  a  man  in  trouble  can 
persuade  himself  to  believe  the  greatest  absurdities.  The  truth  is,  my 
friends  ha\'e  been  more  than  satisfied  with  the  expression  of  public  senti- 
ment relative  to  this  debate.  So  clear,  so  strong,  so  unanimous  has  been 
the  verdict  against  him,  by  the  crowds  of  intelligent  persons  of  all  classes, 
of  diflerent  denominations  and  of  no  denomination,  that  they  have  had 
no  temptation  to  seek  to  change  it.  I  rejoice  that  such  is  the  power  of 
truth,  that  it  and  not  Presbyterians,  has  made  public  sentiment  what  it  is. 
I  would  not  have  it  changed.     I  am  more  than  satisfied. 

But  Mr.  C.  goes  not  for  victory.  I  wish  he  would.  I  am  anxious  to 
see  his  gigantic  powers  brought  fully  to  bear  on  the  subject.  It  may  be 
true,  as  he  fretfully  intimates,  that  he  cannot  gain  very  great  fame  by 
triumphing  over  one  so  feeble  as  your  humble  servant;  but  it  is  also  true, 
that  he  may  gain  the  more  disgrace  by  failing,  as  he  evidently  has,  to 
sustain  himself.  What  opinion  will  the  public  form  of  the  strength  of  his 
cause,  when  he,  who  would  affect  to  look  down  with  contempt  upon  men 
of  ordinary  powers,  fails  to  sustain  it.  What  must  be  thought  of  this 
boasted  reformation,  and  of  its  invincible  champion,  when  both  sink  un- 
der the  feeble  strokes  of  a  mere  pigmy ! !  It  is  truly  cause  for  alarm, 
if,  surrounded  and  sustained  by  almost  an  hundred  of  his  preachers,  and 
crowds  of  his  people,  who  came  to  this  place  in  the  most  confident  ex- 
pectation of  a  complete  triumph,  he  cannot  keep  public  sentiment  from 
going  strongly  against  him  !  Alas,  for  this  vaunted  reformation ! 

It  would  appear,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  gentleman,  that  I  misrepre- 
sented him  by  reading  his  own  book.  He  says,  he  maintains,  that  moral 
power  is  exerted  only  by  words  and  arguments ;  but  he  makes  a  distinc- 
tion between  moral  power  and  purely  spiritual  power.  I  will  again  read 
from  Ciiristianity  Restored,  (pp.  347,  349,)  and  leave  the  audience  to 
judge  whether  I  misrepresented  him. 

•'  We  have  tv*"o  sorts  of  power,  physical  and  moral.  By  the  former  we 
operate  upon  matter ;  by  the  latter  upon  mind.  To  put  matter  in  motion 
we  use  physical  power,  whether  we  call  it  animal  or  scientific  power ;  to 
put  mind  in  motion  we  use  arguments,  or  motives  addressed  to  the  reason 
and  nature  of  man.  *  *  *  Every  spirit  puts  its  moral  power  in  words ; 
that  is,  all  the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners  or  actions  of 
men,  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangement  of  its  ideas  expressed  in  words,  or 
significant  signs  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear." 

Again : 

■••  No  other  power  than  moral  power  can  operate  on  minds  ;  and  this 
power  must  always  be  clothed  in  words  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  Thus 
we  reason  when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when  we  think 
of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted  upon  minds  or  human  spirits,  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  imagine  that  that  power  can  consist  in  any  thing  else 
but  words  and  arguments.  Thus,  in  the  nature  of  things,  we  are  prepared 
to  expect  verbal  commun-.cations  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that  Spirit  ope- 
rates at  all  on  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every  man  is  in  his  argu- 
ments, so  is  the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  arguments." 

Now,  observe,  the  gentleman  tells  us,  we  have  only  two  kinds  of 
power,  viz.  physical  and  moral;  and  he  asserts,  that  no  other  power 
than  moral  povv'er  can  operate  on  minds.  He  further  affirms,  that  every 
spirit  puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words;  that  as  the  moral  power  of 
every  man  is  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  in  his  arguments,  which  must  be  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  I 
gave  you  the  doctrine  precisely  as  he  has  himself  stated  it.  If  he  will 
say  that  he  was  in  error  when  he  wrote  this  book,  we  will  certainly  ad- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  549 

itiit  ihat  iie  has  the  right  to  change ;  and  since  he  is  accustomed  to 
change,  it  cannot  injure  him  much.  I  once  heard  of  a  Dutchman  and  an 
Irishman  who  had  been  condemned  to  be  hanged,  and  were  in  the  same 
prison.  The  Irishman  was  gready  bewading  his  fate.  The  Dutchman 
reproached  him  for  his  cowardice.  Ah,  said  the  Irishman,  ye're  used  to 
it.     Mr.  C.  is  used  to  changing. 

I  must  occasionally  illustrate  a  point  by  an  anecdote,  since  the  gentleman 
has  charged  me  with  having  a  "  a  laughing  committee"  here ;  or  they 
will  have  nothing  to  do.  He  has  dealt  out  to  this  imaginary  committee, 
which  must  be  large,  quite  a  lecture  for  their  unworthy  employment ! 

Let  it  be  understood,  that  he  has  asserted,  that  only  moral  power  can 
be  exerted  on  mind,  and  that  all  the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  must  be 
put  forth  in  words  and  arguments.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  that 
"  if  the  Spirit  of  God  has  spoken  all  its  arguments  ;  or,  if  the  New  and 
Old  Testaments  contain  all  the  arguments  which  can  be  offered  to  recon- 
cile man  to  God,  and  to  purify  them  who  are  reconciled,  then  all  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ivhich  can  operate  upon  the  human  mind.,  is 
SPENT  ;  and  he  that  is  not  sanctified  and  saved  by  these,  cannot  be  saved 
by  angels  or  spirits,  human  or  divine." — lb.  p.  350.  If  all  the  convert- 
ing power  of  the  Spirit  is  spent,  there  is,  of  course,  no  further  influence 
that  he  can  exert  to  save  man. 

The  gentleman,  either  to  illustrate  or  to  prove  his  doctrine,  told  us  that 
a  grain  of  Avheat  or  of  corn,  has  life  in  it,  and  that  when  it  is  placed  in  the 
earth,  it  will  grow ;  and  so  the  Word  of  God,  the  seed,  when  it  gets  into 
man's  moral  nature,  will  bring  forth  fruit.  But  the  Avheat  and  the  corn 
will  not  grow  without  the  heat  of  the  sun  and  rain ;  and  man  cannot  cre- 
ate either  the  one  or  the  other.  I  am  pleased  with  the  illustration ;  lor 
the  Scriptures  teach,  that  though  "  Paul  planteth,  and  Apollos  watereth, 
God  giveth  the  increase."  In  conversion  and  sanctilication,  there  is  a 
work  for  man  and  a  work  for  God  ;  and  he  who  rejects  God's  part  of  the 
work,  must  be  forever  undone. 

The  gentleman  objects  to  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend,  that  it 
makes  the  Word  of  God  wholly  unnecessary.  Light  cannot  heal  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  man,  nor  open  tlie  eyes  of  him  who  hates  it.  But  is 
light  therefore  worthless  ?  Light  is  the  medium  through  which  objects 
are  seen;  but  if  my  eyes  are  diseased,  the  light,  however  brightly  it  may- 
shine,  cannot  cause  me  to  see.  But  let  my  eyes  be  healed,  and  then  I 
can  see  by  means  of  the  light.  As  the  light  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
vision,  though  it  cannot  cause  the  blind  to  see,  so  is  the  gospel  necessary, 
though  alone  it  cannot  purify  the  depraved  heart. 

Again,  Mr.  Campbell  objects  that  the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  influ- 
ence in  conversion  and  sanctiflcation,  destroys  the  accountability  of  man. 
That  this  objection  is  wholly  unfounded,  is  perfectly  plain.  Man  is  a  free 
moral  agent.  In  view  of  motives,  he  freely  chooses  and  refuses.  But 
his  heart,  as  Solomon  says,  "  is  set  in  him  to  do  evil."  In  the  exercise 
of  his  freedom,  he  deliberately  chooses  to  sin.  Is  he  then  a  mere  ma- 
chine? But  God  works  in  him  to  will  and  to  do — inclines  him  to 
turn  from  sin  to  holiness.  Is  his  free  agency  thus  destroyed?  Cannot 
God  incline  the  sinner  to  the  path  of  righteousness,  without  interfering 
with  his  freedom  and  accountability  ?  The  gentleman  would  have  us  be- 
lieve, that  he  never  makes  assertions  Avithout  adducing  the  proof.  I  ven- 
ture to  say,  that  he  cannot  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  nor  an  acknowl- 
edged principle  of  mental  philosophy,  by  which  to  sustain  his  objection. 

31 


650  DEBATE  ON  THE 

When  I  closed  my  last  speeeh,  I  was  proving  that  Mr.  Campbell's 
doctrine  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  infants  and  idiots.  He 
admits  their  native  depravity.  He  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified 
without  the  truth.  We  know  that  they  cannot  receive  the  truth  ;  conse- 
quently they  must  die  in  their  depravity  ;  and  wherever  they  may  go, 
certain  it  is  that  they  cannot  go  to  heaven.  He  may  express  the  opinion, 
that  they  may  be  saved,  but  his  opinion  contradicts  his  doctrine.  There 
is  no  way  of  escaping  the  difficulty,  but  by  abandoning  the  doctrine.  He 
cannot  answer  the  argument — it  admits  of  no  answer. 

But  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  the  necessity  of  regeneration  in  the 
case  of  infants,  as  well  as  of  adults.  Our  Savior  said  to  Nicodemus, 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit," — John  iii.  6.  Infants,  it  will  be  admitted,  are  born  of 
the  flesh ;  consequently  they  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  they  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  By  the  natural  birth,  they  are  sinful ; 
by  the  spiritual  birth,  they  become  holy.  But  if,  as  Mr.  C.  teaches,  in- 
fants cannot  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  they  cannot  be  saved. 

He  complains,  that  I  do  not  follow  him  in  his  train  of  remark,  as  the 
respondent  should  follow  the  affirmant.  Whether  I  will  follow  him  or 
not,  depends  very  much  on  the  course  he  takes.  Every  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture which  he  may  adduce  in  support  of  his  doctrine,  I  will  notice  ;  but, 
in  his  metaphysical  dissertations,  I  shall  not  feel  bound  to  follow  him. 

HI.  My  third  argument  against  his  doctrine  is — that  it  contradicts  the 
doctrine  of  human  depravity,  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures  :  for,  if  his  doc- 
trine is  true,  men  sin  only  through  ignorance  or  mistake.  All  that  is  ne- 
cessary in  order  to  convert  and  sanctify  those,  at  least,  who  ever  will  be 
saved,  is,  according  to  Mr.  C,  simply  to  teach  them  the  truth — to  present 
before  their  minds  words  and  arguments.  Only  teach  them  the  truth,  and 
they  will  turn  and  serve  God,  and  go  to  heaven.  Why,  then,  did  they 
not  sooner  turn  ?  Because  they  were  laboring  under  mistaken  notions. 
They  had  adopted  erroneous  views  of  the  character  of  God,  of  his  law, 
and  his  gospel !  All  that  is  necessary,  therefore,  according  to  this  doc- 
trine, is  to  correct  their  mistakes. 

This  doctrine,  I  say,  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  Let  us  examine 
a  few  passages,  which  prove  clearly,  that  men  do  not  sin  simply  through 
mistake,  but  wilfully.  Eccl.  viii.  11:"  Because  sentence  against  an  evil 
work  is  not  executed  speedily,  therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  fully 
set  in  them  to  do  evil."  Ch.  ix.  3  :  "  Yea,  also,  the  heart  of  the  sons  of 
men  is  full  of  evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  heart  while  they  live,  and  after 
that  they  go  to  the  dead."  Ps.  x.  4  :  "  The  wicked,  through  the  pride  of 
his  countenance,  will  not  seek  after  God  :  God  is  not  in  all  his  thoughts." 
The  reception  with  which  the  gospel  meets  among  men,  is  set  forth  in  a 
parable  by  our  Savior,  in  which  he  says,  "  And  they  all  with  one  consent 
began  to  make  excuse," — Luke  xiv.  18.  Paul  accounts  for  all  the  abom- 
inations of  the  heathens,  by  saying,  "And  even  as  they  did  not  like  to  re- 
tain God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind," 
Rom.  i.  28. 

These  scriptures  and  many  others,  teach  most  distincfly,  that  men  sin, 
not  because  they  are  ignorant  or  are  under  mistaken  impressions,  but 
knowingly,  wilfully,  deliberately — that  their  actual  transgressions  flow 
from  a  corrupt  and  rebellious  disposition.  It  is  true,  that  men  do  fall  into 
error ;  but  it  is  not  so  much  the  error  that  causes  them  to  sin,  as  it  is  sin 
that  causes  thera  to  err.     Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  proves  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  651 

depravity  of  the  heathen,  first,  by  their  errors  in  belief,  and  secondly,  by 
their  immoralities  in  practice.  The  former  affords  as  decided  evidence 
of  a  sinful  disposition  as  the  latter.  If  a  man  stumble  over  every  thing 
in  his  way  in  daylight,  we  know  that  he  is  blind.  So  if  any  man  with 
the  Bible  in  his  hand,  err  fundamentally,  we  know  that  a  sinful  heart  has 
blinded  him. 

The  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  makes  men,  at  least  those  who  will  ever  be 
saved,  sin  only  through  mistake.  The  Scriptures  teach,  that  they  sin 
knowingly,  wilfully,  and  deliberately.  His  theory,  therefore,  contradicts 
the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  human  depravity.  It  is,  there- 
fore, false. 

I  fear  I  shall  look  at  my  watch  too  often  for  the  comfort  of  my  friend ; 
but  I  do  not  like  to  commence  a  new  argument,  when  my  time  is  near 
out.     So  I  will,  for  the  present,  close. 

[Here  Mr.  Campbell  arose  and  said :  I  beg  the  decision  of  the  modera- 
tors upon  the  point,  whether  the  respondent  is  not  bound,  according  to  the 
established  usage  of  debate,  to  answer  and  respond  to  such  matters  as  may 
be  advanced  by  the  affirmant. 

One  of  the  moderators  then  arose  and  remarked  as  follows :  It  is  the 
most  appropriate  mode  of  procedure  for  the  affirmant  to  open  his  ground 
of  debate  with  such  arguments  as  he  may  be  able  to  adduce,  and  for  the 
respondent  to  notice  those  grounds;  but  in  his  own  way.  The  object  of 
each  is  to  prove  his  own  position ;  but  he  must  do  it  in  his  own  mode. 
Men's  minds  are  differently  constituted.  Their  reasoning  faculties  run  m 
different  channels ;  and  while  one  is  making  an  argument,  the  other  may 
suppose  that  he  is  evasive,  and  his  remarks  not  appropriate :  while  the 
party  replying  may  deem  them  perfecdy  so.  All  that  we  can  decide  is, 
whether  or  not  the  parties  indulge  in  extraneous  or  irrelevant  matter. 

Mr.  Campbell.  Is  it  not  usual  for  the  respondent  to  reply  in  some  way 
or  other  to  the  matter  presented  by  the  affirmant? 

Moderator.  It  is  certainly  expected  that  he  will  notice  the  matter  pre- 
sented by  the  affirmant. 

Another  moderator  remarked,  that  it  had  devolved  upon  him  to  offer  a 
few  words  with  reference  to  the  course  of  procedure  thus  far.  He  had  on 
several  occasions  observed  the  boundaries  of  good  order  to  have  been  very 
■nearly  trodden  upon;  but  it  was  always  unpleasant,  on  such  an  occasion, 
to  check  the  speaker ;  and,  though  he  had  been  more  than  once  upon  the 
point  of  striking,  when,  by  an  explanation  from  the  speaker  the  debate 
had  been  permitted  to  proceed.  If  he  might  be  indulged  in  the  sugges- 
tion, he  would  here  intimate  the  propriety  of  avoiding,  in  future,  every 
thing  of  a  personal  character :  and  he  trusted  that  they  would  be  able  to 
get  along  without  again  touching  so  nearly  upon  the  line. 

The  former  moderator  said,  he  would  add  another  suggestion.  He 
thought  as  if,  generally,  the  debatants  had  conducted  themselves  with  great 
propriety  and  decorum,  which,  to  the  moderators,  had  been  highly  gratify- 
ing. It  could  not  be  denied,  however,  that  on  some  occasions  there  had 
been  digressions  from  the  true  line  of  logical  argumentation ;  and  he  would 
add,  that  these  things  would  never  do  good,  and  that  such  matter  would 
not  look  well  in  print.  The  propositions  should  alone  be  considered,  and 
nothing  but  authorities  and  argument  ought  to  be  introduced  into  the 
discussion. 

Mr.  Fishback  said,  as  a  friend,  he  would  recommend  the  reading  of 
the  rules. 


652  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Mr.  Campbell.  Under  these  rules  I  have  thought  that  my  friend  was 
out  of  order,  in  upbraiding  me  with  the  consequpnces  of  a  doctrine  which 
I  do  not  teach.  If  I  understood,  he  ascribes  to  my  teacliing  the  conse- 
quences of  sending  infants  to  hell ;  which  I  have  ascribed  to  those  cruel 
decrees. 

Mr.  Rice.  I  have  stated,  that  I  did  not  charge  upon  my  friend  with 
actually  holding  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation. 

Moderator.  We  cannot  decide  whether  the  argument  is  persuasive  or 
conclusive.  Mr.  Rice  has  assumed  and  endeavored  to  disprove  the  doc- 
trme  advanced  on  the  other  side ;  and  he  has  a  right  to  try  that  argument 
and  except  to  its  absurdities.  But  whether  he  can  maintain  his  ground, 
we  are  not  prepared  to  decide. 

Monday,  Nov.  27— 12.i  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  third  address.] 

Mr.  President — Sir :  There  are  several  small  matters  that  require 
attention.  Among  these  is  the  remark  of  Mr.  Burch  on  the  result  of  the 
McCalla  debate,  as  to  the  conversion  of  a  black  croio  into  a  white  one. 

Mr.  Rice.     Mr.  Burch  says  he  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  Campbell.  Of  course  the  gentleman  means  he  did  not  remember 
his  having  said  so.  He  could  not  testify  in  such  a  case.  No  man  could 
testify  in  a  case  of  this  sort,  after  an  interval  of  twenty  years,  what  he 
did  not  say  on  such  an  occasion.  One  single  good  witness  declaring  that 
he  heard  hun  say  so,  "would,  in  a  court  of  evidence,  set  aside  his  want  of 
recollection  in  the  case,  and  would  stand  in  law.  A  person's  having  no 
present  recollection  of  what  he  said  twenty  years  ago,  is  no  proof  that  he 
did  not  say  so.  This  is,  indeed,  a  matter  of  very  small  moment — it  is 
only  the  occasion  that  gives  it  any  consequence. 

Mr.  Rice  desires  to  know  how  I  could  say  that  he  had  been  delivering 
the  fragments  of  old  harangues  on  total  depravity.  He  seems  to  intimate 
that  christian  morality  might  be  implicated  in  such  a  saying.  I  have  sat- 
isfactory evidence  of  the  fact  from  two  sources.  First,  I  have  heard  of 
his  discourses  on  this  subject  round  the  country,  in  different  places  ;  and 
again,  I  have  positive  written  evidence  of  the  fact  of  his  promulgation  of 
these  views  in  his  controversy,  in  one  of  our  periodicals,  with  president 
Shannon. 

The  remarks  on  the  subject  of  my  excitement,  I  will  reserve  to  another 
occasion.  I  shall,  then,  proceed  to  the  argument  which  closed  my  last 
speech. 

If  there  be  the  slightest  apparent  relevency  in  the  arguments  of  my  op- 
ponent to  any  thing  I  have  advanced,  or  to  the  true  and  proper  issue  be- 
fore us,  I  hold  myself  in  duty  bound  to  respond  to  it.  But  when  there 
are  many  things  of  the  same  class,  it  is  not  necessary  to  respond  to  them 
individually  and  severally.  I  will,  in  such  case,  select  the  strongest  par- 
ticular or  incident  introduced;  and  in  disposing  of  that,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  the  others  of  that  class  are  disposed  of. 

To  illustrate  and  apply  this  observation,  I  must  remind  you  that  in  my 
introductory  address  it  is  my  aim  to  express,  in  a  written  form,  the  more 
cardinal  principles,  and  classes  of  evidence  and  arguments  relied  on,  as 
fixed  points,  to  which  at  any  time  after,  in  the  course  of  discussion,  we 
may  recur  with  certainty.  In  my  opening  address,  therefore,  I  very 
formally  propounded  one  invaluable  principle  or  argument,  in  support  of 
this  thesis — that  God  has  given  to  the  human  mind  a  certain  constitution, 
as  he  has  to  the  body  of  man,  or  to  the  universe;  and  that,  whatever  be 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  653 

the  process  of  regeneration,  conversion,  or  sanctification,  it  must,  from 
the  universal  laws  of  the  universe,  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  con- 
stitution ;  hence  no  power  or  faculty  of  the  human  mind  is  changed  or 
destroyed,  in  this  great  moral  revolution  of  which  we  speak.  A  fact 
this,  which,  when  duly  appreciated,  forever  annihilates  the  system  which 
1  oppose.  Mr.  Rice  gives  evidence  of  its  clearness  and  power.  He  felt 
it,  and  how  does  he  seek  to  dispose  of  it?  He  tells  us  that  God  made 
man  holy  at  first,  and  that  he  can  do  it  again  !  He  created  Adam  holy, 
and  he  may  create  others.  This  is,  in  reality,  an  admission  of  the  un- 
answerable force  of  this  argument.  He  therefore  seeks  to  go  beyond  its 
dominions — beyond  the  present  constitution  of  man,  and  affirms,  that  if 
God  cannot  violate  his  present  constitution,  he  can  do  as  he  did  before, 
make  au  original  constitution  or  create  him  holy  as  he  created  Adam  !! 
That  is,  he  can  create  a  new  Adam  out  of  the  old  Adam,  as  he  created 
Adam  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  &c.!  Truly  this  is  a  triumph  of  no 
ordinary  character.  He  commences  a  response  by  conceding  my  posi- 
tion, and  asking  for  God  the  power  to  literally  create  a  new  man.  But 
this  is  not  the  question  before  us.  I  admit  that  God  could  have  created 
another  Adam,  and  that  he  can  now  literally  create  a  holy  man ;  but  it  is 
not  an  original  physical  primordial  creation,  but  a  moral  change,  a  moral 
renovation  and  creation  of  which  we  speak.  It  is  not  the  origination 
of  a  new  constitution,  but  a  change  of  heart,  a  transformation  moral  that 
we  are  inquiring  into. 

Will  the  gentleman  say  that  creation,  providence,  and  redemption  are 
the  same  process  of  divine  power?  Was  not  creation  a  miracle?  Was 
there  a  previously  existing  constitution  of  the  universe  and  of  man  ? 
Did  God  make  man  after  man's  own  previously  existing  constitution ''. 
Because  God  did  at  first  give  to  man  a  constitution  after  his  own  image — 
follows  it,  therefore,  that  God  will  create  for  him  a  new  constitution,  now 
that  he  is  fallen,  and  make  him  new  by  miracle?  And  would  not  man  be 
as  perfect  now  as  he  was  at  first,  according  to  this  hypothesis?  For  when 
God  made  Adam  holy,  he  was  perfectly  holy.  Does  God  thus  make 
christians  perfecdy  holy?  Wlien  these  objections  to  his  presumptive  as- 
sumption are  responded  to,  he  shall  have  others. 

Infants  and  adults  are  then  created  holy  by  the  same  direct  and  posi- 
tive fiat,  the  same  specific  miracle  that  made  Adam  holy.  Avaunt,  then, 
all  secondary  causes,  all  ministerial  means,  all  Bible  preaching  and  moral 
argumentations!  God  makes  infants,  adults  and  pagans  holy,  by  the  same 
means  that  he  made  Adam  holy ;  that  is,  by  a  miracle.  With  Mr.  Rice 
every  conversion  is  just  as  great  a  miracle  as  the  creation  of  Adam  ;  for 
recollect,  his  only  escape  from  my  argument  is,  that  as  God  could  and  did 
give  to  Adam  a  holy  constitution,  so  does  he  now  give  a  holy  constitution 
to  infants,  Pagans,  Jews,  and  all  other  persons  whom  he  pleases  thus  to 
create  anew.  Was  there  ever  a  more  perfect  fatalism  than  this  ?  Every 
infant  and  adult  now  made  holy  i?  a  miracle — a  new  and  original  demon- 
stration of  Omnipotence.  Yet  still  the  wonder  is,  that  this  new  creation 
is  not  perfectly  holy,  inasmuch  as  all  other  works  of  God  are  perfect. 

Now  according  to  my  introductory  speech  and  fourth  argument,  I  in- 
sist, that  if  one  infant  be  regenerated,  without  moral  instrumentality,  all 
can ;  and  if  one  perfect  and  complete  regeneration,  ivithout  the  Word  of 
God,  can,  in  any  case  whatever,  be  consummated,  then,  in  all  other  cases 
the  Word  is  wholly  unnecessary.  For  if  I  can  produce  one  apple  without 
a  tree,  or  one  ear  of  wheat  without  earth,  then  I  can  do  it  ad  injinitum, 

3  i2 


654  DEBATE  ON  THE 

No  living  man,  as  I  conceive,  can  in  these  points,  refute  my  introductory 
address.  I  will  insist  that  Mr.  Rice  explains  to  us  why  preach  the  word ; 
why  print  Bibles  ;  why  send  missionaries  to  foreign  lands  ;  why  set  on 
foot  any  human  instrumentalities  whatever,  on  the  assumption  that  God 
makes  men  and  infants  holy,  as  he  did  Adam !  I  never  objected  to  a 
spiritual  religion.  Nay,  I  love  it, — I  preach  it, — I  contend  for  it.  I 
never  would  have  jeopardized  my  reputation  in  questioning  the  popular 
notions  of  spiritual  influence,  but  to  aim  a  blow  at  the  root  of  all  fanati- 
cism, and  of  a  wild  irrepressible  enthusiasm.  I  believe  not  only  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  in  a  religion  of  which  this  Divine  agent  is  both  the  sub- 
stance, origin,  cause,  and  reason.  But,  sir,  in  my  humble  opinion  this 
metaphysical  abstraction,  this  theological  speculation,  this  electric,  imme- 
dial  operation,  that  makes  an  infant  or  a  pagan  holy  in  a  moment,  has 
been  the  most  soul-ruining  dogma  ever  invented,  preached,  or  propagated. 
It  has  slain  its  tens  of  thousands.  It  has  made  sceptics,  fanatics,  despon- 
dents,  and  visionaries  without  number,  and  without  limit. 

These  elect  infants,  elect  pagans,  elect  idiots,  on  whom  God  acts  v/hen, 
where,  and  how  he  pleases,  but  makes  them  holy  in  a  moment,  without 
light,  knowledge,  faith,  or  love,  (for  though  these  may  be  called  by  them 
effects  of  the  regeneration,  the  thing,  the  work,  the  operation  itself,  is 
anterior  to  them,  above  and  independent  of  them,  without  any  human 
agency  whatever,)  are  figments  of  distempered  brains,  the  creatures  of 
religious  romance,  the  offspring  of  a  metaphysical  delusion,  for  which 
there  is  no  cure,  but  in  the  rational  reading  and  study  of  the  Book  of  God. 

Mr.  Rice  seems,  if  I  understand  him,  to  have  dnink  deep  into  these 
muddy  waters,  and  to  have  adopted  the  fable  of  infant  regeneration  as  a 
choice  of  evils.  His  dilemma  is.  Infants  are  saved  or  lost.  Not  lost 
truly! — well  then,  they  are  saved.  With,  or  without,  regeneration! 
Without  regeneration,  is  to  him  inadmissible,  because  then  they  would 
be  saved  in  a  state  of  wickedness.  His  theory  is,  therefore,  adopted  to 
get  rid  of  a  metaphysical  difficulty.  It  owes  its  origin  to  a  mystic  knot 
which  he  cannot  untie,  and  which  he  dares  not  cut.  The  regenera- 
tion of  these  infants  is,  then,  not  moral,  hut  physical.  Well,  perhaps 
we  may  yet  agree  in  their  physical  regeneration.  I  believe  those  dying 
infants,  and  with  me  they  are  all  elect,  are  fitted  for  heaven  by  a  physical 
regeneration,  of  which  we  shall  hereafter  speak.  But  in  the  mean  time 
the  question  is  lost,  if  we  lose  sight  of  the  regeneration  of  which  we 
now  speak,  and  which  is  an  essential  part  of  the  system  we  oppose. 

What  then,  let  me  ask,  is  the  philosophy  of  regeneration  according  to 
Mr.  Rice  ?  It  is  a  change  of  heart.  There  we  agree  again.  What  sort 
of  change? — not  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  spirit — a  change  of  the  affec- 
tions, of  the  feelings  and  sympathies  of  the  soul.  Agreed  ! — a  change 
so  great  that  we  love  our  former  hates,  and  hate  our  former  loves.  We 
love  God  and  our  Savior  supremely,  and  our  brethren  fervendy.  We  hate 
Satan,  falsehood,  and  sin.  Hence  comes  the  annihilation  of  his  hypo- 
thesis— can  an  infant  love  or  hate,  without  previous  knowledge,  faith  or 
apprehension  of  things  amiable  and  hateful ! !  No,  says  every  man ; 
where  there  is  no  light,  no  understanding,  no  intelligence,  there  can  be 
no  disposition  at  all,  no  moral  feeling,  no  change  of  affections,  no  change 
of  heart;  consequently  no  infant  moral  or  spiritual  regeneration.  It  is 
impossible — it  is  inconceivable  !  No  man  can  demonstrate,  illustrate,  or 
prove  it.  Whenever  Mr.  Rice  can  show  that  a  man,  a  child,  or  an  infant, 
can  love  what  he  never  heard,  saw,  felt  or  thought  of,  and  that  he  can 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  655 

love,  fear,  oi  eschew  that  of  which  he  has  no  conception  whatever,  then, 
but  not  till  then,  can  he  offer  one  argument,  reason,  or  evidence,  of  infant 
moral  regeneration.  Whenever  he  shows  a  man  loving  Jesus  Christ, 
righteousness,  and  holiness,  who  has  never  heard  of  him — and  hating 
Satan,  sin,  and  impurity,  who  has  never  heard  of  them,  then  I  will  be- 
lieve that  he  can  find  a  dying  infant,  regenerated  and  sanctified  in  its 
spiritual  and  moral  nature.  Till  then,  I  shall  regard  it  as  a  mere  phan- 
tasy, an  idol,  or  chimera  of  the  brain,  and  the  whole  doctrine  growing 
out  of  it  a  miserable  delusion. 

But  now  with  regard  to  our  physical  regeneration  of  infants,  my  faith 
is  in  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  hath  taken  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  The 
atonement  of  the  Messiah  has  made  it  compatible  with  God,  with  the 
honor  of  his  throne  and  government,  to  save  all  those  infants  who  die  in 
Adam.  He  has  made  an  ample  provision  for  extending  salvation  from 
all  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  to  whomsoever  he  will.  Ever  blessed 
be  his  adorable  name  !  The  Lamb  of  God  has  borne  away  the  sin 
OF  THE  WORLD.  Infants  then  need  that  same  kind  of  regeneration  that 
Paul,  and  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  all  saints  need — the  entire 
destruction  of  this  body  of  sin  and  death.  The  most  perfect  christian 
that  I  have  seen,  needs  a  regeneration  to  fit  him  for  the  immediate  pre- 
sence of  God.  The  infant  that  falls  asleep  in  its  mother's  bosom,  and 
after  a  few  short  days  breathes  out  its  spirit  gently  there,  needs  no  more 
change  to  fit  it  for  Abraham's  bosom,  than  that  which  the  Spirit  of  God 
will  effect  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  or  in  the  transformation  of  the 
living  saints  at  the  time  of  his  coming.  Philosophy,  reason,  and  faith, 
are  alike  silent  on  the  subject  of  any  infant  regeneration  before  death.  It 
is  all  theory — idle,  empty,  suicidal  theory.  Experience  lifts  her  ten 
thousand  voices  against  it.  Whoever  saw  a  child  regenerated  growing  up 
from  birth  a  pure  and  exemplary  christian !  Persons  have  been  sancti- 
fied, that  is,  set  apart  to  the  Lord  from  their  birth  ;  but  that  any  one  was, 
in  our  sense  of  regeneration,  changed  in  heart  from  birth,  reason,  reve- 
lation, experience,  observation  depose  not;  on  this  subject  they  are  all  as 
silent  as  death.  While,  then,  I  believe  in  the  physical  regeneration  of 
infants  after  death,  I  repudiate  their  spiritual  or  moral  regeneration  in  life, 
because  unscriptural,  irrational,  and  absurd. 

This  delusive  doctrine  operates  very  differently  on  two  classes  of  sub- 
jects— the  sanguine  and  vain,  the  imaginative  and  elate.  Those  of  high 
self-esteem  are  often  the  victims  of  a  conceit  that  they  have  been  touched 
by  a  supernatural  impulse,  a  sort  of  celestial  electricity,  which  in  a 
moment  regenerated  and  gave  them  religion.  Some  of  them  tell  right 
marvellous  tales  of  mighty  shocks  of  this  sort.  A  lady  of  whom  I  re- 
cently heard,  from  a  highly  credible  source,  in  describing  her  conversion, 
said,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  went  through  her  from  head  to  foot,  bursting  off 
the  nails  from  her  fingers  and  toes."  This  was,  truly,  an  extraordinary 
case ;  yet  many  of  the  same  class,  not  so  well  marked,  daily  occur. 
These  persons  often  live  and  die  without  any  right  conception  of  God,  of 
his  Son,  or  of  his  salvation — yet  are  they  joyful,  happy,  riding  on  the 
clouds  communing  with  spirits,  and  filled  with  rapture,  which  neither 
poetry  nor  philosophy  can  reveal.  They  carry  with  them  through  life, 
tlie  notion  that  they  were  once  truly  regenerate,  and,  therefore,  can  never 
perish. 

But  there  are  some  rather  of  a  melancholy  temperament ;  somewhat 
atrabilious  and  desponding.    They  are  more  rational,  though  less  imagi- 


656  DEBATE  ON  THE 

native — they  have  little  hope,  and  less  self-esteem ;  but  they  feel  their 
need  of  this  regeneration,  without  feeling  that  sensible  touch  Divine,  which 
instantly  brings  them  out  of  nature's  darkness  and  death  into  supernatural 
light  and  life.  They  are  too  rational  to  dream  of  it.  They  are  too  sen- 
sible to  imagine  it ;  and  sometimes  they  fall  into  a  frightful  melancholy, 
which,  in  instances  not  a  few,  bereaves  them  of  reason  and  sends  them 
into  an  asj'lum,  where  although  surrounded  with  all  that  science  and  hu- 
manity can  bestow,  leaves  them  without  the  comforts  and  assistance 
of  relatives  and  friends,  those  best  palliatives  of  mental  alienation  and 
woe. 

The  gentleman  has  given  us  another  exemplification  of  his  freedom  in 
quoting  Scriptures.  Paul  may  plant  and  A  polios  water,  but  God  gives  the 
increase.  His  meaning  is,  Paul  may  plant  the  seed  of  religion  in  the 
heart  of  A,  B,  and  C,  ApoUos  may  water  that  seed,  but  God  alone  makes 
it  to  grow.  I  rejoice  in  the  truth  of  the  fact  here  stated,  but  1  pronounce 
the  application  of  the  passage  to  the  point  before  us  a  gross  misconception 
and  perversion  of  its  meaning.  Paul  may  plant  churches  and  Apollos 
water  churches,  but  God  makes  the  churches  grow.  So  says  the  con- 
text— and  so  say  I  with  all  my  heart. 

I  do  not  wish  to  lose  time  in  expositions  of  the  various  sophisms  of 
false  quotation  and  application  of  Scripture.  I  do  not  even  choose  to  de- 
fend my  own  writings  from  such  illogical  torture.  I  should  give  no  ar- 
gument if  I  stopped  to  wrangle  about  all  these  misquotations  and  misap- 
plications. I  only  request  those  who  choose  to  examine  more  accurately 
these  quotations,  to  read  the  whole  contexts  from  which  they  are  illegally 
arrested.  The  gentleman  is  very  emphatic  (for  effect  no  doubt)  in  telling 
you  how  often  he  calls  my  attention  to  certain  matters,  which  but  for  his 
manner  of  quoting  them  deserve  no  real  regard,  because  irrelevant.  He 
said  the  other  day,  he  called  my  attention  three  times  to  a  verse,  and 
finally  affirmed  that  he  could  neither  make  me  see  or  hear  it,  although  I 
had  two  or  three  times  replied  to  it  in  common  with  its  whole  class. 
And  when  it  was  for  the  third  or  fourth  time  replied  to  by  me,  what  use 
did  the  gentleman  make  of  my  replj'  ?  All  those  passages  I  have  shewn, 
like  the  oft  repeated  case  of  the  thief  on  the  cross,  are  misapplied,  be- 
cause they  were  spoken  of  things  and  persons  as  they  were  before  the 
gospel  age  commenced — before  the  christian  ordinances  were  instituted  or 
the  church  began.  The  thief  indeed  was  saved  without  baptism ;  not 
merely  because  there  was  no  christian  baptism  then;  for  if  there  had,  be 
being  converted  as  he  was,  and  having  no  opportunity,  would  have  been 
saved  without  it,  as  all  are  who  are  providentially  prevented  from  receiv- 
ing it.  Scriptures  are  generally  quoted  wrong  when  applied  to  prove  a 
proposition  not  of  the  same  species  with  that  in  the  writer's  mind. 

The  gentleman  fights  for  victory,  and  he  will  have  it  in  any  and  every 
contingency  whatever.  He  has  at  proper  intervals  the  mournful  alas. 
Alas  !  alas  !  for  the  reformation  !  The  unfeeling  crowd,  so  perfectly  des- 
titute of  sympathy,  however,  smile  at  his  wailings  !  He  can  hardly  pro- 
ceed under  the  dreadful  weight  of  arguments  on  his  side,  and  yet  he  can- 
not utter  them.  For  who  has  heard  them  !  I  do  not  think  it  either 
edifying  or  important  to  notice  these  matters,  for  any  other  reason  than 
to  express  my  pleasure  in  reflecting  upon  the  dignity  of  my  cause  and  its 
self-respect ;  that  it  needs  not  such  ephemeral  and  political  appliances  to 
sustain  or  commend  it. 

Mr.  Rice  may  express  all  his  conceptions  of  himself  and  his  cause  with- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  657 

!5Ut  any  offence  to  nie  whatever.  I  presume  that  owing  to  his  education 
he  honestly  thinks  so ;  whether  or  not,  I  am  obliged  to  so  regard  him, 
and  I  will  so  continue  till  the  end.  What  is  said  here  is  to  be  read  by  all 
parties ;  and  my  only  desire  on  that  subject  is  that  the  book  may  be  read 
impartially,  and  that  the  argument  may  be  duly  weighed  on  both  sides. 
Let  every  man  take  up  the  book  and  read  it  as  though  it  had  fallen  from 
heaven  into  his  hands.  Let  him  read  it  candidly,  decide  according  to 
evidence  and  fact,  and  then  let  him  act  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  con- 
victions ;  and  may  the  Lord  bless  him  in  so  doing ! — [^Time  expired. 

Monday,  Nov.  27— U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  third  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  have  but  a  remark  or  two  to  make  in  reply  to  the 
singular  logic  of  Mr.  Campbell,  concerning  the  alledged  statement  of  Mr. 
Burch.  No  man,  he  would  have  us  believe,  can  testify,  that  twenty 
years  ago  he  did  not  make  a  certain  statement !  I  presume  Mr.  Burch 
may  very  well  know,  he  never  did  believe  that  Mr.  C.  triumphed  over 
Mr.  McCalla,  and,  therefore,  that  he  never  did  make  a  statement  which 
implied  such  an  admission.  He  never  believed  that  Mr.  C.  triumphed, 
and,  consequently,  never  so  said.  The  gentleman's  anonymous  evidence 
is  worth  absolutely  nothing. 

The  gentleman  attempts  to  justify  his  assertion,  that  I  am  delivering 
•scraps  of  old  harangues,  by  saying,  that  he  has  heard  of  my  preaching  on 
these  subjects,  and  has  seen,  in  my  discussion  with  president  Shannon, 
some  of  the  same  arguments  I  have  advanced  on  this  occasion.  Why,  I 
have  reail  in  his  publications  almost  every  thing  he  has  advanced  on  this 
subject;  and  a  considerable  part  of  his  closing  speech,  on  Saturday,  I 
heard  almost  verbatim  some  three  years  ago.  Why,  then,  may  I  not 
charge  him  with  delivering  scraps  of  old  harangues  ? 

But  he  cannot  so  easily  escape  the  difficulty  into  which  his  temper 
hurried  him.  For  it  is  not  true,  that  I  have  ever  before  discussed  this 
subject  just  as  I  have  done  to-day.  I  have  occasionally,  it  is  true,  dis- 
cussed all  these  subjects,  though  not  so  thoroughly  and  extensively  as  now. 

Regeneration,  the  gentleman  says,  must  take  place  in  harmony  with 
the  powers  of  the  human  mind.  This  is  true.  I  have  not  said  that 
in  regeneration  men  are  deprived  of  any  of  their  faculties,  or  that 
new  faculties  are  created.  But  he  tells  us,  that  creation  is  one  thing, 
and  the  renewing  the  heart  quite  another  ;  and  he  seems  to  consider 
the  idea  of  creating  holiness  quite  absurd.  The  doctrine  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, as  stated  by  himself,  is, — that  no  other  than  moral  power  can 
be  exerted  on  the  human  mind;  and  it  must  always  be  exerted  by  words 
and  arguments.  In  refutation  of  this  assumption,  I  stated  the  scripture 
fact,  that  God  created  man  holy,  and  consequently  there  must  have  been 
a  moral  influence  exerted,  not  by  words  or  by  arguments.  We  do  not 
regard  holiness  as  a  distinct  substance  or  essence.  It  is,  however,  true, 
that  God  created  man  with  a  holy  heart  or  nature.  How  he  did  it  I  know 
not,  nor  does  Mr.  C.  Inasmuch,  then,  as  he  understands  not  how  that 
influence  was  exerted,  which  made  man  originally  holy  ;  he  ccnnot"  pos- 
sibly prove,  that  the  Spirit  may  not  now  exert  a  moral  influence,  distinct 
from  motives. 

It  is  worthy  of  special  remark,  that  Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  sanctifiea- 
tion  of  the  human  heart,  uses  the  word  create.     "  We  are  his  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,"  Eph.  ii.  10.     There  is 
48 


658  DEBATE  ON  THE 

not,  in  any  language,  a  stronger  word  than  the  word  create.  Yet  this 
word  is  employed,  without  qualification,  in  regard  to  the  renewal  of  the 
human  heart.  If,  then,  this  word  does  not  express  a  direct  divine  in- 
lluence,  distinct  from  the  word,  and  in  addition  to  it,  by  what  word,  I 
ask,  could  the  idea  be  expressed  ?  God  did  not  create  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  by  words  and  arguments ;  neither  did  he  thus  create  the  body 
or  the  soul  of  man.  The  very  word  create  expresses  the  putting  forth 
of  divine  power.  Can  it,  then,  be  true,  that  God  creates  the  heart  anew 
by  words  and  arguments  ?  Is  it  not  perfecdy  absurd  to  talk  of  creating  by 
arguments  ?  It  is  an  abuse  of  language.  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image ;  and  now,  by  the  new  creation  he  restores  that  image.  In  the 
latter,  as  in  the  former,  there  is  an  exertion  of  divine  power;  and  in  both 
the  modus  operandi  is  equally  mysterious. 

Mr.  C.  objects  to  the  doctrine  of  special  divine  influence,  that  it  makes 
every  instance  of  conversion  or  regeneration  a  miracle.  So  it  does,  if 
we  take  his  definition  of  a  miracle  ;  but  if  we  take  the  definition  given  by 
all  correct  writers  on  the  subject,  regeneration  is  not  a  miracle.  A  mira- 
cle is  a  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature,  by  the  immediate  interposition 
of  Divine  power,  of  which  men  can  take  cognizance,  for  the  purpose  of 
confirming  the  truth  of  God's  revelation.  God  sends  rain  ;  and  in  a  time 
of  dearth  we  pray  for  rain,  not  expecting  God  to  work  a  miracle,  and 
yet  expecting  him  to  put  forth  his  power  in  answer  to  our  prayers,  so  as 
to  grant  the  desired  blessing.  Elisha  prayed  that  it  might  not  rain ;  and 
during  the  space  of  three  years  and  a  half  it  rained  not.  He  prayed  for 
rain,  and  it  descended  in  torrents.  In  one  sense,  perhaps,  these  divine 
interpositions  might  be  called  miracles ;  but  so  far  as  man  could  see,  the 
laws  of  nature  were  uninterrupted,  both  whilst  the  long  drought  continued, 
and  when  the  rain  descended.  Properly  speaking,  therefore,  there  was, 
in  this  case,  a  divine  interposition,  but  not  a  miracle. 

So  the  Holy  Spirit  operates,  though  invisibly,  on  the  hearts  of  all  who 
are  renewed.  The  change  is  wrought  by  supernatural  power;  but  it  is 
not  a  miracle  because  it  is  invisible,  nor  is  it  a  suspension  of  the  fixed 
laws  of  nature.  The  effects  of  the  divine  influence  we  do  see.  The 
man  who,  yesterday,  delighted  only  in  sin,  to-day  turns  from  his  iniqui- 
ties, and  rejoices  in  the  service  of  God.  The  effects  are  manifest ;  and 
common  sense  compels  us  to  ascribe  them  to  some  adequate  cause.  The 
Bible  teaches  us,  that  the  cause  of  the  visible  change  is  a  new  creation 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works." 

Mr.  Campbell  objects  again,  that  if,  in  one  case,  regeneration  takes 
place  without  the  Word,  it  must  be  so  in  all  cases ;  and  then,  of  what  use 
is  the  Word  ?  He  has  often  told  us,  that  it  is  far  easier  to  assert  than  to 
prove.  It  is  admitted,  that  regeneration  is  the  same  in  all  cases  ;  but  it  is 
not  admitted,  that  the  means  employed  are,  in  all  cases,  the  same.  He 
asserts,  that  the  same  means  must  always  be  employed;  but  he  cannot 
prove  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  either  scripturally  or  philosophically.  I 
know  of  no  part  of  God's  Word  that  teaches,  that  if  God  should  sanctify  a 
soul  fti  one  instance  without  the  truth,  because  it  cannot  be  employed,  he 
must,  of  course,  sanctify  all  others  without  the  truth.  God  is  a  sovereign; 
and  he  works  by  means  or  without  means,  as  his  infinite  wisdom  directs. 

But  the  gentleman  asks,  of  what  use  is  the  Word,  if  regeneration  can 
take  place  without  it?  If  the  question  has  any  meaning,  it  is  this:  Of 
what  use  is  the  Word  to  adults,  if  infants,  that  cannot  receive  it,  can  be 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  659 

regenerated  without  it?  This  is  a  singular  question.  Or  does  he  mean 
to  ask,  of  what  use  is  the  Word  to  adults,  if  there  is  necessary  a  distinct 
divine  influence?  I  presume  if  he  had  been  in  the  camp  of  Israel,  in  the 
days  of  Joshua,  he  would  have  asked,  why  should  the  priests  compass  the 
walls  of  Jericho  seven  times,  and  blow  rams'  horns,  since  the  walls  will 
not  fall  without  a  direct  interposition  of  divine  power?  The  Lord  com- 
manded, and  that  is  sufficient.  Or,  perhaps,  he  would  have  found  fault 
with  our  Savior,  because,  in  healing  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  he  used 
clay  and  spittle.  He  might  ask,  of  what  use  are  the  clay  and  spittle,  since 
they  will  not  open  his  eyes  without  a  direct  exertion  of  divine  power? 
Such  is  the  logic  of  my  friend.  It  is  in  vain  to  reason  against /ac^s.  God 
has  often  employed  means,  when,  without  an  immediate  exertion  of  his 
power,  they  were  wholly  inadequate  to  accomplish  the  end.  So  he  em- 
ploys the  Word  ordinarily,  though  alone  it  is  not  adequate  to  effect  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  men.  Yet  God  has  never  confined  him- 
self to  means  and  instrumentalities ;  and  no  man  has  the  right  to  limit  him 
where  he  has  not  limited  himself. 

The  doctrine  of  special  divine  influence,  Mr.  Campbell  believes,  leads 
to  a  great  deal  of  fanaticism ;  and  he  has  told  us  an  anecdote  about  some 
very  fanatical  woman.  It  is  admitted,  that  there  have  been,  and  now  are, 
many  fanatics  in  the  world  ;  but  his  is  quite  as  conclusive  against  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  as  against  the  doctrine  I  am  defending.  Multitudes  of 
those  who  have  professed  to  be  christians,  have  been,  or  now  are  fanatics ; 
therefore,  says  the  infidel,  Christianity  leads  to  fanaticism,  and,  of  course, 
it  cannot  be  true.  The  infidel  adopts  Mr.  Campbell's  principle,  and  argues 
quite  as  conclusively  as  he.  It  is  a  trite  remark,  that  the  abuse  of  a  doc- 
trine, or  of  a  principle,  does  not  prove  it  false.  Does  the  doctrine  of  spe- 
cial divine  influence  generally  make  fanatics  of  those  who  embrace  it? 
There  is  not  a  body  of  people  in  tliis  world,  who  are  more  free  from  fa- 
naticism, than  Presbyterians ;  and  yet  there  are  none  who  more  firmly 
believe  in  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit,  than  they;  nor  any  who  more 
zealously  contend  for  the  constant  use  of  means,  in  order  to  conversion 
and  sanctification. 

I  could  also  tell  an  anecdote  concerning  a  convert  in  Mr.  C.'s  church, 
that  would  be  quite  a  match  for  the  one  he  has  related  ;  but  I  could  not  do 
so,  without  treating  this  solemn  subject  with  unbecoming  levity. 

The  gendeman  has  at  length  produced  one  passage  of  Scripture  in  sup- 
port of  his  doctrine,  I  am  gratified  to  see  him  leaving  his  metaphysical 
speculations,  which  he  has,  indeed,  long  professed  to  repudiate,  and  enter- 
ing upon  this  scripture  proof.  The  passage  is  in  John  xvii.  17:  "  Sanc- 
tify them  through  thy  truth  :  thy  word  is  truth."  It  is  really  one  of  the 
most  conclusive  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  I  am  advocating.  Does 
not  the  Savior  pray  to  his  Father,  to  sanctify  them  ?  But  if  Mr.  C.'s 
doctrine  is  true,  why  should  he  have  prayed  ?  He  did  not  pray,  that  new 
truths,  new  arguments,  might  be  revealed  to  his  people.  According  to  liis 
doctrine,  it  was  necessary  only  to  give  them  the  truth.  But  the  Savior 
prayed  to  his  Father  to  do  something  for  them,  and  to  do  it  by  certain 
means — to  exert  on  their  minds  a  sanctifying  influence  distinct  from  the 
truth,  but  in  connection  Avith  the  truth. 

Mr.  Campbell  asks,  how  can  an  inAint  be  born  of  God,  before  it  has 
any  knowledge  of  God  ?  There  can  be  no  disposition,  he  says,  where 
there  is  no  knowledge.  I  thought  he  had  repudiated  metaphysics ;  but 
really,  he  appears  to  rely  upon  his  speculations  more  than  upon  the  Bible 


660  DEBATE  ON  THE 

But  his  philosophy  is  most  unphilosophical  and  unscriptural.  Who  does 
not  know,  that  there  are  a  thousand  things  which  we  admire  at  first  sight, 
and  as  many  to  which  we  feel  a  decided  aversion?  Does  not  this  prove, 
that  there  may,  and  does,  exist  in  the  mind  a  disposition  or  inclination  to 
love  some  objects,  and  to  dislike  others,  even  before  we  have  any  know- 
ledge of  them?  There  are  dispositions  existing  in  the  mind,  as  well  as 
tastes  and  appetites  in  the  body,  before  the  knowledge  of  the  appropriate  ob- 
jects calls  them  into  exercise.  A  child  loves  sweetness  the  first  time  it  tastes 
it ;  and  is  charmed  by  music  the  first  time  it  hears  it.  Why,  then,  may 
not  the  soul  be  in  such  a  moral  state,  that  when  first  it  is  made  acquainted 
with  the  character  of  God,  it  will  admire,  love  and  adore  him ;  or,  that  it 
will  turn  from  him  with  strong  aversion  ?  There  is  neither  sound  theo- 
logy, nor  sound  philosophy  in  the  gentleman's  objection. 

But  he  is  not  willing  to, give  up  the  salvation  of  infants;  and  he  com- 
plains of  me  for  urging  the  argument  against  his  doctrine,  that  it  necessa- 
rily involves  the  damnation  of  infants.  He  does  not  find  fault  with  me 
for  maintaining,  that  they  are  depraved ;  for,  although  he  now  denies  that 
there  can  be  moral  disposition  where  there  is  no  knowledge,  he  admits 
and  teaches,  that  infants  are  by  nature  depraved  ! — that  they  have  a  prone- 
ness,  a  disposition  to  sin  ! !  This  being  admitted,  my  argument  against 
his  doctrine  is  most  certainly  legitimate  and  conclusive.  It  is  what  logi- 
cians call  the  reductio  ad  absurdum — proving  that  it  leads  necessarily  to 
results  which  he  admits  to  be  false  and  absurd.  I  was  indeed  surprised, 
that  he  thought  it  necessary  to  appeal  to  the  moderators  to  protect  his 
doctrine  against  the  force  of  this  argument. 

He  attempts,  however,  to  escape  from  the  difiiculty  by  saying,  that 
nothing  more  than  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  necessary  to  tha  salvation 
of  infants.  Does  the  blood  of  Christ  purify  the  heart?  The  atonement 
secures  the  remission  of  sins  ;  but  does  the  Bible  teach,  that  it  takes  away 
depravity?  Why  the  very  idea  is  absurd.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
Bible  to  countenance  such  a  notion.  The  difficulty  still  remains.  In- 
fants, as  the  gentleman  admits,  are  depraved.  How  then  shall  they  be 
sanctified  and  prepared  for  the  enjoyments  of  a  holy  heaven?  They 
cannot  be  sanctified  through  the  truth ;  and  Mr.  C.  asserts,  that  they  can- 
not be  sanctified  without  it.  Therefore  they  must  die  in  sin,  and  be  for- 
ever lost !  Such  are  the  results  to  which  his  doctrine  necessarily  leads, 
whether  he  is  willing  consistenily  to  carry  it  out  or  not. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible,  he  tells  us,  that  favors  the  idea  of  infant 
regeneration.  He  takes  care,  however,  not  to  reply  to  the  argument 
founded  on  John  iii.  6,  "  For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Infants  are  born  of  the  flesh ; 
and  therefore  they  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit ;  and  if  not  born  of  the  Spi- 
rit, they  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God — they  must  be  lost.  They 
cannot  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  adult  believers  must,  at  death,  undergo  as 
great  a  change  in  order  to  enter  heaven,  as  infants  need  experience.  For 
this  assertion  he  can  find  no  authority  in  the  Bible ;  and  it  is  vain  for  him 
on  a  subject  such  as  we  are  now  discussing,  to  give  us  either  his  opinions 
or  his  assertions.  Death  will  produce  on  the  mind  no  moral  change,  such 
as  infants  must  experience  before  they  can  enter  heaven. 

It  is,  no  doubt,  true,  as  the  gentleman  says,  that  some  persons  who 
have  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit,  have 
been  melancholy,  under  the  conviction  that  they  were  not  serving  God 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  661 

faithfully,  or  from  other  causes ;  but  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  the  doctrine 
has  any  such  tendency.  On  the  contrary,  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands have  felt  their  hardened  hearts  melt  under  the  blessed  influences  of 
the  Spirit,  have  renewed  their  strength  as  they  have  waited  on  God  in 
prayer,  and  have  in  their  affections  and  joys  mounted  up  as  on  the  wings 
of  an  eagle,  have  run  without  weariness,  and  walked  without  fainting. 
"  The  Spirit  itself,"  says  Paul,  "  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we 
are  the  children  of  God:  and,  if  children,  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ."  Convince  the  man  who  has  become  acquainted 
with  his  true  character,  that  there  is  no  such  special  influence  of  the  Spi- 
rit— that  he  must  prepare  himself  by  his  unaided  exertions  for  heaven ; 
and  he  will  lie  down  in  deep  despair.  He  will  never  again  entertain  a 
hope  that  he  can  see  God  in  peace,  or  enter  into  his  rest.  It  is  a  holy 
heaven  to  which  he  desires  to  go  ;  a  holy  God  reigns  there;  holy  angels 
worship  around  his  glorious  throne;  and  none  but  "the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect"  can  ever  enter  there.  If,  then,  sinful  man  is  left  to 
prepare  himself  for  such  a  heaven  ;  well  may  he  weep  in  despair. 

In  my  last  address  I  directed  your  attention  to  the  language  of  Paul  in 
1  Cor.  iii.  6,  "  I  have  planted,  ApoUos  watered ;  but  God  gave  the  in- 
crease." But  the  gentleman  says,  Paul  spoke  of  planting  churches. 
There  is  no  such  expression  in  the  connection.  On  what  evidence,  then, 
does  he  found  the  assertion  ?  Paul  was  rebuking  the  Corinthian  chris- 
tians, because  there  were  contentions  among  them,  one  saying,  I  am  of 
Paul ;  another,  I  am  of  ApoUos ;  and  a  third,  I  am  of  Cephas,  and  a 
fourth,  I  am  of  Christ.  All  this,  he  tells  them,  is  most  unwise  as  well  as 
very  sinful ;  for,  says  he,  "  who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  ApoUos,  but 
ministers  by  whom  ye  believe,  even  as  God  gave  to  every  man  ?  I  have 
planted,  ApoUos  watered  ;  but  God  gave  the  increase."  Paul  had  planted 
the  seed — had  first  preached  the  word  in  Corinth  ;  ApoUos  had  succeeded 
him  Avith  his  eloquent  exhortations ;  and  God  iiad  by  his  Holy  Spirit 
caused  the  seed  to  spring  up  and  bring  forth  fruit. 

But  if  Paul  were  speaking  of  planting  a  church  (though  this  is  not  a 
scripture  expression,)  his  meaning  must  be,  that  he  had  induced  chris- 
tians to  remove  from  other  parts  to  Corinth,  and  setUe  there.  You  may 
plant  corn;  but  you  must  first  have  corn  to  plant.  A  church  might  be 
planted ;  but  the  members  must  be  there  before  it  could  be  planted.  But 
Paul  planted  the  seed,  the  word,  and  God  blessed  it  to  the  conversion  of 
many ;  ApoUos  preached  and  exhorted,  and  God  blessed  his  labors  to 
their  growth  in  grace. 

But  if  Paul  could  really  plant  a  church,  and  ApoUos  could  water  it 
without  any  special  divine  influence ;  could  they  not  keep  it  alive,  and 
cause  it  to  extend  ?  Or  what  are  we  to  understand  by  tlie  declaration, 
that  "  God  gave  the  increase  ?"  The  figure  used  by  the  aposUe  is  both 
beautiful  and  striking ;  and  the  meaning  cannot  easily  be  misunderstood. 
Before  you  plant  your  seed,  the  ground  must  be  prepared ;  and  then  the 
sun  must  shine,  and  the  refreshing  rains  descend  upon  it.  Man  plants 
his  seed  and  sometimes  waters  it ;  but  there  is  no  artificial  sun  to  shine 
upon  it.  God  must  give  the  increase.  So  the  ministers  of  Christ  are  to 
preach  the  word,  to  proclaim  the  glorious  gospel  to  men,  and  look  up  to 
God  for  that  divine  influence,  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
only  can  cause  them  to  turn  to  God. 

My  friend  cannot  forget  the  past  days  of  this  discussion.  He  con- 
stantly caUs  up  the  subjects  that  have  been  disposed  of.     He  savs,  that 

3K 


662  DEBATE  ON  THE 

on  the  third  proposition  he  did  answer  my  argument  from  John  iii.  18-— 
"  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned."  I  certainly  did  not  hear 
his  answer.  It  must  have  been  extremely  brief.  The  truth  is,  it  admits 
of  no  answer.  The  obvious  and  only  meaning  is,  that  no  believer,  bap- 
tized or  not,  is  condemned;  but  all  believers  are  justified. 

The  last  note  I  took  of  the  gentleman's  speech,  relates  to  the  charge 
he  had  made,  that  great  pains  have  been  taken  to  bias  the  public  sentiment, 
to  make  the  people  believe,  that  he  has  failed  to  sustain  himself.  He 
tells  you,  he  has  heard  the  fact  from  various  quarters.  I  will  not  conde- 
scend to  gather  up  floating  reports,  and  state  them  here  as  facts  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  effect.  When  I  state  facts,  and  they  are  denied, 
I  will  prove  them.  These  reports,  which  would  seem  to  have  given  him 
so  much  trouble,  are  not  only  false  and  slanderous,  but  unspeakably  ridic- 
ulous. Does  the  gentleman  expect  to  make  the  impression,  that  the  intel- 
ligent people  who  have  come  together  from  all  parts  of  the  country  to 
hear  this  debate,  cannot  judge  for  themselves,  but  will  believe  just  what 
Presbyterians  tell  them  they  must  believe  ?  This  most  ridiculous  charge 
I  pronounce  to  be  utterly  false.     There  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it. 

I  know  not  whether  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  introduce  any  additional 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend,  until  Mr.  C.  shall 
have  advanced  something  to  sustain  his  proposition.  I  will,  however, 
quote  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  Avhich  clearly  teach  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  divine  agency  in  conversion  and  sanctification.  Ezekiel  xxxvi. 
26,  27,  "A  new  Jieart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and 
I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you, 
and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments 
and  do  them."  Does  not  God  here  proclaim  himself  the  author  of  that 
radical  change  of  heart  which  causes  men  to  turn  from  sin,  and  keep  his 
commandments  ?  The  passage  is  a  promise  and  a  prediction  of  the  con- 
verting and  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  which  shovild  be  exerted 
upon  the  Jews  in  a  future  day.  Does  this  language  teach,  that  the  Spirit 
can  exert  on  the  heart  no  otlier  moral  poAver  but  that  which  is  contained 
in  words  and  arguments  ?  The  Bible  is,  on  all  important  points,  a  plain 
book;  and  its  obvious  meaning  is  generally  its  true  meaning.  Now  I 
ask,  what  idea  would  this  language  convey  to  the  mind  of  any  one  who  has 
no  theory  to  support?  When  God  says,  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart, 
■would  not  such  a  person  understand,  that  he  would  exert  an  influence 
quite  different  from  mere  argument?  I  cheerfully  leave  every  candid 
hearer  to  determine,  whether  there  is  not  here  the  promise  of  an  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it. 

The  next  passage  I  quote  is  Jer,  xxxii.  37 — "Behold,  I  will  gather 
them  out  of  all  countries  whither  I  have  driven  them  in  mine  anger,  Slc, 
and  I  will  give  them  one  heart  and  one  way,  that  they  may  fear  me  for- . 
ever,  for  the  good  of  them  and  their  children  after  them."  Does  the 
prophet  mean,  that  God  Avould  by  arguments  give  to  his  people  one 
heart  and  one  way  ?  He  promises  to  gather  them  from  their  wanderings, 
and  to  exert  such  an  influence  on  their  minds,  that  with  one  heart  they 
would  turn  from  their  sins  to  his  service,  and  fear  him  forever.  I  ask 
again,  what  idea  would  be  conveyed  by  such  language  to  the  unsophist- 
icated mind,  to  a  plain  honest  man,  who  has  no  theory  to  support? 
What  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  language?  I  verily  believe,  thai 
there  is  not  an  inteUigent  man  living  who,  on  hearing  this  passage  read. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  663 

would  not,  if  he  had  no  favorite  theory  to  bias  his  judgment,  understand 
it  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  influence  distinct  from  mere 
words  and  arguments. — [^Tiine  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28—10  o'clock,  Jl.  M. 
[yiR.  Campbell's  fourth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Before  proceeding  to  the  business  of  the  day,  I  must 
make  a  few  introductory  remarks.  In  reference,  then,  to  the  incidents  of 
yesterday  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  advert  to  some  of  them  which  were  not  of 
so  pleasant  a  character  as  usual.  And,  first,  as  to  the  incident  in  the  after 
part  of  the  day  which  called  for  an  allusion  to  Mr.  Burch.  I  did  not,  in- 
deed, name  that  gentleman — Mr.  Rice  named  him  in  your  presence.  My 
remarks  could  not  in  the  least  involve  the  moral  character  of  that  gentle- 
man. I  did  not  intend  to  impeach  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Burch  or  any 
one  else.  It  was,  sir,  I  repeat,  the  most  remote  thing  in  my  mind,  to 
violate  the  feelings,  unnecessarily,  of  any  one  present,  much  less  the 
moral  reputation  of  Mr.  Burch.  The  fact  stated  I  believed  then,  and  I 
believe  now,  to  be  strictly  true.  But  having  ascertained,  that  Mr. 
Burch's  feelings  have  been  wounded,  and  a  desire  having  been  expressed 
that  it  should  not  go  to  record,  I  cheerfully  consent  that  it  be  not  pub- 
lished. I  have  no  desire  to  put  any  thing  on  record  which  might  at  all 
tend  to  mar  good  feelings.* 

As  respects  the  imputation  uttered  on  yesterday  by  Mr.  Rice,  that  in 
some  of  my  remarks  touching  the  management  of  affairs  here,  I  spake 
under  excitement.  If,  by  excitement,  the  gentleman  means  animal  pas- 
sion or  anger,  I  cannot  admit  it.  Exciting  as  have  been  some  of  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  I  have  been  placed  in  conducting  this  discussion,  I 
have  not  allowed  myself  to  yield  to  any  temptation  of  that  sort.  If  I 
appeared  so  to  him  or  any  one  else,  I  certainly  am  not  conscious  of  it. 
It  must  be  because  they  thought  I  had  provocation  enough.  It  is  with  me 
a  principle,  confirmed  by  habit,  on  all  occasions,  especially  one  so  sol- 
emn as  the  present,  to  hold  in  abeyance  those  passions  which  might  be 
wrought  up  into  effervescence.  Knowing  that  the  wrath  of  man  worketh 
not  the  righteousness  of  God,  I  feel  myself  always  admonished  to  avoid 
even  the  slightest  appearance  of  it.  I  have,  therefore,  on  no  occasion  of 
this  sort,  in  all  my  life,  been  accused  of  any  thing  of  this  kind.  Indeed, 
as  the  troubled  water  is  generally  muddy,  and  the  calm  gently  flowing 
stream  clear,  excited  passions  are  no  way  auxiliary  to  the  ascertainment 
of  truth,  but  rather  of  a  contrary  tendency.  Mr.  Rice  is  fully  compre- 
hended in  this  manoeuvre. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  business  of  the  day.  The  proposition  be- 
fore us  is — "  In  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates 
only  through  the  Word  of  Truth,"  or  ahvays  through  the  Word  of 
Truth.  Mr.  Rice  admits  it  sometimes  so  operates,  but  not  always  ;  some- 
times operating  without  the  Word  of  Truth.  The  proper  difference  be- 
tween us  is  the  difference  between  sometimes  and  always.  That  the 
Spirit  of  God  does  operate  in  both  conversion  and  sanctification,  we  both 
admit.  But  I  atfirm  and  he  denies  that  it  operates  only  in  that  way.  In 
sustaining  the  aflirmative,  my  method  has  been  to  show  that  as  these 
works  of  conversion  and  sanctification  are  specific  works — works  uni- 
formly the  same,  as  any  of  the  products  of  the  animal  or  vegetable  king- 

*  Understanding  from  Mr.  Eice,  that  Mr.  Burch  desired  this  incident  to  go  to  record,  I 
have  consented  to  the  publication.  A.  C. 


664  DEBATE  ON  THE 

doms,  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  operation.  This  the  constitution 
of  the  human  mind  requires ;  and  hence,  whatever  is  in  any  one  case  es- 
sential to  any  one  result,  such  as  regeneration,  is  necessary  in  each  and 
every  other  case  whatever.  So  far  we  have  reasoned  on  the  inductive 
plan  ;  these  being  the  results  of  innumerable  multitudes  of  facts,  such 
as,  no  man  can  suggest  an  idea,  or  view,  or  feelins:,  of  a  moral  or  spirit- 
ual character,  which  has  not  been  borrowed  from  the  Bible ;  and  again, 
the  person  destitute  of  that  book,  is  destitute  of  all  those  ideas,  impres- 
sions and  sensations. 

To  these  views  Mr.  R.  has  simply  affirmed  that  there  is  no  such  uni- 
formity ;  that  it  is  not  necessary.  We  call,  but  we  call  in  vain,  for  an 
example  of  conversion  by  the  Spirit  alone,  or  where  the  Word  was  whol- 
ly unknown.  Such  a  case,  even  Avere  it  plausibly  alledged,  would  be 
entitled  to  very  high  consideration.  He  will  not  attempt  such  a  case  ;  he 
presumes  upon  no  such  evidence.  His,  then,  is  a  position  purely  meta- 
physical, and  belongs  to  the  science  of  abstract  speculative  theology.  It 
is  wholly  and  forever  insusceptible  of  any  appreciable  demonstration  or 
proof.  We  have  not  only  Bible  declarations,  but  facts  and  analogies  in- 
numerable, on  our  side  of  the  question.  One  of  my  axioms  is,  whatever 
is  essential  in  one  case  is  essential  in  every  case.  But  as  the  gentleman 
has  not  met,  and,  I  presume,  will  not  meet  me  in  debate  on  any  one  of 
these  great  positions,  I  shall  proceed  to  a  new  argument,  more  intelligible 
to  all  minds,  and  more  in  support  of  these  conclusions  than  any  merely 
analogous  or  abstract  reasonings  could  be.  I  open  the  New  Testament  at 
once  and  read  as  my 

Eighth  argument,  1  Peter  i.  23,  "  Being  born  again,  not  of  corrupti- 
ble seed,  but  of  incorruptible  seed,  by  the  Word  of  God  which  liveth  and 
abideth  forever."  Now,  as  you  all  remember,  our  Lord  himself  compares 
his  Word,  or  the  Word  of  God,  to  seed  planted  or  sown  ;  and,  under 
the  parable  of  the  sower,  represents  its  various  fortunes,  and  beautifully 
teaches  the  true  philosophy  of  conversion  in  the  fact,  that  the  good  ground 
is  the  man  who  "  receives  the  Word  of  God  in  an  honest  heart.''''  Under 
both  metaphors,  drawn  the  one  from  the  vegetable,  the  other  from  the  ani- 
mal kingdom ;  the  Word  of  God  is  the  seed,  of  which  we  are  born  again 
or  renewed  in  heart  and  life.  This  Word  of  God  liveth  and  abideth : 
for  God  lives  and  abides  for  ever. 

1st.  With  regard  to  the  essentiality  of  the  seed.  We  all  know  that  in 
the  vegetable  kingdom,  without  that  there  is  no  harvest,  no  fruit.  And, 
as  certain  it  is,  that  when  the  Word  of  God  is  not  first  sown  in  the  heart, 
there  can  be  no  regeneration,  or  renewal  of  the  spirit,  and,  consequently, 
no  fruit  brought  forth  unto  eternal  life.  So  the  metaphors  taken  from  the 
animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms,  teach  the  same  lesson.  But  does  not  the 
mere  fact  that  Peter  says,  that  we  are  born  again  of  incorruptible  seed, 
declare  that  where  this  incorruptible  seed  is  not,  there  can  possibly  be  no 
birth  !  Unless,  then,  Mr.  Rice  can  shew  that  it  is  just  as  true  to  say, 
we  are  born  again,  neither  by  corruptible  nor  incorruptible  seed,  without 
the  Word  of  God, — this  single  passage  settles  this  question  forever,  as  I 
honestly  conceive. 

Is  it  necessary  now  to  traverse  the  whole  face  of  nature,  to  explore  the 
whole  kingdom  of  botany,  to  find  a  plant  without  a  seed,  in  order  to  prove 
the  proposition,  that  every  ear  of  corn  comes  from  one  grain  of  seed  de- 
posited in  the  earth  ?  No  more  is  it  essential  to  my  argument,  that  I 
should  first  hear  all  the  conversions  in  the  world,  before  I  conclude  that 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  665 

there  is  one  that  originated  without  one  word  of  God  having  been  sown 
in  the  human  heart.  Will  not  all  the  world  believe  me,  th.at  if  I  prove  in 
one  case  that  without  the  specific  seed, — corn,  wheat,  &c.,  we  cannot  have 
the  crop,  that  it  is  true  in  all  other  cases,  without  a  particular  examina- 
tion ;  and  from  every  principle  of  analogy,  if  I  prove  the  Word  in  one  case 
of  a  new  heart  to  be  necessary,  it  needs  not  that  I  prove  it  to  be  so  in  every 
other  heart,  in  every  other  case.  The  mere  fact  of  calling  the  Gospel  the 
incorruptible  seed,  is  enough.  Where  that  seed  is  not,  the  fruit  of  it  can- 
not be. 

The  phrase,  "  the  incorruptible  seed"  of  any  thing,  indicates,  in  the 
ears  of  common  sense,  that  it  is  essential  to  that  thing ;  and  if  so,  then 
who  can  be  a  christian  without  being  born  ? — and  who  can  be  born  but 
according  to  one  uniform  and  immutable  law  ?  Now,  in  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Rice,  there  is  no  uniformity  ;  there  is  a  plurality  of  ways  of  being 
born,  which,  to  my  mind,  is  most  palpably  at  fault  in  every  particular. 

But  I  will  adduce  some  other  testimonies  under  this  head  of  argument 
We  shall  hear  James  the  apostle,  chapter  i.  18  :  "Of  his  own  will  begat 
he  us  by  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  first  fruits  of  his 
creation."  Hence  the  truth  again  appears  as  an  instrument  of  regenera- 
tion. God's  will  is  the  origin  of  it ;  his  Spirit  the  efficient  cause  of  it ; 
but  the  Word  is  the  necessary  instrument  of  it.  By  the  JVord  of  Truth, 
then,  we  are  begotten,  and  not  without  it,  according  to  James.  We  may 
add  testimonies  without  increasing  either  authority  or  evidence ;  but,  for 
the  sake  of  illustration,  if  not  for  autliority,  we  shall  ofier  a  few  other  tes- 
timonies to  complete  this  particular  argument.  We  shall  hear  Paul,  as  a 
father,  speak  to  his  sons  in  the  faith  in  Corinth — 1  Cor.  iv.  15:  "As 
my  beloved  sons  I  warn  you  :  for  though  you  have  ten  thousand  instructors 
in  Christ,  yet  have  you  not  many  fathers ;  for  in  Christ  Jesus  have  I  he- 
gotten  you  through  the  gospel."  Paul  regards  the  gospel  just  in  the 
same  attitude  in  which  James  represents  it.  The  gospel  is  here  the 
seed,  the  instrument  of  the  conversion  of  the  Corinthians. 

But  the  whole  oracle  of  God  is  unique  on  this  subject.  God  "  purifies 
the  heart  by  faith,"  that  is,  the  truth  believed — not  by  believing  as  an  act 
of  the  mind,  but  by  the  truth  believed,  which  constitutes  '■'■  the  faith.''' 
Paul  also  told  the  Thessalonians  that  God  had,  "  from  tlie  beginning, 
chosen  them  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the 
truth."  Here  again  ike  belief  of  the  truth  is  the  instrument  of  sanctifica- 
tion and  salvation.  1  shall  conclude  this  little  summary  of  a  portion  of 
the  direct  and  positive  testimony  of  God,  in  proof  of  my  grand  position 
on  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  of  conversion  and  sanctification,  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Messiah,  in  person :  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth,  O 
Father,  for  thy  Word  is  the  truth."  Whether,  then,  we  call  the  truth 
the  Word,  the  Word  of  God  the  gospel,  it  is  called  the  seed,  the  incor- 
ruptible seed  of  the  new  birth  ;  by  which  a  sinner  is  quickened,  begotten, 
born,  sanctified,  purified,  and  saved.  I  regard  this  my  eighth  argument 
as  a  host  in  itself — nay,  as  the  solemn,  direct,  and  unequivocal  declara- 
tion of  God,  in  attestation  of  the  entire  truth  and  safety  of  the  proposition 
concerning  both  conversion  and  sanctification.  1  wish  Mr.  Rice  and  the 
whole  community  to  know,  that  I  regard  this  argument,  when  fully  can- 
vassed and  developed,  as  enough  on  this  subject.  I  am  willing  to  place 
the  whole  cause  upon  it. 

I  shall  now  go  on  to  review  some  portions  of  Mr.  R.'s  speeches  not 
yet  noticed,  which  may  by  some  be  considered  as  constituting  some  ob- 

3k2 


666  DEBATE  ON  THE 

jections  to  my  former  reasonings  on  the  subject.  The  gentleman  rallied 
with  great  zeal  and  warmth,  upon  the  passage,  "  Paul  planted  and  Apol- 
los  watered."  He  expressed  some  astonishment  at  my  presuming  to 
give  such  an  interpretation,  and  I  am  just  as  much  astonished  at  his  per- 
tinacity. It  fully  proves  how  much  he  is  the  slave  of  bad  commentators. 
I  have  all  good  translators,  commentators,  and  critics  with  me ;  but  better 
still,  I  have  got  good  Dr.  Common  Sense  with  me,  and  he  will  make  it  plain 
to  all.  Indeed,  no  really  learned  theologian  thinks  difFerenfly  from  me. 
But  let  us  look  to  the  context.  The  Word  of  God  is  not  mentioned  fa 
the  passage — as  the  gentleman  said,  Canaan  was  not  found  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians.  Paul  speaks  of  men  and  not  of  the  Word.  I  planted 
you  men  in  God's  field  or  husbandry,  and  Apollos  watered  you,  but  God 
gave  the  increase,  the  growth.  He  presents  the  same  persons  under 
three  distinct  figures,  in  the  same  context,  and  connects  with  each  an  ap- 
propriate imagery.  But  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  two  of  them — the 
husbandry  and  the  building.  As  a  husbandry,  Vdcal.planted  them  ;  as  a 
building,  a  temple,  he  laid  the  fotindatioii.  But  if  I  must  make  it  still 
plainer,  I  will  then  suppose  it  to  be  the  Word.  Well,  then,  Paul  planted 
the  Word  in  the  people's  heart ;  and  Apollos  watered  it  in  their  hearts ; 
and  God  made  it  grow  in  their  hearts.  Paul,  in  this  case,  planted  the 
Word  by  preaching  the  Word,  and  Apollos  watered  the  Word  by  exhort- 
ing them  through  the  Word ;  and  God  made  it  grow  by  his  Spirit  oper- 
ating through  the  Word.  Well,  now  Paul  is  placed  in  a  most  awkward 
attitude.  He  is  converted  into  a  school-boy  confounding  all  laws  and 
usages  of  the  schools.  He  has  Paul  planting  the  Word  by  the  Word ! 
and  Apollos  watering  the  Word  by  the  Word  !  Suppose  M'e  convert  it 
into  corn ;  then  all  the  world  will  comprehend  Paul's  beautiful  rhetoric. 
Paul  planted  corn  by  scattering  corn  in  the  fields — Apollos  came  along, 
and  watered  that  corn,  by  scattering  some  of  the  same  corn  upon  it ! ! 

But  my  friend  superciliously  asks — how  can  any  one  plant  a  church  ? 
would  you  stick  it  in  the  ground !  !  Profoundly  erudite  objection  !  How 
do  men  plant  a  colony  of  men  ? — stick  them  in  the  ground  !  !  Men  have 
been  said  to  plant  churches  and  colonies  from  time  immemorial !  The 
field  or  husbandry  is  the  place  where  Paul  figuratively  planted  men ;  and 
as  living  stones,  he  also  builded  them  together,  under  another  figure,  "  for 
an  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  The  apostle's  rhetoric  is  clas- 
sic, rich,  and  beautiful.  As  z  field,  Paul  brought  the  Corinthians  into  it, 
and  planted  them  in  the  nursery.  Apollos  came  next,  and  refreshed  them 
much  by  his  exhortations  ;  and  thus,  through  their  joint  labors,  Corinth- 
ians became  God's  husbandry.  I  take  pleasure  in  avowing  my  conviction 
that  it  is  the  blessing  of  God  upon  the  labors  of  Paul  and  Apollos,  that 
made  these  Corinthians  grow.  I  do  not  labor  this  passage  to  oppose 
that  idea ;  but  to  expose  this  most  licentious  way  of  quoting  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  forcing  them  into  the  sectarian  service.  The  improvements  in 
the  science  of  hermeneutics  will,  I  hope,  move  westwardly. 

A  favorite  passage,  which  has  been  quoted  oftener  many  times  than  any 
other  text  in  the  Bible,  during  this  discussion,  and  for  no  reason  that  I  can 
see,  but  because  the  word  sprinkle— that  blessed  word  sprinkle,  is  found 
in  it,  along  with  clean  water — I  must  quote  it  once,  out  of  courtesy : 
Eze.  xxxvi.  25:  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean  from  all  your  filthiness ;  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I 
cleanse  you."  This  is  not  literally  water  free  from  mud,  but  an  allusion 
to  the  water  mixed  with  ashes,  which  purified  the  unclean — a  mere  sym 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  667 

bol  here  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Jews.  He  says  in  verse  24  :  •'  For  I  will 
take  you  from  among  the  heathen,  and  gather  you  out  of  all  countries,  and 
will  bring  you  into  your  own  land."  Here  there  is  an  express  declara- 
tion, that  God  would  bring  them  back  to  their  own  land.  "Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  from  all  your  filthi- 
ness,  and  from  all  your  idols."  It  was  to  cleanse  them  from  their  idols  by 
the  water  of  purification.  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes ;  and  ye  shall  keep  my 
judgments,  and  do  them.  And  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  gave  to 
your  fathers  ;  and  ye  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  your  God."  Now, 
with  regard  to  this  strong  phrase — a  new  heart  will  I  give  you — suppose 
I  should  affirm,  that  men  make  their  own  hearts  new  ?  As  he  proves  his 
positions,  so  would  I  prove  it.  Eze.  xviii.  31  :  "  Cast  away  from  you  all 
your  transgressions,  whereby  ye  have  transgressed  ;  and  make  you  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit :  for  why  will  you  die,  0  house  of  Israel."  Here, 
I  say,  Israel  is  commanded  to  make  for  themselves  a  new  heart;  could  I 
not  prove  that  they  were  thus  commanded  by  the  sound  of  these  words  ? 
My  friend  says,  that  God  does  create  a  clean  heart.  But  in  what  sense? 
There  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  thus  quoting  scripture  out  of  its  proper 
connection.  Paul  says:  "Be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  minds."  I 
doubt  not  the  propriety  of  both  these  forms  of  speech.  The  Lord  does 
every  thing  that  is  good.  He  says  :  "  I,  the  Lord,  create  light,  and  I 
create  darkness  ;  I  create  good,  and  I  create  evil ;  I,  the  Lord,  do  all  these 
things."  How  does  he  do  them — by  his  own  immediate  power?  Cer- 
tainly not.  But  by  very  various  instruments — permits  some,  and  appoints 
others,  in  various  ways.  He  does  not  always  create  good  and  evil  by  the 
same  means. 

The  word  create  does  not  only  mean  to  make  a  thing  out  of  original 
nonentity,  but  to  change  its  relations,  and  sometimes  only  to  new-modify 
it.  In  creating  light,  God  does  something.  In  creating  darkness,  he 
withholds  something.  In  creating  good,  he  imparts  something.  In  cre- 
ating evil,  he  withholds  good.  Men  make  to  themselves  a  new  heart; 
and  God  makes  for  them  a  new  heart.  He  institutes  the  means,  gives  his 
Spirit,  and  they  receive  and  obey  the  truth. 

The  gendeman,  in  an  attempt  to  reply  to  the  just  objection  that  he  makes 
conversion  in  every  case  a  miracle  equal  to  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord, 
went  into  the  definition  of  a  miracle,  instead  of  removing  the  difficult}'', 
and  asks  what  need  of  the  instrumentality  of  angels  in  the  world?  We 
always  admit  that  an  angel's  visit  is  a  miracle.  But  what  has  that  to  do 
with  the  subject  before  us  ?  I  do  not  admire  his  definition  of  a  miracle. 
I  sometimes  define  it  as  '■'■  Jl  display  of  supernatural  power  in  attestation 
of  the  truth  of  some  proposition.''''  That  supernatural  power  may  be 
either  intellectual  or  physical :  such  as  raising  Lazarus,  or  foretelling  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  is  no  place  for  such  matters.  God 
never  squanders  power  unnecessarily.  He  never  does  by  miracle  what 
he  can  do  without  it.  He  works  by  secondary  causes,  unless  some  great 
emergency  in  the  universe  calls  for  the  primary,  original,  creating  power. 
God  does  not  work  without  the  laws  of  mind — nor  change  the  laws  of 
mind.  He  does  not  violate  the  constitution  of  the  mind,  nor  give  a  man 
new  powers,  intellectual  or  moral,  through  any  moral  or  supernatural 
change  in  this  life.     To  work  salvation,  or  a  change  of  heart,  without  the 


668  DEBATE  ON  THE 

laws  of  mind  or  contrary  to  the  laws  of  mind,  would  be  a  miracle  as  great 
as  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  And  such  I  presume  to  be  Mr.  R.'s  the- 
ory of  regeneration — without  knowledge,  argument,  faith,  hope^  or  love; 
&c.;  a  direct,  immediate  operation  of  omnipotence  upon  the  naked  soul 
without  any  instrument  between  ! ! 

The  gentleman  gave  a  singular  definition  of  moral  disposition.  He 
made  it  a  sort  of  animal  instinct — for  a  child  was  disposed  to  love  music ! 
Hunger  and  thirst  are  also  dispositions  upon  the  same  philosophy  !  And, 
sir,  this  was  the  answer  given  to  a  very  important  question,  viz  :  If  moral 
disposition  be  a  part  of  regeneration,  and  if  moral  disposition  be  to  love 
God  and  hate  Satan;  to  love  righteousness  and  hate  iniquity — Query — 
Can  an  infant  then  be  regenerated  ?  Can  it  love  or  hate  a  being  or  a 
thing,  concerning  which  it  knows  nothing  more  than  a  rock  ?  Mr.  R. 
cannot  explain  this  difficulty,  and  it  is  fatal  to  his  theory.  If  a  child  be 
regenerate,  it  must  love  holiness  and  hate  iniquity ;  but  this  cannot  be 
without  knowledge — because  in  religion,  as  in  every  thing  else,  intellect 
pioneers  the  way,  while  the  affections  and  the  heart  follow.  We  must 
see  beauty  before  we  can  love  it.  We  must  see  deformity  before  we  can 
hate  it.  And,  therefore,  "  the  love  of  holiness  and  the  hatred  of  sin"  are 
impossible  to  an  infant. — [Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28—10;^  o'clock,  A.  31. 

[mR.  rice's    FOUaXH    REPLY.] 

Mr.  President — Before  proceeding  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
before  us,  I  must  briefly  notice  Mr.  Campbell's  statement  concerning  Mr. 
Burch,  who  was  one  of  the  moderators  in  the  debate  between  him  and 
Mr.  McCalla.  When  he  made  the  statement,  on  yesterday,  about  an 
opinion  expressed  by  one  of  the  moderators-  in  that  debate,  there  were 
present  many  who  knew  that  Mr.  Burch  was  alluded  to.  I  wish  now  to 
say,  that  I  am  authorized  by  Mr.  B.  to  deny  most  positively,  that  he  ever 
expressed  or  entertained  the  opinion,  that  in  that  debate  Mr.  C.  was  vic- 
torious ;  and  to  state  that,  from  that  day  to-  this,  he  has  expressed  pre- 
cisely the  opposite  opinion.  It  is  taking  an  unfair  advantage  of  a  man 
who,  according  to  the  rules  of  this  discussion,  cannot  be  permitted  to  re- 
ply, to  prefer  such  charges. 

The  gendeman  says,  he  has  not  spoken,  at  any  time  during  the  debate, 
under  the  influence  of  passion.  I  will  not  dispute  the  truth  of  his  state- 
ment; but  1  must  say,  that  he  has  said  many  things  which  would  have 
been  more  excusable,  if  uttered  under  excitement,  than  if  spoken  delib- 
erately. 

It  is  of  the  first  importance  in  tliis  discussion,  that  we  keep  distinctly 
in  view  the  point  in  debate.  I  stated  it  clearly  on  yesterday  ;  but  it  has 
not  been  brought  prominendy  to  view  in  the  speech  of  this  morning. 
Indeed,  I  believe  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  to  learn,  from  all  the  gen- 
tleman has  said  this  morning,  wherein  we  differ. 

The  main  point  in  the  debate  is  not  whether  the  Spirit  always  oper- 
ates through  the  truth.  I  was  surprised  to  hear  him  read  the  proposition 
in  this  way — "  on/y  or  always.^'  I  was  not  aware  that  the  words  oniy 
and  alioays  are  synonymous.  I  presume  that  no  dictionary  can  be  found, 
that  defines  only  to  mean  always.  If  you  will  substitute  always  for 
only,  it  will  make  a  proposition  radically  different  from  that  we  are  now 
discussing.  What,  then,  are  the  points  in  regard  to  which  we  differ? 
1st.  We  differ  concerning  the  sanctification  of  infants  and  idiots.     This, 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  669 

however,  is  not  the  only  difference  between  us,  nor  the  most  important. 
For,  2nd.  We  differ  widely  concerning  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  conversion  and  sanctificaiion  oi  adults.  Mr.  Campbell  contends, 
that  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth.  I  believe  that  the 
Spirit  operates  ordinarily  through  the  truth,  but  not  only  through  the 
truth.  The  word  orily,  in  the  proposition  before  us,  is  an  emphatic  and 
an  important  word.  He  maintains,  that  the  Spirit  dictated  the  word,  and 
confirmed  it  by  miracles,  and  that  the  word,  presented  to  the  mind  by 
any  instrumentality,  converts  and  sanctifies  it.  That  is,  the  Spirit,  ac- 
cording to  his  doctrine,  converts  and  sanctifies  men,  just  as  the  spirit  of 
Demosthenes  and  Cicero  affected  their  hearers  or  readers ;  and  as  the 
spirit  of  Mr.  Campbell  affects  this  audience !  He  exerts  on  your  minds 
no  other  influence  than  that  exerted  by  his  words  and  arguments.  Just 
so,  according  to  his  doctrine,  the  Spirit  of  God  operates. 

We  believe  and  teach,  that  the  Word  is  ordinarily  employed  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctificaiion.  Yet  there  must  be,  and  there  is,  an  influence  of 
the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it;  and 
by  this  influence,  especially,  man  is  converted  and  sanctified.  This  is, 
practically,  the  great  point  on  which  we  differ. 

As  I  have  heretofore  distinctly  stated,  we  do  not  believe  in  a  physical 
change  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul.  Mr.  C.'s  remarks  about  physical  re- 
generation are,  therefore,  out  of  place.  Our  confession  of  faith  does  not 
teach  the  doctrine,  nor  do  we  hold  it. 

He  desires  me  to  follow  him  in  his  train  of  argument.  I  will  now  do 
so,  as  far  as  time  will  permit.  I  have  adduced  against  his  doctrine  some 
four  distinct  arguments,  viz.  1.  That  it  prescribes  to  the  power  of  God 
over  the  human  mind  an  unreasonable  and  an  unscriptural  limitation.  2. 
•That  it  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  infants  and  idiots.  3.  That 
it  contradicts  the  scripture  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  making  it  arise 
from  mere  mistake;  whereas  the  Bible  teaches,  that  men  sin  wilfully 
and  deliberately.  4.  I  have  quoted  several  passages  of  Scripture  directly 
teaching  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sancti- 
fication. 

I  will  now  pay  my  respects  to  the  gentleman's  new  arguments.  He 
refers  us  to  Luke  viii.  11,  "The  seed  is  the  word  of  God;"  and  to  1 
Pet.  i.  23.  Do  these  passages  prove,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth  ?  Do  the  seed  of  them- 
selves produce  the  harvest.  Who  ever  heard  of  obtaining  an  abundant 
harvest  only  by  seed ?  Does  not  the  farmer  first  prepare  his  soil?  He 
does  not  scatter  his  seed  amongst  thorns  and  weeds.  The  human  heart 
is  like  the  unprepared  earth ;  and  in  the  parable  to  which  the  gentleman 
referred,  the  seed  that  produced  the  harvest  are  said  to  be  sown  in 
"  good  ground" — in  soil  previously  broken  up  and  prepared.  But  when 
the  soil  has  been  prepared,  and  the  seed  sown,  the  sun  must  shine,  and  the 
rain  must  descend,  or  there  will  be  no  harvest.  God  has  a  most  important 
agency  in  these  things.  He  only  can  cause  the  sun  to  shine,  and  the 
showers  to  refresh  the  earth.  In  these  things  there  is  human  agency, 
and  there  is  divine  agency.  So  the  servants  of  God  sow  the  seed  of 
life :  but  God  prepares  the  hearts  of  men  to  receive  it,  and  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, like  showers  on  the  thirsty  ground,  causes  it  to  spring  up  and  bear 
fruit  to  the  glory  of  God.  The  argument  from  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration is  decidedly  in  favor  of  our  views.  I  prove  my  doctrine  by 
the  very  arguments  brought  forward  to  overthrow  it! 


670  DEBATE  ON  THE 

He  has  repeatedly  asserted,  if  the  word  of  God  is  employed  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  in  one  case,  it  must  be  necessary  in  all.  But  this 
is  bare  assertion.  Let  the  gentleman  prove  it  if  he  can.  I  should  like  to 
see  him  attempt  to  prove,  that  God  has  bound  himself  always  to  employ 
in  this  work  the  same  means  and  instrumentalities.  If  he  has  thus  limit- 
ed himself,  let  the  passage  be  produced ;  if  he  has  not,  who  dares  lim- 
it him? 

The  next  argument  used  by  Mr.  C.  is  founded  on  James  i.  18  :  "Of 
his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  his  Word  of  Truth."  The  argument  is 
mine.  I  prove  the  doctrine  of  special  divine  influence  by  this  very  passage. 
Observe,  it  presents  two  influences  exerted  on  man  in  regeneration — the 
agency  of  God  who  begets  him,  and  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth  through 
which  he  is  begotten  or  renewed.  Does  James  say,  he  begat  us  only  by 
his  Word?  He  does  not.  God  begat  us — he  put  forth  power;  and  he 
did  it  in  connection  with  his  Word  as  the  means.  How,  then,  can  it  be 
said  with  truth,  that  the  means  or  instrumentality  did  the  whole  work? 
James  says,  God  did  the  work,  and  that  he  did  it  by  the  Word,  not  only 
by  the  Word.     This  is  precisely  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending. 

The  next  argument  offered  by  Mr.  C.  is  founded  on  the  language  of 
Paul  in  1  Cor.  iv.  15  :  "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through 
the  gospel."  There  are  commonly  three  agencies  employed  in  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  the  soul:  1st,  the  agency  or  influence  of  the 
Word;  2d,  the  agency  of  the  minister  who  preaches  it;  and,  3d,  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  inducing  men  to  receive  the  truth  in 
the  love  of  it,  and  to  live  according  to  it?  divine  principles  and  precepts. 
There  are  some  passages  of  Scripture  which  present  particularly  the  agen- 
cy of  man ;  some  which  present  the  influence  of  the  Word ;  and  some 
which  speak  directly  and  clearly  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  be- 
lieve in  the  importance  of  all  these  three.  The  special  agency  of  the 
Spirit  is  taught  as  distinctly  and  as  frequently  as  either  of  the  others.  It 
is  unsafe,  therefore,  to  reject  any  one  of  the  three.  We  have  not  the 
right  to  do  so. 

I  must  now  notice  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  on  1  Cor.  iii.  6:  "I 
have  planted,  ApoUos  watered,  but  God  gave  the  increase."  He  insists, 
that  Paul  speaks  here  of  planting  the  church.  Yet  not  a  word  is  said 
about  planting  the  church  in  the  chapter,  nor  in  the  epistle.  But  he  asks, 
if  Paul  planted  the  Word,  how  did  Apollos  water  it?  And  I  ask  him,  if 
Paul  planted  the  church,  how  did  Apollos  water  it?  By  preaching.  He 
says,  I  make  Apollos  water  the  Word  with  the  Word.  But  if  there  is 
any  inconsistency,  is  he  not  equally  guilty  of  it  ?  He  makes  Paul  plant 
the  church  by  preaching  the  Word,  and  Apollos  water  it  by  preaching  the 
Word  ;  so  that  the  planting  and  the  watering  are  thus  made  to  be  the  same 
operation.  The  truth  is,  Paul  planted  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  the 
seed  of  divine  truth ;  God  by  his  Holy  Spirit  caused  the  seed  to  grow ; 
and  then  Apollos  came  and  continued  to  proclaim  the  truth,  in  connec- 
tion with  which  the  Spirit  still  descended  like  refreshing  showers  on  the 
parched  earth,  and  brought  the  fruit  to  maturity. 

That  a  special  divine  influence  was  exerted,  is  evident  from  the  5th 
verse  :  "  Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye 
believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man?''''  Does  not  the  apostle 
here  teach,  that  God  inclined  each  one  to  believe,  to  receive  the  gospel. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  we  talk  of  planting  a  colony  or  a  city.  [RFr. 
0. — I  did  not  say  planting  a  city,  hut  founding  a  city.]    Very  well- -I 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  671 

have  nothing  to  do  with  the  word  founding.  We  are  speaking  o( plant- 
ing. When  we  speak  of  planting  a  tree,  we  mean  removing  it  fronri 
one  place  and  setting  it  in  another.  When  men  speak  of  planting  a 
colony,  they  mean  transferring  people  from  one  place,  and  establishing 
them  in  another.  Did  Paul  transfer  christians  from  Antioch  and  from  other 
churches  to  Corinth  ?     The  Scriptures  never  speak  of  planting  a  church. 

The  gentleman  is  quite  tired  of  hearing  me  quote  Ezekiel,  xxvi.  25, 26. 
True,  I  have  had  occasion  frequently  to  quote  it,  for  it  presents  the  emblem 
of  purification  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  I  have  referred 
to  it  as  illustrating  both  the  mode  and  the  design  of  baptism ;  and  I  now 
1(iave  use  for  it  in  proof  of  the  doctrine,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  truth.  "A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you:  and  I 
will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an 
heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you."  Here  God 
promises  to  give  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit.  How  could  language  more 
fully  teach  the  doctrine  we  hold  ?  I  have  no  occasion  to  say  any  thing 
more  about  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water.  That  part  of  the  passage  be- 
longs to  subjects  that  have  been  disposed  of. 

Mr.  C.  attempts  to  evade  the  force  of  this  and  other  plain  and  unequiv- 
ocal declarations  of  Scripture  by  telling  you,  that  God  commanded  men 
to  make  themselves  new  hearts ;  and  that  Paul  exhorted  christians  to  be 
renewed  in  their  minds. 

And  he  says,  he  could  thus  prove,  that  men  do  renew  their  own  hearts. 
So  he  perhaps  could,  if  he  could  only  prove,  that  men  always  do  their 
duty.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  love  and  serve  God — to  be  holy;  but 
the  question  is — Do  they  do  it  ?  God  commands  them  to  repent,  be- 
lieve, and  be  perfectly  holy ;  but  do  they  do  so  ?  But  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  God  does  not  command  men  to  do  their  duty ;  but 
he  tells  his  people  what  he  will  do.  "  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you  ;  and 
a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart 
out  of  your  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you 
to  walk  in  my  statutes."  Here  we  have  most  clearly  exhibited  the  radi- 
cal change  of  heart,  and  the  consequent  change  of  life,  of  which  God  is 
the  glorious  author.  The  cause  must  be  bad,  that  leads  a  man  to  attempt 
to  evade  the  force  of  language  so  perfectly  unequivocal. 

I  rejoice  to  know,  that  in  the  Bible,  as  in  the  book  of  nature,  the  truths 
which  are  essential  to  the  safety  and  happiness  of  men,  are  revealed  in 
language  so  clear  and  so  simple,  that  the  uneducated  as  well  as  the  wise 
may  understand  them.  Not  more  certainly  are  we  taught  that  God  sends 
rain  upon  the  thirsty  earth,  than  that  he  pours  out  his  Spirit  upon  the 
hearts  of  men ;  and  he  vvho  can  pray  for  the  former,  that  his  seed  may 
produce  an  abundant  harvest,  may  also  pray  with  stronger  faith  for  the 
latter,  that  he  may  bear  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteousness. 

The  gentleman  repeats  the  assertion,  that  regeneration,  according  to  our 
views,  is  a  miracle.  He  admits,  that  it  is  not  a  miracle  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  word ;  but  he  chooses  to  use  it  in  a  new  sense.  If  he 
chooses  to  say,  that  every  event  brought  about  by  divine  interposition,  is 
a  miracle,  he  must  be  permitted  to  do  so ;  but  such  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  word  as  used  in  the  Bible.  Daily  in  the  course  of  his  provklence,  God 
puts  forth  his  almighty  power.  If  he  does  not,  why  should  we  pray  for 
his  protection  ?  If  all  things  are  now  governed  by  fixed  laws,  our  pray- 
ers are  worse  than  vain. 


672  DEBATE  ON  THE 

It  is  true,  God  does  not  directly  interpose  supernatural  power  withoat 
means,  when  means  can  be  employed.  But  when  an  infant  dies,  that 
could  not  receive  the  Word,  nor  be  sanctified  through  it,  there  is  occasion 
for  God  to  work  without  means.  Mr.  C.  admits  that  infants  are  depra- 
ved ;  and  therefore  he  must  admit,  that  if  they  are  not  sanctified  and  pre- 
pared to  enter  heaven,  they  must  be  lost.  And  is  not  the  soul  of  an  infant 
of  sufficient  value  to  call  for  a  divine  influence  without  means  to  sanctify 
it?  It  is  immortal;  it  will  live  through  endless  ages.  It  is  worth  more 
than  the  whole  world.  When  such  a  spirit  is  called  to  leave  the  world, 
and  is  unfit  for  heaven ;  shall  we  be  told,  that  God  cannot  sanctify  it  by 
his  Spirit?  that  he  cannot  prepare  it  for  the  joys  and  glories  of  heaven? 

The  gentleman  re-asserts  his  unphilosophical  principle,  that  there  can 
be  no  moral  disposition,  where  there  is  no  knowledge.  A  child,  he  says, 
cannot  love  God  before  it  knows  him.  But  it  is  absolutely  certain,  that 
the  mind  may  be  in  such  a  state,  that  it  will  love  some  objects  and  feel  an 
aversion  to  others  on  first  sight.  This  is  a  fact  known  to  every  body. 
Thousands  have  experienced  its  truth  ;  for  they  have  loved  or  disliked 
persons  and  things  the  first  moment  they  ever  saw  them.  This  love  or 
aversion  depends  upon  a  previously  existing  character  or  state  of  mind. 

Every  thing  has  its  nature.  The  lion,  however  young,  has  a  lion's 
nature.  All  lions,  in  all  climates  and  countries,  manifest  the  same  dispo- 
sition, as  soon  as  capable — proving  that  they  possess  a  common  nature. 
Plant  two  trees  in  the  same  soil ;  and  let  them  be  watered  by  the  same 
stream ;  and  one  will  produce  sweet  fruit,  and  the  other  bitter.  They 
possess  different  natures.  This  very  illustration  is  by  the  Savior  applied 
to  the  subject  now  under  discussion.  He  said,  "  make  the  tree  good,  and 
the  fruit  will  be  good."  Make  the  heart  pure,  and  the  life  will  be  pure. 
Again,  he  says — "A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the  heart 
bringeth  forth  good  things ;  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure, 
bringeth  forth  evil  things,"  Matt.  xii.  35.  Such  maybe  the  moral  dispo- 
sition of  a  man's  heart,  that  an  object  of  compassion  will  in  a  moment  call 
forth  his  sympathy  and  his  benevolence.  So  may  an  infant  possess  a 
holy  nature ;  so  that  when  first  it  shall  look  upon  God  in  heaven,  it  will 
love,  adore,  and  worship  him.  This,  I  think,  is  perfectly  clear  to  every 
one  but  my  friend,  Mr.  C. 

I  think  I  have  answered  every  argument  he  has  offered  ;  for  I  was  care- 
ful to  note  them  all.  I  will  now  adduce  some  further  arguments  in  favor 
of  a  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sanctification. 

The  first  passage  I  will  read,  is  Ezekiel  xi.  18,  19,  which  contains 
a  prediction  concerning  the  spiritual  blessings  which  God  would  bestow 
upon  the  Jews :  "  And  they  shall  come  thither,  and  they  shall  take  away 
all  the  detestable  things  thereof,  and  all  the  abominations  thereof  from 
thence.  And  I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit 
within  you :  and  I  will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will 
give  them  an  heart  of  flesh."  Are  we  to  understand  by  such  language 
as  this,  that  God  intended  at  a  future  day  simply  to  present  the  truth  be- 
fore their  minds — the  very  truth  which  they  now  rejected  ?  Or  are  we 
not  plainly  taught,  that  he  purposed  to  exert  upon  their  hearts  such  a 
spiritual  influence,  as  would  cause  them  to  return  to  his  service  ?  The 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  so  perfectly  plain,  that  no  criticism  can  ob- 
scure it. 

Again,  I  will  read  Isaiah  liv.  3,  "  For  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that 
is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground  :  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  673 

thy  seed,  and  my  blessings  upon  thine  offspring ;  and  they  shall  spring 
«p  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water  courses."  This  is  one 
of  the  precious  promises  made  to  the  church  in  her  affliction.  The  day 
was  coming  when  the  Lord  would  pour  water  upon  the  thirsty — would 
cause  the  influences  of  his  Spirit  to  be  abundaudy  enjoyed  by  his  people 
and  by  their  descendants.  Here  we  have  the  emblem  and  the  thing  sig- 
nified. This  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  was  to  result  in  the  conversion  and 
sanctification  of  their  seed. 

Now  i^ompare  this  language  with  that  employed  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
which  WMS  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
in  the  last  days,  (saith  God,)  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh ;  and 
your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophecy,"  &c.  This  language  of 
Joel  is  admitted  by  all  to  denote  a  divine  agency  distinct  from  words  and 
arguments.  Then  when  Isaiah  employs  the  very  same  expression- — "  I 
will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed  " — is  it  not  clear,  that  he  also  speaks 
of  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  arguments  ?  Mark,  too,  the 
happy  results  of  this  spiritual  influence.  The  blessing  of  God  was  to 
descend  upon  their  offspring;  and  they  were  to  grow  up  spiritually  as  wil- 
lows by  the  water-courses.  They  were  to  bring  forth  the  peaceable  fruits 
of  righteousness. — \^Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28 — 1 1  o'clock,  A.  M 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifth  address.] 

Mr.  President — On  yesterday  morning,  sir,  I  gave  reasons  why  I 
sometimes  read  the  word  always  for  only — not  as  its  grammatical  import, 
but  its  contextual  import  in  the  proposition,  as  it  relates  to  our  respective 
views.  Mr.  Rice  might,  therefore,  have  saved  his  time  for  a  more  im- 
portant purpose.  The  terms  only  and  always,  as  before  explained,  have 
here  an  equivalent  value ;  and,  therefore,  I  lay  no  stress  whatever  upon 
any  preference,  except  for  sake  of  perspicuity. 

The  legitimate  point  of  discussion  in  this  proposition,  is  not  whether 
the  Word  operates,  but  whether  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  be  ne- 
cessary, according  to  the  words,  only  through  the  Word.  The  gentleman 
is  shifting  the  ground.  I  never  said,  nor  wrote,  that  the  Word  was  the 
original  cause  of  man's  salvation,  nor  even  the  eflicient  cause.  I  have 
never  ranked  it  above  the  instrumental  cause.  All  that  has  been  offered 
1*T  Mr.  R.  upon  the  subject,  in  any  other  view  of  the  matter,  is  gratuitous 
and  irrelevant.  It  is  to  change  the  proposition,  and  hide  the  point  in  his 
system,  which  I  repudiate.  The  proposition  is,  in  its  own  language,  a 
refutation  of  all  these  insinuations.  It  affirms  that  the  Spirit  of  God  ope- 
rates. The  question  is  not  upon  operation,  but  upon  instrumentality — 
"  only  through  the  Word."  This  is  the  question  to  be  debated  here.  If 
there  be  any  controversy  at  all,  this  is  just  the  point.  If  Mr.  Rice  will 
make  the  Word  the  uniform  and  universal  instrument,  he  agrees  with  me. 
There  is,  then,  no  controversy  about  it.  This  is  the  true  and  real  issue. 
Any  other  issue  is  false,  feigned  and  deceptive.  I  have,  during  a  pro- 
tracted controversy  for  many  years,  given  my  views  on  physical,  moral 
and  spiritual  influences;  upon  physical  and  metaphysical  regeneration — but 
these  are  other  questions  than  that  now  before  us.  What  the  Spirit  of 
God  does,  is  not  the  question ;  but  by  what  means  the  Spirit  of  God  ope- 
rates in  conversion  and  sanctification.  The  gendeman  is  seeking  to  get 
off  from  the  question ;  still  he  perceives  the  real  point,  for  he  has  offered 
arguments  which  have  no  relevancy,  if  that  be  not  the  point. 
43  3L 


674  DEBATE  ON  THE 

He  argues  against  my  views,  because  they  "  limit  the  power  of  God." 
That  is,  of  course,  in  confining  the  operation  to  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Word.  It  limits,  but  does  not  deny  the  operation.  He  is  right  here. 
This  is  the  issue,  and  ihe  objection  was  made  in  a  just  view  of  it.  Well, 
now,  I  meet  the  objection  as  a  legitimate  one.  We  shall  try  its  merits. 
The  Universalian  says,  the  Unitarian,  the  Calvinist,  and  especially  the 
Presbyterian,  limits  the  power  of  God,  because  he  makes  salvation  depend 
upon  faith  and  a  holy  life.  When  Mr.  Rice  defends  himself  from  that 
charge,  his  defence  shall  be  mine  from  his  charge  of  limitation.  The 
Unitarian,  too,  talks  against  limiting  the  great  God,  in  extending  salvation 
beyond  the  precincts  of  Bible  influence.  But  all  this  is  idle  talk.  I  do 
limit  the  power  of  God,  only  because  he  himself  has  limited  it.  God  can 
only  do  by  his  power,  what  his  wisdom  and  benevolence  approve.  He 
has  no  power  beyond  that,  though  almighty  to  do  what  these  two  per- 
fections approbate.  Therefore,  "  He  cannot  lie  ;"  "  He  cannot  deny  him- 
self." Therefore,  he  cannot  make  a  wicked  man  happy ;  and,  therefore, 
he  can  convert  men  only  through  the  gospel.  There  are  physical,  as  well 
as  moral  impossibilities.  God  cannot  make  two  mountains  without  a 
valley.  He  cannot  make  light  and  darkness  co-habit  the  same  place  at 
the  same  time.  He  cannot  lie.  This  is  another  ad  captandum  argument. 
God  can  do  many  things  he  will  not  do.  I  say  again,  he  can  only  do 
what  is  in  harmony  with  all  his  perfections.  There  are,  also,  moral  im- 
possibilities. A  virtuous  and  kind  father  could  kill  all  his  children,  and 
yet  he  could  not.  He  has  physical,  but  not  moral  power.  His  arm  could, 
but  his  heart  could  not ;  and,  therefore,  the  moral  sometimes  triumphs  over 
the  physical.  God  can  only  save  through  the  means  his  wisdom,  justice 
and  benevolence  dictate. 

But  a  second  objection,  pertinent  to  the  true  issue,  is  couched  in  the 
following  terms  :  My  doctrine  "leads  to  infant  damnation."  That  is,  if 
the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Word,  then  infants  cannot  be  saved, 
because  they  cannot  understand,  or  believe  the  Word.  INow  if  his  views 
of  faith  and  spiritual  influence  were  correct,  then  the  objection  would  lie 
against  my  affirmation,  "  only  through  the  Word.''''  But  his  views  being 
erroneous  on  these  points,  the  objection  is  idle  and  impotent.  These 
words,  "  infant  damnation,"  are  ugly  words — and  they  come  not  so  con- 
sistendy  from  one  who  believes  and  teaches  the  confession.  His  creed 
divides  infants  into  two  classes — the  elect  and  the  ^'non-elect.''''  Of  course, 
then,  infant  damnation  is  inevitable,  if  the  confession  be  true.  Now  if  we 
were  to  proportion  the  number  of  "  elect  infants,^''  by  the  number  of  elect 
men,  according  to  appearances,  there  would  be  a  hundred  non-elect,  for 
one.  And  yet  this  gentleman  upbraids  my  doctrine  as  objectionable,  be- 
cause it  might,  perchance,  involve  the  possibility  of  infant  damnation, 
when  his  own  confession  consigns  an  awful  overwhelming  majority  of  all 
infants  to  eternal  perdition  !  Think  not  that  I  exaggerate  the  relative  pro- 
portions. Look  at  the  whole  world  !  Pagans  of  all  casts  ;  Greek  and  Ro- 
man parties ;  Jews,  Turks,  Atheists,  and  all  the  reprobate  Protestants  ! 
What  disproportion  between  the  good  and  the  bad  !  It  is  as  one  to  the 
hundred ! 

There  is  nothing  more  repulsive  to  the  human  mind,  than  the  doctrine 
of  infant  damnation.  It  was  the  first  item  of  Calvinistic  faith,  at  which 
my  infant  soul  revolted.  I  still  remember  my  boyish  reasonings  on  that 
tenet  of  elect  and  non-elect  infants.  I  dared  not  to  say,  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely false,  seeing  my  creed  and  my  ancestors  recognized  it.    But,  thought 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  675 

I,  can  it  be  true  ?  How  can  it  be  true  ?  An  infant  is  born,  yet  could 
not  help  it — it  opened  its  eyes  but  once,  and  shut  them  forever — and  went 
to  everlasting  anguish ! !  !  That  millions  should  be  forced  into  exist- 
ence, and  forced  out  of  it  in  a  day,  a  month,  a  year,  or  some  six  or  seven, 
and  go  down  to  everlasting  agonies  !  My  soul  sickened  at  the  thought ! — 
and  yet  I  had  lived  full  fourteen  years,  before  I  presumed  to  utter  to  any 
mortal  what  my  heart  felt.  I  thank  God,  this  doctrine  of  reprobate  infants 
is  not  found  any  where  but  in  the  creed ;  and  there  they  are  found  only 
in  a  minced  form,  by  implication,  in  the  words  "elect  infants." 

There  are  various  assertions  and  negations,  and  sometimes  oft  repeated, 
the  only  object  of  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  call  me  off  from  the 
main  issue.  I  should  like  to  refer  to  all  these  matters,  some  of  them  sev- 
eral times  repeated,  if  I  had  time,  or  if  it  were  incumbent  on  me.  We 
should  lose  nothing  by  a  full  examination  of  them  all.  Meantime,  I  am 
just  reminded  of  the  speculation  on  the  word  Jioly. 

The  gentleman's  speculations  on  the  word  holy,  and  God's  making 
man  holy,  and  a  holy  house,  &c.  have  not  been  full  of  light  to  my  reason. 
Holiness  is  not  a  positive  creation,  an  entity,  a  substantive  existence,  nor 
an  attribute  like  wisdom,  power,  or  goodness.  It  is  a  relative  attribute. 
Were  there  no  impurity  there  could  be  no  holiness.  In  contrast  with 
impurity,  God,  and  angels,  and  saints,  are  holy  beings.  The  gentleman's 
positions  would  apply  as  much  to  Eden  and  paradise  as  to  man.  He  might 
say,  God  created  Eden  and  paradise  holy,  as  well  as  man.  In  that  accep- 
tation the  universe  was  made  holy.  I  must  be  permitted,  though  perhaps 
not  in  a  way  adapted  to  universal  intelligence  and  acceptance,  to  offer 
a  remark  or  two  on  man,  tending  to  illustrate  my  position  at  least. 

Man,  with  me,  when  contemplated  in  his  whole  person  is  a  plural  unit. 
He  is  one  man,  having  a  body,  a  soul,  and  a  spirit.  So  both  my  philo- 
sophy and  my  Bible  teach.  Paul  prayed  for  the  Thessalonians  that 
God  would  sanctify  them  wholly  (holoteleis)  their  body,  soul,  and  spirit. 
Their  pnuema,  psuche,  S07na.  Not  only  have  the  Greeks  these  three 
names,  but  the  Latins  also.  They  had  their  animus,  their  anima,  and 
their  corpus.  So  had  the  Hebrews.  So  have  the  moderns,  as  we  have 
— body,  soul,  spirit.  The  body  is  a  mere  organized  material  machine — 
the  soul  is  the  seat  of  all  the  passions  and  instincts  of  our  nature,  and  is 
intimately  connected  with  the  blood.  It  is  the  animal  life.  The  spirit 
is  a  purely  intellectual  principle,  as  intimately  connected  with  the  soul,  as 
the  soul  with  the  blood,  and  the  vital  principle.  Now  the  spirit,  or  intel- 
lectual principle  in  man,  is  not  the  seat  of  corruption,  or  of  depravity 
abstractly,  any  more  than  the  mere  materials  of  human  flesh.  The 
understanding  or  intellect  is  indeed  weakened,  and  sometimes  perverted  by 
the  passions,  the  animal  instincts  and  impulses.  But  the  soul  is  the  great 
seat  of  all  those  corrupting  and  debasing  propensities  and  affections  that 
involve  the  whole  man  in  sin  and  misery.  Man  was  not  condemned  for 
reasoning  illogically ;  nor  was  he  condemned  because  he  was  either 
hungry  or  thirsty,  or  had  these  appetites,  but  because  captivated  by  his 
passions,  he  was  led  into  actual  rebellion.  This  is  still  the  depravity  of 
man.  His  spirit  is  enslaved  to  his  passions  and  appetites.  Its  approvings 
and  disapprovings  are  all  more  or  less  contaminated,  biassed,  and  tinged 
by  these  rebellious  elements,  this  "law  of  sin  which  is  in  his  members." 
warring  against  the  law  of  his  mind,  reason  and  conscience.  Now  these 
not  being  developed  in  infancy,  any  more  than  reason  or  conscience, 
places  them  under  quite  a  different  dispensation  and  destiny.     Dying  in 


676  DEBATE  ON  THE 

that  undeveloped  state,  they  are  not  the  subjects  of  condemnation  eternal, 
never  having  disobeyed  God,  nor  refused  the  gospel.  They  need  not 
those  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  which  the  theory  of  Mr.  Rice  so  often 
speaks,  and  witli  which  it  is  so  replete,  all  of  w^iich  originated  too  in 
the  brain  of  one  Saint  Augustine. 

Hours  might  be  consumed  in  the  development  of  these  principles ; 
and  without  a  full  development,  perhaps  they  ought  not  to  be  introduced. 
I  have,  indeed,  spoken  thus  far^  merely  to  show,  that  we  have  reason  to 
repudiate  the  notion  of  the  abstract,  undefinable  metaphysical  regeneration 
of  an  infant,  as  essential  to  its  salvation.  It  only  needs,  a^  before  ob- 
served, a  physical  regeneration  ;  a  destruction  of  that  body  in  which  those 
seeds  of  passion  and  sinful  appetites  are  so  thickly  sown,  in  consequence 
of  the  animal  and  sensitive  having  triumphed  over  the  intellectual  and 
moral  man,  and  so  entailing  upon  our  race  this  natural  proneness  to  evil. 
Hence  the  necessity  of  physical  regeneration.  The  adult  saint  needs  it 
as  much  as  the  infant.  "That  law,  (or  power)  of  sin,"  in  the  members, 
of  which  Paul  complained — that  "  body  of  sin  and  death,"  under  which 
he  groaned,  and  which  made  him,  in  his  own  esteem,  a  "  wretched  man," 
must  be  destroyed,  AVhile  "the  inward  man  delighted  in  the  law  of  God, 
he  saw  another  law  in  his  members,  warring  against  that  law  of  his 
mind,  and  bringing  him  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  was  in 
his  members."  This  will  be  destroyed  in  the  saint  before  admission 
into  heaven — and  that  is  what  I  mean  by  physical  regeneration  ;  and  this 
is  destroyed  before  development  in  the  dying  infant,  and,  therefore, 
through  the  Lord  Messiah ;  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life  ;  the  sin- 
atoning  Lamb  of  God ; — the  Second  Adam — it  slumbers  in  the  bosom  of 
its  Father  and  its  God,  till  the  great  regeneration  of  heaven  and  earth. 

Mr.  R.  says,  he  believes  not  in  physical  regeneration.  Why  then 
believe  in  infant  regeneration,  without  the  moral  means  of  the  Word? 
Without  a  regeneration  of  the  heart,  he  says,  they  cannot  be  saved  ;  and 
that  being  without  knowledge,  faith,  love,  or  hope,  must  be  either  physi- 
cal or  metaphysical,  or  both.  I  plead  the  physical  regeneration  of  the 
body  and  animal  soul,  he  the  physical  and  immediate  regeneration  of 
tlie  spirit  while  in  the  body.  This,  however,  is  all  aside  from  the  great 
question.  It  comes  in  by  the  way  to  illustrate  or  support  the  fact,  that 
with  him,  regeneration  is  not  according  to  my  eighth  argument,  through 
the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  AVord,  but  tvithout  it.  I  will  dismiss  this 
episode  by  a  quotation  from  Paul,  Rom.  v.  "  By  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  constituted  sinners,  so  by  one  man's  obedience  shall  many  be 
constituted  righteous  ;"  and  as  death  reigned,  before  the  law,  over  them  that 
had  not  sinned,  as  Adam  did,  by  violating  a  positive  precept;  so  grace 
will  reign,  by  another  man,  over  them  that  never  obeyed  a  precept ;  who, 
by  reason  of  their  infancy,  never  on  earth  could  discern  between  good  and 
evil.  So  I  opine,  and  in  so  thinking,  I  have  much  countenance,  if  not 
positive  testimony,  from  my  Father's  Book.  Our  Savior's  death  has 
laid  such  a  broad,  strong,  and  enduring  foundation,  that  the  Divine 
Father  of  humanity  can,  with  the  most  perfect  propriety,  so  far  as  mor- 
tal vision  can  pierce,  throw  the  arms  of  his  sublime  philanthropy  around 
the  dying  millions  of  our  race,  whose  only  Son  was  in  their  flesh,  and 
not  only  snatch  them  from  the  desolation  of  the  grave,  but  also  train 
them  in  the  skies,  as  he  does  their  parents  on  the  earth,  for  the  high 
beatitudes  of  an  eternal  fruition  of  Him  that  made  and  redeemed  thena 
from  the  earth. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  677 

Mr  Ricp  has  not  yet  explained  to  us  his  views  of  faith.  He  has  a  re- 
generation without  it;  indeed,  in  all  cases,  I  presume,  a  regeneration  an- 
terior to  faith.  Faith,  as  I  perceive,  is  the  effect  of  regeneration,  not  the 
•cause,  according  to  his  theory.  An  holy  principle  is  immediately  infused, 
and  then  faith  is  a  holy  act  of  a  holy  soul,  regenerated  by  immediate  con- 
tact with  the  Divine  Spirit.  Hence  his  adult  and  infant  regeneration 
are,  if  I  understand  him,  alike  physical,  or  without  the  Word  of  God- 
Faith  or  regeneration  must  be  prior — a  simultaneous  existence  is  not  sup- 
posable.  With  me,  faith  is  first,  and  repentance,  or  a  change  of  heart, 
next  in  the  order  of  things — in  the  order  of  nature  and  causation.  If  re- 
generation be  the  cause  of  faidi,  anterior  to  faith,  without  faith,  then 
again,  of  what  use  are  all  human  instrumentalities,  preaching,  Bibles,  &c.  ? 
1  wonder,  except  to  save  appearances,  why  any  one  should  be  taught  to 
read  the  Bible,  or  go  to  meeting,  until  he  is  born  again.  If  regeneration 
is  not  within  the  control  of  any  mortal  instrumentality — if  no  means  are  to 
be  used  with  reference  to  it,  I  ask,  then,  how  do  men  make  faith  void, 
and  the  gospel  of  none  effect  ?  If  the  Bible  be  not  a  moral  instrument  in 
this  matter,  what  kind  of  instrument  is  it  ? 

With  me  every  christian  is  a  new  man.  His  heart  is  changed.  His 
soul  is  renewed  in  the  image  of  God,  "  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and 
true  holiness."  God's  Holy  Spirit  is  the  agent — his  gospel  is  the  in- 
strument. Instrumental  causes  are  not  original  nor  procuring  causes. 
Without  the  instrumental,  however,  it  cannot  be  accomplished.  No  man 
can  see  without  the  instrument  called  an  eye,  or  the  instrument  called 
light.  Truth  and  faith  are  the  grand  means,  or  the  conjoint  means,  of 
conversion  and  sanctitication. 

Mr.  R.  must  again  have  up  Paul  and  Apollos,  It  is  a  small  matter- 
but  he  may  have  it  again.  1  have  not  opened  a  commentator  as  an  au- 
thority for  my  views  in  any  case  in  the  discussion,  but  I  will  read  a  few 
words  from  Henry  confirmatory  of  them. 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  a  passage  from  Henry,  the  copy  of  which  is  lost.] 

I  repose  no  confidence  in  Henry  as  a  critic ;  but  I  do  in  McKnight, 
who  paraphrases  these  words  thus:  "I  have  planted  you  in  God's  vine- 
yard, others  have  watered  you  by  giving  you  instruction;  but  God 
hath  made  you  to  grow."  Henry,  in  his  common  sense  view,  very 
well  agrees  with  McKnight.  I  know  not  how  many  critics  agree  with 
me,  but  I  have  the  context. 

Paul  preached  the  Word,  and  Apollos  watered  the  Word !  A  little 
better  acquaintance  with  Paul  and  Apollos  would  relieve  him  from  this 
strait.  Paul  was  a  powerful  reasoner,  and  Apollos  was  an  eloquent 
erhorter.  Now,  the  reasoner  is  the  strong  man,  and  therefore  grubs  and 
plants.  The  exhorter  follows  him,  and  refreshes  with  his  zeal,  his  ar- 
dor, his  eloquence.  They  do  well  to  go  together.  Two  by  two,  let 
them  go.  One  reasons,  and  one  pleads.  Sinners  are  converted,  and 
saints  are  built  up,  and  churches  made  to  grow,  by  such  joint-laborers 
in  God's  field.  While  the  idea  of  a  church  is  in  our  mind,  tlie  figure  is 
apposite  and  beautiful.  But  substitute  the  Word,  and  it  is  destitute  of 
consistency,  propriety,  and  beauty.  It  is  peculiarly  unfortunate  for  the 
development  of  the  great  principles  involved  in  these  propositions,  that  I 
have  no  respondent.  Eight  arguments  are  now  before  us,  widiout  any 
response  or  closing  upon  any  one,  in  the  form  of  a  direct  issue.  In  my 
last,  I  brought  the  united  testimony  of  Peter,  Paul,  and  James,  and  of  the 
Messiah  himself,  on  the  indispensible  instrumentality  of  the  Word.     I 

3l2 


678  DEBATE  ON  THE 

gave  all  emphasis  to  the  figure  of  seed,  consecrated  as  it  is  by  Jesus  and 
the  apostle  Peter.  It  appears  as  though  Mr.  R.  feared  the  figure  and  tlie 
argiunent  deduced  from  it.  He  cannot  but  perceive,  that  if  the  Word  be 
so  compared  to  seed,  with  regard  to  the  new  creation,  whether  traced  in 
its  animal  or  vegetable  associations,  it  is  made  essential  to  the  product  of 
a  new  man.  Where  that  is  not  the  ofispring,  the  product  cannot  be. 
Our  Savior  carries  the  figure  so  far  as  to  say,  that  if  even  the  seed  be 
sown  in  the  heart,  and  the  devil  should  take  it  away  by  any  stratagem, 
then  there  is  no  change,  no  salvation.  May  I  not  then  conclude  that  the 
gentleman's  neglect  to  reply,  is  an  indisputable  evidence  of  his  lack  of 
ability  to  reply.  Well,  we  shall  expect  to  hear  from  him  on  the  subject 
of  physical  regeneration,  and  especially  on  faith,  as  the  cause  or  the  ef- 
fect of  moral  renovation.  The  gentleman  has  indeed  said,  the  seed  is  not 
every  thing  !     And  so  say  we. 

An  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Rice's  manner  of  assertion,  attack,  and  ne- 
gation, makes  it  the  more  incumbent  on  me  to  keep  the  proper  issue  be- 
fore you,  fellow-citizens ;  and  frequently  to  assert  my  views  on  the  sub- 
ject on  which  we  have  been  most  calumniated.  Our  reformation  began 
in  the  conviction  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  corrupted  forms  of  religion  in 
popular  use,  to  effect  that  thorough  change  of  heart  and  life  which  the 
gospel  contemplates  as  so  essential  to  admission  into  heaven.  You  may 
have  heard  me  say  here,  (and  the  whole  country  may  have  read  it  and 
heard  it  many  a  time,)  that  a  seven-fold  immersion  in  the  river  Jordan,  or 
any  other  water,  icithout  a  previous  change  of  heart,  will  avail  nothing, 
without  a  genuine  faith  and  penitence.  Nor  would  the  most  strict  con- 
formity to  all  the  forms  and  usages  of  the  most  perfect  church  order  ;  the 
most  exact  observance  of  all  the  ordinances,  without  personal  faith,  piety, 
and  moral  righteousness — without  a  new  heart,  hallowed  lips,  and  a  holy 
life,  profit  any  man  in  reference  to  eternal  salvation. 

We  are  represented,  because  of  the  emphasis  laid  upon  some  ordin- 
ances, as  though  we  made  a  savior  of  rites  and  ceremonies — as  believing 
in  water  regeneration,  and  in  the  saving  efficacy  of  immersion ;  and  as 
looking  no  farther  than  to  these  outward  bodily  acts  :  all  of  which  is  just 
as  far  from  the  truth  and  from  our  views,  as  transubstantiation  or  purga- 
tory. I  have,  indeed,  no  faith  in  conversion  by  tlie  Word,  without  the 
Spirit;  nor  by  the  Spirit  without  the  Word.  The  Spirit  is  ever  present 
with  the  Word,  in  conversion  and  in  sanctification.  A  change  of  heart  is 
essential  to  a  change  of  character,  and  both  are  essential  to  admission  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  "  Without  holiness  no  man  shall  enjoy  C4od." 
Though  as  scrupulous  as  a  Pharisee,  in  tithing,  mint,  anise,  and  cummin, 
and  rigid  to  the  letter  in  all  observances,  without  those  moral  excellen- 
cies usually  called  righteousness  and  holiness,  no  man  can  be  saved  eter- 
nally :  "  for  the  unrighteous  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  God." — [^Time 
expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28— lU  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  fifth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  do  not  deny,  that  Mr.  Campbell  believes  in  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  change  of  heart;  but  the  great  difficulty  is,  that  he  rejects 
the  only  agency  which  can  effect  it.  It  is  of  little  advantage  for  him  to 
urge  the  necessity  of  such  a  change ;  so  long  as  his  doctrine  makes  it  un- 
attainable. He  teaches,  that  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  face 
of  God ;  but  denies  the  only  agency  that  can  prepare  him  for  the  bliss 
of  heaven. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  679 

I  do  not  know  what  he  means,  when  he  says,  the  Spirit  is  always  pres- 
ent with  the  Word ;  nor  does  he  convey  any  definite  information  con- 
cerning his  views,  when  he  says,  men  are  converted  and  sanctified  by 
the  Spirit  and  the  Word.  We  desire  to  know  what  he  means  by  these 
expressions.  Does  he  mean,  that  in  addition  to  the  words  and  arguments 
contained  in  the  Scriptures,  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
heart  ?  If  so,  what  are  we  contending  about  ?  But  if  I  am  to  learn  his 
views  from  his  publications,  he  does  not  so  believe.  The  manner  in 
which  he  has  illustrated  his  views  on  this  subject,  leaves  no  room  to 
doubt  what  they  are.  The  Holy  Spirit,  he  has  said,  operates  on  the 
minds  of  men,  just  as  the  spirits  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  operated 
on  the  minds  of  their  hearers  or  readers.  But,  I  ask,  would  there  be  any 
propriety  in  saying,  that  the  spirits  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  are  al- 
ways present  with  their  writings  ?  Who  ever  heard  of  such  language 
being  employed  ?  If  his  illustration  is  not  wholly  deceptive,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  with  tlie  Word  in  no  other  sense,  tlian  the  spirits  of  those  an- 
cient orators  are  present  with  their  writings  which  still  are  extant ! 

It  is  very  important  that  we  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  real  difference  be- 
tween us.  I  will,  therefore,  again  read  a  passage  from  his  Christianity 
Restored,  which  I  read  on  yesterday  : 

"  Every  spirit  puts  forth  its  moi-al  power  in  words ;  that  is,  all  the  power 
it  has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners,  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  mean- 
ing and  arrangement  of  its  ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  in  significant  signs 
addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  *  *  *  *  The  argument  is  the  power  of  the 
spirit  of  man,  and  the  only  power  which  one  spirit  can  exert  over  another  is 
its  arguments.'''' 

Observe,  he  says,  only  moral  power  can  be  exerted  on  minds  ;  and 
every  spirit  puts  forth  the  only  power  it  can  exert  over  others  in  words 
and  argum^ents.  The  whole  converting  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  he  contends,  is  in  the  written  Word.  The  Spirit  dictated  and 
confirmed  the  Word  ;  and  the  Word  accomplishes  the  whole  work  of 
conversion  and  sanctification.  It  is  against  this  doctrine  that  I  enter  my 
solemn  protest. 

Mr.  C.  says,  he  holds,  that  the  Word  is  only  the  instrument  in  con- 
version and  sanctification.  This,  however,  like  his  other  statements,  is 
entirely  ambiguous ;  for  the  words  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  were  the 
instruments  by  which  they  sought  to  produce  an  effect  on  the  minds  of 
their  hearers  and  readers.  But  he  does  not  come  out  plainly  and  tell  us, 
whether  he  believes  in  any  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  Word. 
Does  the  gentleman  now  believe  in  any  such  additional  influence  in  con- 
version and  sanctification  ;  or  does  he  still  hold  the  doctrine  taught  in  his 
publications  ?     Does  he  retract  his  former  views  ? 

In  our  correspondence,  so  far  as  I  had  any  thing  to  do  with  it,  I  was 
careful  to  have  a  perfect  understanding,  that  I  should  have  the  right  to  ex- 
plain the  proposition  by  his  published  writings.  To  this  he  agreed ;  and 
I  have  read  them.  And  most  certainly  he  does  deny  any  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  except  the  mere  force  of 
words  and  arguments  ! 

I  am  truly  gratified,  that  the  gentleman  has  brought  forward  the  charge 
against  us,  of  holding  the  docti-ine  of  the  damnation  of  infants;  because  it  is 
believed  by  many  who  are  unacquainted  with  our  views.  He  says,  our  con- 
fession of  faith  teaches  this  doctrine.  This  is  not  correct.  It  is  true  that 
it  speaks  of  elect  infants — "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenera- 


680  DEBATE  ON  THE 

led  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit."  Are  all  iufants,  dying  in 
infancy,  elect?  All  Presbyterians,  who  express  an  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject, so  believe.  The  expression,  "elect  infants,"  the  gentleman  seems 
to  tliink,  implies  non-elect  infants  ;  but  I  call  on  him  to  produce  one  re- 
spectable Presbyterian  author,  who  ever  interpreted  the  confession  of 
faith  as  he  has.  I  never  heard  a  Presbyterian  minister,  nor  read  a  Pres- 
byterian author  who  expressed  tlie  opinion,  that  infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  lost.  Mr.  Campbell  boasts  of  his  familiarity  with  the  doctrines  of  our 
church.  He,  then,  is  the  very  man  to  make  good  this  oft-repeated  charge. 
I  call  for  the  proof. 

So  far  as  I  know  the  sentiments  of  Presbyterians  on  this  subject,  they 
believe,  that  all  that  die  in  infancy  are  of  the  elect — are  chosen  of  God  to 
eternal  life,  and  are  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  saved  according  to 
his  eternal  purpose.  Infants  do  not  die  by  accident.  He  whose  provi- 
dence extends  to  tlie  falling  of  the  sparrow,  takes  care  of  every  human 
being ;  and  we  believe,  that  his  purpose  is  to  save  those  whom  he  calls 
from  time  before  they  are  capable  of  knowing  the  truth. 

But  the  gentleman  has  made  the  charge,  that  the  Presbyterian  church 
holds  the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants ;  and  now  I  demand  the 
proof.  What  proportion  of  the  human  family  are  chosen  to  eternal  life, 
our  confession  of  faith  does  not  profess  to  determine.  The  calculations 
of  Mr.  C,  therefore,  is  an  aftair  of  his  own,  for  which  we  are  not  respon- 
sible. The  very  worst  that  any  candid  man  can  say  of  our  confes- 
sion, so  far  as  this  subject  is  concerned,  is,  that  it  does  not  profess  to  de- 
termine whether  all  infants  are  saved.  It  gives  not  the  least  intimation 
that  any  are  lost. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us  that,  when  quite  young,  his  mind  was 
shocked  at  this  doctrine.  Is  it  not,  then,  most  marvellous,  that  whilst 
hi;5  mind  revolted  at  the  imagined  doctrine  that  some  infants  may  be  lost, 
he  should  have  embraced  a  doctrine  that  makes  it  utterly  impossible  that 
any  of  those  dying  in  infancy  can  be  saved? !  It  was  certainly  a  most 
singular  effect  of  his  early  dislike  of  what  he  imagined  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  our  church  ! 

I  must  say  a  word  or  two  in  reply  to  his  remarks  concerning  the  limit- 
ing of  the  power  of  God  over  the  human  mind.  He  says,  he  does  limit 
the  power  of  God,  and  tliat  the  Universalists  complain  of  him  for  so 
doing;  and  he  has  specified  two  things  which  God  cannot  do,  viz :  he 
cannot  lie,  and  he  cannot  make  two  hills  without  a  valley !  I  was  not 
aware  that  these  things  were  the  objects  o( power.  Absurdities  are  not  the 
objects  of  power.  There  is  no  objection  to  his  speaking  of  the  exertion 
of  God's  power  as  limited,  where  God  has  so  spoken ;  but  I  call  on  him 
now  to  show  us  where,  in  the  Bible,  God  has  said  that  he  cannot,  or  that 
he  will  not,  exert  on  the  human  mind  any  power  except  through  words 
and  arguments.  Or  where  has  he  said,  that  he  cannot  or  will  not  sanc- 
tify the  hearts  of  any  of  the  human  family  without  the  Word  !  There  is 
not  such  passage  from  Genesis  to  Revelation.  And  since  God  has  not 
limited  himself,  who  dares  undertake  to  limit  him  ? 

Mr.  C,  let  it  be  remembered,  not  only  denies  that  God  does  exert  on 
the  human  mind  any  other  power  tlian  that  of  words  or  arguments ;  but 
he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  assert,  that  he  cannot  operate  except  by  the 
Truth ! !  !  Where  has  God  said  that  he  cannot  ?  Nowhere.  How, 
then,  can  any  man  venture  to  .say  so  ? 

I  was  quite  pleased  with  the  gentleman's  last  speech.   For  our  cause  it 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  681 

was  tiie  best  he  has  made  since  the  debate  commenced,  except  that  re- 
markable one  on  yesterday  morning.  His  doctrine  has  driven  him  into 
absurdities  so  gbring,  that  all  must  see  them.  He  asserts,  that  God  did 
not  create  man  holy  ;  and  says,  we  might  as  well  talk  of  making  the  gar- 
den of  Eden  holy  !  Solomon  said,  "  God  made  man  itpright,  but  he 
sought  out  many  inventions."  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  vp- 
right?  What  is  the  difference  between  uprightness  and  holiness?  If 
the  gentleman  chooses  to  charge  Solomon  with  talking  foolishly,  let  him 
do  it.     It  is  the  language  of  Divine  revelation. 

Mr.  C.  says  that  there  is  no  depravity  in  intellect — that  it  is  all  in  our 
animal  passions,  which  belong  to  the  body.  I  was  pleased  to  hear  him 
advance  this  doctrine.  Not  that  I  desire  to  see  any  one  run  into  danger- 
ous error,  but  I  am  glad  when  false  principles  lead  to  such  results  as  to 
prove  to  every  one  their  erroneousness.  The  doctrine  that  depravity  is 
in  the  body,  not  in  the  mind,  is  indeed  quite  ancient.  The  Manicheans 
held  that  matter  is  inherently  evil,  and  that  the  soul  is  not  depraved. 
Hence,  they  believed  that  to  become  holy,  it  was  only  necessary  to 
afflict,  starve,  and  emaciate  the  body !  If  all  sin  is  in  thej  body,  the 
sooner  we  get  out  of  it  the  sooner  we  shall  get  clear  of  sin.  If  sin  be- 
longs to  the  body,  let  us  get  the  body  into  a  proper  state,  and  all  will  be 
right ! 

But  I  understand  that  "  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,"  not  that  it 
consists  in  corruption  of  the  body.  The  works  of  the  flesh,  as  enu- 
merated by  Paul,  are  "  Adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness, 
idolatry,  ivitchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  sedi- 
tions, heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revellings,  and  such 
like."  By  the  wordjlesh,  as  I  have  repeatedly  remarked,  he  means  the 
depraved  nature  of  the  human  mind,  and  these  are  its  works.  Yet  Mr. 
C.  tells  you,  that  depravity  is  in  the  appetites  and  passions  belonging  to 
the  body  !  This  is  not  only  a  contradiction  of  Paul,  but  of  his  own  doc- 
trine, as  stated  in  his  Christian  System,  where  he  says : 

"  Man,  then,  in  his  natural  state,  was  not  merely  an  animal,  but  an  intel- 
lectual, moral,  pure  and  lioly  being." — 

Admitting  and  teaching  that  God  created  him  holy.     Again: 

"  There  is,  therefore,  a  sin  of  our  nature,  as  well  as  personal  transgres- 
sion. Some  inappositely  call  the  sin  of  our  nature  our  '  original  sin  ;'  as  if 
the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  personal  offence  of  all  his  children.  True  indeed 
it  is,  our  nature  was  corrupted  by  the  fall  of  Adam  before  it  was  trans- 
mitted to  us,  and  hence  that  hereditary  imbecility  to  do  do  good,  and  that 
proneness  to  do  evil,  so  universally  apparent  in  all  human  beings.  Let  no 
man  open  his  mouth  against  the  transmission  of  a  moral  distemper,  until 
he  satisfactorily  explain  the  fact,  that  the  special  characteristic  vices  of 
parents  appear  in  their  children,  as  much  as  the  color  of  their  skin,  their 
hair,  or  the  contour  of  their  faces.  A  disease  in  the  moral  constitution 
of  man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  any  physical  taint,  if  there  be  any 
truth  in  history,  biography,  or  human  observation.  *  *  *  *  All  inlierit 
a  fallen,  consequently  a  sinful  nature  ;  though  all  are  not  equally  depraved. 
*  *  *  *  Condemned  to  natural  death,  and  greatly  fallen  and  depraved 
IN  OUR  whole  moral  CONSTITUTION  though  we  certainly  are,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  sin  of  Adam,"  &c. — chap.  iv.  sec.  4.  pp.  29,  30. 

Now,  observe,  he  here  distinctly  states,  that  there  is  a  sin  of  our  na- 
ture, as  well  as  personal  transgression.  Yet  he  has  positively  asserted, 
during  this  discussion,  that  there  can  be  no  disposition,  where  there  is  no 
knowledge !  In  his  last  speech  he  located  sin  in  the  body ;  but  here  he 
says,  "  let  no  man  open  his  mouth  against  the  transmission  of  a  moral 


682  DEBATE  ON  THE 

distemper,  until  he  can  satisfactorily  explain  the  fact,"  &c.  "  A  disease  in 
the  moral  constitution  of  man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  any  physical 
taint,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  biography,  or  human  observation!" 
And  on  the  next  page,  "  All  inherit  b.  fallen,  therefore  a  sinful  nature  ;" 
or  would  he  say,  a  sinful  body?  Again,  he  represents  man  as  depraved 
in  his  ivhole  moral  constitution!  Ah,  when  a  man,  in  order  to  sustain 
his  tenets,  is  forced  into  such  palpable  contradictions,  concerning  subjects 
so  clear,  he  must  feel  that  his  cause  is  hopeless  ! 

A  word  about  physical  regeneration.     He  says,  regeneration  without 
means,  as  in  case  of  infants,  is  physical  regeneration.     Let  him  prove  It 
He  has  asserted  it,  but  the  Bible  does  not  so  teach.     I  deny  that  the  re- 
generation of  a  soul,  without  means,  is  physical ;  and  an  assertion  is,  I 
think,  properly  met  by  a  denial. 

Mr.  C.  says,  I  have  not  defined  regeneration.  I  have  explained  con- 
version to  mean  a  change  of  heart,  followed  by  a  change  of  life.  The 
former  is  commonly  called  regeneration,  and  the  latter  conversion.  Re- 
generation is  a  change  of  heart  from  sinfulness  to  holiness,  and  conse- 
quently from  the  love  and  practice  of  sin  to  the  love  and  service  of  God. 
When  the  heart  is  renewed,  man  loves  that  Savior  against  whom  hereto- 
fore it  rose  in  enmity.  He  sees  a  divine  beauty  and  loveliness  where  be- 
fore he  saw,  as  it  were,  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground.  It  is  of  this  blessed 
work  of  the  Spirit  Paul  speaks,  when  he  says — "It  is  God  that  worketh 
in  you  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  The  heart  is  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  result  is,  that  the  sinner  wills  and  acts  in 
obedience  to  God's  commands. 

The  gentleman  has  read  Henry's  Commentary  to  prove,  that  in  1  Cor. 
iii.  6,  Paul  spoke  of  planting  a  church.  I  have  not  examined  Henry  on 
this  passage ;  but  I  observed,  that  he  read  Henry's  comment,  not  on  the 
passage  in  dispute,  but  on  the  10th  verse,  in  which  Paul  says,  "I  as  a 
wise  master-builder  have  Zairf  the  foundation!''''  What  was  the  founda- 
tion? It  was  Christ  crucified — the  doctrine  of  the  cross.  "Other  foun- 
dation can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." 

But  I  will  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Paul,  when  he  used 
the  word  ^'■planted,''''  meant  planting  the  church.  I  see  not  how  this  can 
help  the  gentleman's  argument.  Paul  planted  the  church,  but  God  caus- 
ed it  to  grow — gave  the  increase.  Paul  planted  it  instrumentally ;  God, 
by  his  Spirit,  gave  efficiency  to  the  work.  I  have  no  objection,  so  far 
as  this  argument  is  concerned,  to  this  interpretation.  I  will  cheerfully 
admit  that  Paul  planted  the  church  instrumentally ;  but  I  also  contend, 
that  God  caused  it  to  grow — gave  it  life  and  increase.  The  gentleman, 
however,  overlooked  the  5th  verse:  "Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is 
Apollos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye  believe,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  manf^  This  passage  speaks  distinctly  of  a  divine  influence  lead- 
ing the  Corinthian  christians  to  believe ;  but  my  friend  did  not  see  it ! 

He  says,  there  was  never  a  tree  without  a  seed  ^  and  hence  he  infers 
that  no  one  was  ever  converted  without  the  Word.  This  is  running  out 
figurative  expressions,  so  as  to  make  them  contradict  the  plain  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible.  God  at  first  created  trees  without  seeds,  and  made  all 
things  without  means.  He  fed  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  without 
means,  because  means  could  not  be  employed.  The  gentleman  might  as 
well  deny  that  Elijah  was  fed  by  a  raven,  because  persons  are  not  com- 
monly thus  supplied  with  food.  God  clothes  and  feeds  men  only  in  con- 
nection with  means,  when  by  the  exertion  of  the  power  he  has  given 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  683 

them,  the  means  can  be  used;  but  he  has  never  confined  himself  to 
means.  Nor  has  he  ever  said  that  he  will,  in  no  case,  regenerate  and 
sanctify  without  the  written  word. 

I  wish  the  audience  distinctly  to  see  the  contradictory  positions  of  the 
gentleman.  Yesterday  he  assumed  one  position,  and  to-day  the  oppo- 
site. In  my  argument,  showing  that  his  doctrine  necessarily  involves  the 
damnation  of  infants,  I  stated  the  fact,  that  infants  are  depraved.  I 
stated,  what  all  admit,  that  they  cannot  be  sanctified  through  the  truth. 
The  conclusion,  then,  is  unavoidable,  that  if  they  are  not  sanctified  by 
the  Spirit  without  the  truth,  they  must,  dying  in  infancy,  either  go  to 
heaven  in  their  depravity,  or  be  forever  lost.  He  admits  their  depravity, 
and  therefore  he  is  forced  to  admit,  that  if  not  sanctified  without  the 
truth,  they  go  to  heaven  in  unholiness,  or  to  hell ! 

To  escape  the  force  of  this  argument,  he  told  us,  on  yesterday,  that 
only  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  necessary  to  save  infants.  But  I  replied, 
that  the  blood  shed  on  the  cross,  does  not  change  the  heart ;  and  that  the 
difficulty  in  the  way  is,  that  they  are  unholy.  Now,  to  escape  the  dif- 
ficulty in  which  he  is  involved,  he  has  located  their  depravity  in  the  body. 
But  this  is  not  only  absurd  and  unscriptural ;  but  it  is  contradictory  of 
his  own  writings  on  this  very  subject! 

The  difficulty,  then,  returns  upon  him  with  double  force.  If  the  doc- 
trine taught  in  his  Cliristian  System  is  true,  infants  are  depraved  in  their 
whole  moral  constitution ;  and,  I  ask,  can  beings  thus  depraved,  dwell  in 
the  presence  of  the  infinitely  holy  God  ?  Who  can  believe  it  possible  ? 
The  gentleman  has  contradicted  himself  more  than  once,  and  is  now  in- 
volved in  the  gross  absurdity  of  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  corporeal  de- 
pravity! 

I,  therefore,  again  urge  against  him  the  unanswerable  argument,  that 
his  doctrine  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  all  that  die  in  infancy. 
The  argument  is  a  fair  one — it  is  perfectly  legitimate.  It  is  what  logi- 
cians call  the  reductio  ad  absurdum.  He  admits  that  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fant damnation  is  both  false  and  absurd.  Consequently  by  proving  that 
his  doctrine  necessarily  involves  this  absurdity,  I  prove  it  untrue. 

I  will  now  bring  forward  some  further  Scripture  evidence  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation ;  for  I  prefer  to  go  by  the  Bible.  I  had  supposed,  from  his  former 
professions,  that  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  would  do  the  same  ;  but  he  has  found 
it  necessary  to  use  a  great  deal  of  philosophy — quite  an  abundance  of 
metaphysics.  He  seems  to  prefer  these  speculations  to  the  Word  of  God. 

I  will  read  Ephesians  ii.  1 :  "And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  The  word  quickened,  it  is  true,  is  not 
found  in  the  original  Greek,  in  the  first  verse  ;  but  it  is  in  the  fifth. 
"  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  [God]  hath  quickened  us  together  with 
Christ."  The  apostle  represents  men  as  dead  in  sin,  and  God  as  having 
quickened  or  made  them  alive.  Did  he  quicken  them  with  words  and 
arguments  ?  Did  he  reason  with  them,  and  exhort  them  to  live  ?  Surely 
this  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  Jesus  Christ  stood  at  the 
grave  of  Lazarus,  and  said, — "  Lazarus,  come  forth."  Did  he  raise  La- 
zarus from  the  dead  merely  by  the  words  uttered,  or  by  an  exertion  of 
almighty  power  accompanying  the  word?  Everyone  admits,  at  once, 
that  Lazarus  was  quickened  by  an  immediate  exertion  of  divine  power. 
Precisely  similar  language  is  used  with  regard  to  regeneration.  Men 
are  dead  ;  and  God  quickens  them. 


684  .  DEBATE  ON  THE 

The  next  passage  I  read,  is  in  the  tenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter, 
where  the  apostle  proves,  that  men  are  not  saved  by  good  works :  "  For 
we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which 
God  hatli  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  Uiem."  Now  observe 
how  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  Ephesian  christians  performed  good  works. 
God  created  them  anew  unto  good  works  ;  their  good  works  were  all  the 
result  of  a  new  creation,  of  which  God  was  the  author.  Was  this  a  cre- 
ation by  arguments  ?  A  creation  by  words  and  motives  !  The  ai)Ostle 
used  the  very  strongest  term  in  any  language,  without  qualilicalion.  And 
when  the  inspired  writers  selected  the  strongest  language  to  express 
their  ideas,  and  used  it  without  qualification  ;  v/e  must  take  their  words 
in  their  obvious  and  undiminished  meaning.  What  word  in  the  English, 
Hebrew,  or  Greek  language  could  be  selected,  that  would  more  unequi- 
vocally express  the  idea  of  a  direct  divine  influence  on  the  heart,  than  the 
word  create?  God  directs  his  servants  to  use  the  strongest  expressions 
on  this  subject,  evidenlly  knowing  that  there  was  no  danger  of  their  be- 
ing misunderstood.  We  are,  then,  obliged  to  understand  by  this  language 
a  special  divine  influence,  distinct  from  words  and  arguments,  on  the 
hearts  of  men.  The  language  is  too  plain  to  require  the  aid  of  criticism 
to  elicit  its  meaning,  or  to  be  obscured  by  plausible  interpretations. — 
\JTime  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28 — 12  o'clock,  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  sixth  address.] 

Mr.  President — You  perceive,  sir,  I  doubt  not,  in  common  with  this 
great  assembly,  that  in  the  latitude  and  longitude  of  Mr.  Rice's  theory  of 
response  in  debate,  there  is  not  a  single  point  of  theoretic  or  polemic  the- 
ology that  may  not  legitimately,  or  illegitimately,  be  brought  into  this 
discussion  ;  and  that,  according  to  his  interpretation  of  our  rules  of  debate, 
we  may  touch  at  every  point  in  the  compass  of  the  most  extended  eccle- 
siastic creed,  in  good  keeping  with  the  most  strict  construction  of  the  pro- 
position before  us.  Every  thing,  it  seems,  can  interest  Mr.  R.  and  call 
forth  some  attention  except  the  arguments  on  which  I  rely,  and  to  which 
I  challenge  special  attention.  It  is  exceedingly  painful  to  me  to  have  to 
occupy  so  much  time  in  the  mere  statement  of  what  has  been  done,  or 
left  undone,  by  my  respondent.  But  to  pass  on,  from  argument  to  argu- 
ment, without  any  reply,  or  debate  on  the  proper  issue,  and  without  a 
single  notice  of  the  failure  or  neglect  on  his  part,  would  seem  neither 
respectful  to  myself,  nor  to  the  audience.  I  exceedingly  regret,  sir,  that 
I  have  so  little  to  reply  to,  in  the  speech  which  we  have  just  now  heard. 
I  have  asked,  not  for  the  sake  of  asking  a  question  with  the  appearance  of 
something  under  it  of  great  importance,  as  I  have  seen  some  persons  do; 
but,  sir,  I  have  asked  the  gentleman  for  a  single  verse,  Old  Testament  or 
New,  that  asserts  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  alone.  When  adducing  those 
of  the  most  unambiguous  and  incontrovertible  import,  affirming  regenera- 
tion through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  of  God,  I  have  not  suc- 
ceeded either  in  getting  such  a  text,  or  in  obtaining  a  response  to  those 
which  I  have  presented. 

His  assumed  leading  objection  to  our  views  on  the  proposition  in  dis- 
cussion is,  that  we  rather  make  void  the  necessity  of  spiritual  influence  in 
our  teachings  of  the  christian  religion  ;  while  our  grand  objection  to  his 
theory  of  spiritual  influence,  in  the  work  of  conversion,  is,  that  it  makes 
void  the  necessity  of  preaching  the  gospel,  or  reading  the  Bible.  And 
while  some  aflfect  to  believe,  that  we  take  too  many  into  the  church  on 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  605 

our  terms  of  discipleship,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  opposite  theory 
takes  in  too  man)'  that  ought  not  to  be  admitted,  both  adults  and  infants, 
and  that  it  keeps  out  of  the  christian  profession,  a  great  mass  of  intelli- 
gent and  virtuous  persons,  many  of  them  more  worthy  than  some  in  the 
church,  who  are  waiting  for  some  miracle,  some  special  impulse  divine, 
which  may  at  once  renovate  and  rouse  them  into  spiritual  life  and  action ; 
in  the  absence  of  which  they  dare  not  presume  upon  making  the  christian 
profession.  To  settle  these  matters,  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to 
such  reasonings  as  the  Scriptures  seem  to  sanction,  has  been  instituted, 
and  we  have  only  to  regret  that  it  has  not  been  followed  up. 

Notwithstanding  the  apparent  absurdity  of  the  thing,  there  are  not  a 
few  who  still  regard  something  like  physical  impulses  operating  upon  the 
soul,  as  a  hammer  in  the  hand  of  a  smith  operates  upon  the  metal  placed 
upon  his  anvil.  Their  notion,  as  far  as  we  can  gather  it,  is,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  comes  into  a  personal  contact  with  the  spirit  of  a  man,  and  either 
new-moulds  or  attempers,  or  changes,  or  imbues  it  with  something  from 
himself,  which  is  sometimes  called  the  infusion  of  a  holy  principle.  And 
this  seed  or  principle  remains  immutably  and  forever  in  that  person,  ac- 
cording to  one  theory,  without  any  possibility  of  a  failure  of  eternal  life, 
but  according  to  others,  it  may  be  lost  forever.  This  divine  touch  is 
sometimes  compared  to  that  which  reanimated  the  body  of  Lazarus,  or 
raised  to  life  the  dead  body  of  Jesus.  The  other  theory  is,  that  the  Word 
or  gospel  of  God  is  that  type  or  medium,  through  which  it  sheds  abroad 
in  the  human  heart  the  love  of  God  to  man  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  thus 
renews  him  in  the  moral  image  of  his  Redeemer;  through  an  inward  reve- 
lation of  his  grace  and  mercy  in  the  heart. 

Mr.  Rice  is  gready  indebted  to  my  writings.  They  supply  him  with 
something  to  read  and  to  say,  and  give  him  an  opportunity  to  play  upon 
words.  Every  man  of  observation,  however,  understands  the  policy; 
and,  therefore,  it  fails,  as  he  does  to  establish  any  real  discrepancy — and 
especiallj''  that  he  cannot  get  me  into  a  mere  logomachy.  But  once  more 
I  will  enter  my  protest  against  his  manner  of  quoting  my  writings.  It  is 
neither  magnanimous,  nor  is  it  generous,  nor  is  it  fair.  A  man,  with 
genius  enough  to  be  a  mere  quibbler,  and  that  never  had  a  very  large 
capital,  can  figure  away  in  great  style  in  making  Paul  contradict  James — 
and  worse  still,  in  making  Paul  contradict  himself.  The  master  quibblers 
in  the  science  of  doubting  are  inimitably  astute  in  the  art.  Paul,  says  one, 
affirmed  that  "a  man  was  justilied  by  faith  without  works  ;"  and  James 
says,  "a  man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith."  Reconcile  j'our 
two  inspired  aposdes,  if  you  can!!  Again,  continues  he,  Paul  contra- 
dicted himself;  for  he  said — "  If  you  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing."  Yet  he  took  his  son  Timothy,  a  christian  man,  who  had 
been  baptized  also,  and  circumcised  him,  and  sent  him  to  preach  Christ ! 
What  a  consistent  man  was  your  Doctor  Paul !  ! 

I  could  find  a  hundred  instances  of  this  sort  in  the  Bible,  and  spend  a 
month  with  a  sceptic  arguing  them.  See  what  a  file  of  newspapers, 
pamphlets,  and  Harbingers  my  friend  has  got  around  him  !  Does  he 
dream  of  diverting  me  from  the  grand  position  into  all  these  documents  ? 
I  do  not  intend  any  such  discussion.  He  may  have  that  to  himself,  and 
I  will  attend  to  my  business.  I  will  give  argument  for  argument,  and 
document  for  document  on  the  question  before  us  ;  but  these  hundred  and 
one  other  topics  the  gentleman  will  please  reserve  for  some  other  more 
favorable  opportunity.     As  the  gendeman  affirms  regeneration  without 

8M 


686  DEBATE  ON  THE 

faith,  he  had  better  proceed  to  prove  it  by  an  induction  of  cases,  and  then 
I  will  examine  them,  if  he  cannot  respond  to  me. 

He  represented  me  as  saying,  that  all  sin  was  in  the  body.  I  did  not 
say  so,  nor  any  thing  so  importing.  I  have  only  said,  that  "  sin  works 
in  our  members,"  and  that  "  in  the  flesh  dwelleth  no  good  thing,"  and 
that  there  is  "  a  law  working  in  the  flesh  and  warring  against  the  law 
of  the  mind,  and  bringing  it  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  the 
body" — and  that,  therefore,  the  seeds  of  sin  and  the  roots  of  transgres- 
sion are  in  the  passions ;  and  that  the  spirit  is  brought  into  captivity  to 
the  flesh — but  there  are  the  "sinful  desires  of  the  mind"  as  well  as  of 
the  flesh,  in  consequence  of  this  captivity.  I  said,  that  sin  works  through 
the  body.  Hence  the  greatest  saint  may,  like  Paul,  long  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  body  from  sin  and  death.  "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  this 
body  of  sin  and  death?     I  thank  C4od  through  .Tesus  (Jhrist  my  Lord." 

These  reflections  and  associations  led  Paul  to  descant  with  great  earn- 
estness and  grandeur  upon  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature,  and  of 
the  adoption,  to  wit :  "  the  redemption  of  the  body."  I  must  take  the  plea- 
sure of  reading,  with  a  passing  remark,  two  or  three  sentences,  Rom.  viii. 
19 — 21,  '■'■The  earnest  expectation  "  of  our  humbled  body,  "  the  creature, 
waiteth^^  in  joyful  hope  '^for  the  manifestation,''''  the  full  development 
"  o/"  the  sons  of  GocV  in  their  pure,  sinless,  and  immortal  bodies, 
"/or  the  creature  " — the  mortal  body — "  was  made  subject  to  vanity''^ — 
dissolution — "  not  willingly,''''  but  it  is  reconciled  to  the  grave  "  by  rea- 
son of  him  who  has  subjected  it,  in  hope  that  the  creature'''' — the  body — 
"  itself  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glo- 
rious liberty  of  the  sons  of  God''''  at  the  resurrection.  This  is  a  por- 
tion of  the  glorious  hope  of  every  saint. 

Now  the  dying  infant  is  delivered  from  this  body,  sown  with  all  these 
elements  of  sin,  these  "desires  of  the  flesh,"  and  the  aged  saint  is  also 
delivered  from  the  same  by  death.  This  physical  regeneration,  the  birth 
of  the  spirit,  is  essential  to  an  entrance  into  the  everlasting  kingdom. 
But  whence  came  this  new  designation — "  elect  infants  .^"  It  is  not  elect 
persons,  nor  elect  men,  but  elect  infants.  There  certainly  were  non-elect 
infants — not  only  non-elect  men,  but  non-elect  infants.  Who  taught 
this  language  ?  The  creed  and  not  the  Bible !  But  we  have  been 
just  now  informed  by  a  revelation  made  from  the  upper  world 
through  Mr.  Rice,  that  all  infants  that  die  are  "  elect  infants."  If  we 
had  only  a  miracle  we  might  believe  in  this  new  revelation.  But  what 
comes  of  the  non-elect  infants  ?  They  become  non-elect  men.  Why 
then  call  them  non-elect  infants,  as  none  of  that  kind  can  die  ?  All  non- 
elect  infants  are  immortal  infants  !  As  infants  they  cannot  die ! !  It  is  only 
above  a  year  ago  that  this  new  revelation  of  elect  infants,  being  all  dying 
infants,  first  reached  my  ears.  The  Scotch  Presbyterians  never  have  been 
favored  with  this  new  revelation.  I  must  again  read  this  remarkable 
passage. 

"  3.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Clirist 
through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth. 
So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

The  Westminster  divines  must  have  got  into  Mr.  Rice's  dilemma  when 
they  conceived  this  doctrine.  They  supposed  but  three  conditions  of 
the  question.  Infants  dying  were  lost,  or  infants  dying  were  saved ;  and 
if  saved,  they  must  be  regenerated,  because  none  can  enter  heaven  but 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  687 

regenerated  persons.  They  assumed  the  last,  and  made  the  doctrine  to 
escape  from  the  folly  of  the  assumption !  There  are,  then,  three  classes 
of  elect  persons  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  without  the  Word.  These 
are  elect  infants,  elect  pagans,  and  elect  idiots.  Of  four  classes  of  man- 
kind, but  one  aje  regenerated  through  the  Word.  My  friend  will  have 
three  subjects  of  physical  regeneration  for  my  one.  Will  the  gentleman 
say,  that  all  these  elect  pagans  are,  like  infants,  in  a  state  of  irresponsi- 
bility ?  And  if  they  are  not,  in  what  consists  the  parallelism  ?  I  heard 
of  a  lady  who  drank  pretty  deep  into  this  new  revelation.  She  became 
a  monomaniac.  She  had  a  small  family  of  infant  children ;  and  weary  of 
the  M'orld  herself,  she  thought  it  was  best  to  make  her  own  mind  easy 
about  her  offspring,  and  to  make  their  happiness  secure.  She  according- 
ly rose  up  in  the  night  and  strangled  them  all.  She  gave  this,  on  trial, 
as  the  only  reason  of  her  conduct.  Of  course,  she  was  sent  to  the  luna- 
tic asylum. 

I  regret  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  could  find  so  much  time  to  discuss 
this  matter  rather  than  the  question.  I  shall  dismiss  it  with  a  single  re- 
mark, viz :  that  it  is  but  a  flimsy  and  superficial  covering  for  a  very  in- 
credible and  unchristian  dogma.  1  would  then  advise  its  being  expunged 
from  the  book  altogether.  Because,  among  other  reasons,  it  had  been 
more  rational  to  have  made  the  non-elect  infants  die ;  for  then  there  would 
have  been  much  more  mercy  than  in  this  scheme.  The  elect  would  have 
lost  nothing  by  living  seventy  years,  but  rather  gained  much  by  their  good 
works ;  and  the  non-elect  would  have  gained  much  too,  in  having  no  pun- 
ishment to  endure  for  actual  transgressions  ;  their  only  cause  of  regret 
would  then  be  merely  that  they  had  been  born.  Thus  dispose  we  of 
this  branch  of  the  philosophy  of  infant  regeneration,  tvithoiit  the  Word. 

The  gentleman,  in  responding  to  my  remarks  upon  the  word  holy, 
quoted  a  passage  highly  complimentary  to  his  philological  skill  in  interpre- 
ting language.  As  a  proof  that  God  created  Adam  holy,  he  says,  "  God 
made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions."  Now 
the  question  is,  are  holy  and  upright  synonymous  terms  ?  Does  upright 
and  holy  mean  the  same  ?  Mr.  Rice,  by  the  force  of  the  quotation, 
makes  a  holy  man  an  upright  man,  and  an  upright  man  is  a  holy  man — 
still  they  are  not  at  all  equivalent.  No  man  accustomed  to  criticism  has 
ever  argued,  that  because  two  epithets  are  applied  to  one  man,  the  epi- 
thets must  be  one  and  the  same  in  sense.  Holiness  means  separation 
from  sin.  Sin  must,  therefore,  previously  exist  before  the  terra  holiness 
could  come  into  use.  Hagiosune  is  derived  from  hagee,  and  that  is  a 
compound  of  two  words — a  privative,  and  gee,  the  earth.  Hagios, 
holy,  therefore,  means  separate  from  the  earth;  no  earth,  no  separation 
from  it.  There  is,  then,  a  contrast  in  the  word  itself — unearthy,  not 
earthy,  separate  from  the  earth.  The  very  origin  of  the  word  holy  inti- 
mates that  there  was  something  unclean  before  it,  just  as  the  word  un- 
earthy indicates  there  was  something  earthy  before  it.  It  is,  therefore,  good 
sense  to  say  that  God  made  man  perfect,  or  in  his  own  image.  But  the 
Bible  does  not  say  that  God  made  man  holy,  and  therefore  I  object  to  it 
in  such  an  argument  as  this ;  although,  in  common  free  conversational 
style,  I  have  no  objection  to  say,  that  Adam  was  holy  till  he  sinned. 

The  term  holy  is  applied  to  the  earth,  to  any  thing  at  all  separated  to 
God's  service  or  presence.  Moses,  said  God,  "  take  off  your  shoes,  for 
you  stand  on  holy  ground."  The  Lord  was  there;  that  spot  was  separa- 
ted to  the  presence  of  God.    There  is  no  moral  quality  in  the  word  holy. 


688  DEBATE  ON  THE 

It  indicates  no  moral  attribute.  It  can,  therefore,  be  applied  to  an  altar,  a 
temple,  a  camp,  a  vessel,  the  earth,  or  any  thing  sacred  to  the  Lord.  God 
is  said  to  be  holy,  because  he  is  separated  from  all  impurity ;  infinitely 
separated  from  sin.     "  He  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity." 

The  argument,  then,  is,  that  God  made  Adam  holy,  and  he  makes  an 
infant  holy :  the  first  by  creation,  the  second  by  regeneration.  And  what 
means  an  holy  infant?  One  regenerate,  or  one  simply  sanctified  or  sep- 
arated to  the  Lord,  as  Samuel  or  John  the  Baptist  was  ?  If  in  that  sense, 
the  word  is  misapplied  to  regeneration ;  because  these  persons,  like  Jere- 
miah, are  separated  to  the  Lord  or  some  special  work.  All  persons  and 
things  called  holy  in  the  Bible,  were  specially  set  apart  and  separated  to 
God  in  some  peculiar  way,  or  for  some  very  special  purpose.  To  apply 
this  word  as  Mr.  Rice  has  done,  is,  therefore,  to  mystify  its  proper  mean- 
ing in  the  Scriptures,  to  confuse  the  sacred  dialect,  and  to  mislead  us  in 
our  conceptions  of  Adam  and  his  offspring.  It  is,  therefore,  an  innova- 
tion not  to  be  tolerated,  but  rather  repudiated  by  all  sensible  and  reflect- 
ing men. 

I  shall  fill  out  my  time  with  a  iew  remarks  on  his  definition  of  regen- 
eration. He  has  at  last  given  us  a  definition  of  this  important  word. 
But  he  has  not  yet  answered  the  great  question — whether  is  regeneration 
the  cause  or  the  efl'ect  of  faith  ?  Is  regeneration  the  cause  of  faith  or 
prior  to  faith ;  or  is  faith  the  effect  of  regeneration,  or  subsequent  to  it  ? 
Are  they  simultaneous  ?  What  connection  between  them  ?  Is  there  any 
connection  ;  and  if  any,  what  is  it?  I  have  brought  up  the  subject  in  every 
form  I  can  conceive  of,  to  elicit  from  him  such  an  expression  as  will 
facilitate  our  clear  and  satisfactory  decision  of  this  much  and  long  liti- 
gated case. 

He  has,  indeed,  vouchsafed  the  following  definition  of  regeneration  :  "  It 
is  a  change  of  heart  from  a  love  of  sin  to  a  love  of  holiness."  Whether 
it  be  an  act,  a  process,  or  an  effect,  is  not  distinctly  stated.  Nothing 
but  the  heart  is  changed  in  regeneration.  No  such  regeneration  is 
found  in  the  Bible.  Persons  are  there  spoken  of  as  regenerated  after 
their  hearts  are  changed.  His  is  scholastic  regeneration.  Be  it  so.  We 
now  understand  him.  Regeneration  is,  then,  a  change  of  heart  from  one 
love  to  another  love.  Now  I  believe  in  such  a  change,  though  I  do  not 
believe  in  calling  it  regeneration  :  for  certainly  regeneration  in  the  New 
Testament  is  not  that  thing.     A  regenerated  person  is  a  new  creature. 

It  is,  then,  but  a  change  of  disposition :  for  love  is  no  more  than  an 
affection  or  disposition  of  the  mind.  There  must,  then,  be  a  prior  dis- 
position; for,  unless  there  be  a  disposition  existing  already,  there  can  be 
no  change  of  it.  This  is  self-evident.  Now,  a  disposition  always  pre- 
supposes an  object.  No  person  can  think  of  a  disposition,  without  con- 
ceiving of  something  to  which  the  mind  is  turned  or  disposed.  No  one 
can  possibly  be  disposed  to  an  object  of  which  he  knows  nothing.  He 
must  see  in  the  object  something  to  call  forth  his  attention — to  allure,  at- 
tract, or  some  way  draw  out  his  affection  or  disposition  towards  it.  Need 
I  ask,  how  a  person  can  love  an  object,  or  hate  an  object,  of  which  he  is 
perfectly  ignorant  ? 

But  regeneration  is  a  change  of  one  disposition  for  another.  Conse- 
quently there  must  be  a  change  of  objects  to  the  mind.  The  mind  must 
have  in  contrast  two  sorts  of  objects.  It  must  contemplate  them  clearly, 
compare  them  accurately,  discover  a  difference,  a  superior  beauty  and 
loveliness,  before  the  disposition  leaves  the  one  and  cleaves  to  the  other. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  689 

Now,  I  ask — is  an  infant  susceptible  of  all  this  discovery,  contemplation, 
■comparison,  intelligence,  preference  and  choice  of  objects  ?  Can  a  child 
have  any  moral  or  immoral  disposition,  without  an  object?  Can  it  have 
an  object  which  it  sees  not,  contemplates  not,  and  cannot  apprehend  ? 
Can  it  abandon  one  object  and  prefer  another,  without  perception,  com- 
parison, and  conclusion — without  the  power  of  reasoning  and  the  posses- 
sion of  previous  knowledge  ?  I  repeat  it,  sir,  the  gentleman's  definition 
is  fatal  to  his  cause.  It  is  without  fact,  without  philosophy,  without  the 
Bible,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  assented  to  by  any  one  of  thought  and  re- 
flection, whose  mind  has  been  called  to  the  rational  examination  of  the 
subject.  Have  we  not,  then,  from  his  own  definition,  given  a  requiem  to 
his  speculation,  and  for  ever  sealed  up  his  argument  1  When  Mr.  Rice 
disposes  of  this  argument,  we  shall  give  him  a  few  more.  But,  sir,  he 
will  never  try. — \_Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28 — 12|  o'clock,  P.M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — My  friend  calls  on  me  to  prove  by  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  Spirit  ever  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  without  the  truth. 
He  affirms,  and  has  undertaken  to  prove,  that  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  truth.  Has  he  produced  a  solitary  passage  that  sustains  his 
proposition  ?  He  has  not,  and  he  will  not ;  for  there  is  none  such  in  the 
Bible.  But  he  is  in  the  affirmative.  With  what  propriety,  then,  does  he 
•call  on  me  to  prove  a  negative  ?  I  might  remain  silent  until  he  produces 
at  least  some  show  of  argument  from  the  Scriptures;  for  he  professes  to 
hold  no  article  of  faith,  for  which  he  cannot  produce  a  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord."     Where  is  his  scripture-proof  of  the  proposition  now  before  us? 

The  Scriptures,  as  I  have  proved,  speak  of  three  agencies  or  influences, 
in  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  men — the  ministry,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Mr.  Campbell  takes  the  ministry  and  the  Word,  but 
rejects  the  agency  of  the  Spirit.  I  take  all  the  three.  This  is  the  differ- 
ence between  us. 

He  says,  he  did  not  assert  that  all  depravity  is  in  the  body.  Yet,  to 
prove  that  it  has  its  seat  in  the  body,  he  read  to  us  the  language  of  Paul 
to  the  Romans,  chap.  vii.  23  :  "  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the 
law  of  sin,  which  is  in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  But  by  his  members,  and 
the  body  of  death,  Paul  did  not  mean  his  own  body,  but  the  corrupt  pro- 
pensities of  his  nature.  He  represents  his  remaining  corruption  as  a  dead 
body,  which,  in  all  its  loathsomeness,  he  was  carrying  about  with  him. 
He  desired  most  earnestly  to  be  delivered,  not  from  his  natural  body,  but 
from  his  in-dwelling  corruption. 

The  audience  will  remember  my  argument  on  this  subject.  I  proved 
that  the  gentleman's  doctrine  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  infants, 
because  they  are  depraved,  and  he  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified  with- 
out the  truth.  I  then  understood  him  to  say,  that  depravity  is  in  the  body, 
and,  therefore,  their  souls  might  be  saved.  But  now  he  has  got  the  de- 
pravity back  in  the  soul,  and  is  involved  in  the  old  difficulty.  The  minds 
of  infants,  he  admits,  are  depraved.  How,  then,  can  they  be  sanctified? 
Certainly  not  through  the  truth ;  and  he  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified 
by  the  Spirit,  without  the  truth.  Consequently,  according  to  his  doctrine, 
they  die  in  their  depravity,  and  are  lost !  There  is  no  escape  from  the 
difficulty. 

44  3m3 


690  DEBATE  ON  THE 

But  Mr.  C.  says,  that  I  am  very  unfair  in  quoting  his  writings ;  that  ri& 
could  read  the  writings  of  Paul,  so  as  to  make  him  apparently  contradict 
himself.  If  any  one  attempt  to  prove  that  Paul  contradicts  himself,  1  am 
prepared  to  prove  his  perfect  consistency.  And  if  I  have  misrepresented 
Mr.  Campbell,  as  he  charges,  he  is  the  man,  of  all  others,  best  qualified 
to  correct  the  misrepresentation.  Then  let  him  do  it.  He  is  perfecdy  at 
liberty  to  produce  his  writings,  and  to  prove,  if  he  can,  that  I  have  mis- 
represented him.  He  conceded  to  me  the  right — as  the  correspondence 
will  show — a  right  which  I  should  have  had  without  his  consent — to  read 
his  writings  in  explanation  of  the  proposition  stated  by  himself;  and  now 
he  is  disposed  to  complain  of  me  for  doing  it.  I  know  it  is  distressing  to 
him,  but  I  cannot  help  it.  I  cannot  possibly  misunderstand  his  writings 
on  this  subject ;  for  he  states,  with  perfect  clearness,  that  there  are  only 
two  kinds  of  power — moral  and  physical.  The  former,  which  is  exerted 
only  by  words  and  arguments,  operating  on  mind  ;  and  the  latter,  on  mat- 
ter. In  the  book  from  which  I  read,  his  views  are  presented  with  entire 
clearness.  I  only  wish  he  had  stated  them  as  clearly  in  this  discussion. 
If  he  had  come  out  with  an  open  and  fair  presentation  of  his  views,  we 
should  have  known  just  where  to  find  him.  As  at  is,  they  are  involved 
in  mist  and  darkness  impenetrable.  Yet  he  is  a  man  of  remarkably  clear 
intellect ;  but  he  is  singularly  inconsistent.  At  one  time,  he  states  his 
doctrines  so  clearly,  as  to  admit  of  no  doubt  concerning  them ;  and  at 
another,  he  is  dark  as  midnight,  and  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  he 
believes. 

I  am  happy,  however,  to  have  his  books,  from  which  we  are  able  to 
ascertain  precisely  what  he  has  taught,  and  to  repel  his  charges  of  misrep- 
resentation. If  a  man  should,  in  a  public  discussion  with  me,  read  from 
a  book  of  mine,  and  should  not  read  enough  fairly  to  represent  me,  I  would 
read  the  remainder  of  the  connection.     Let  Mr.  C.  do  so. 

He  quotes  Paul  complaining  that  sin  did  work  in  his  members,  and  that 
he  carried  about  with  him  a  body  of  death;  and  he  tells  us,  the  members 
are  the  corrupted  passions  seated  in  the  body ;  and  that  Paul,  when  he 
came  to  die,  needed  a  regeneration  as  much  as  do  infants.  I  know  of  no 
eystem  of  philosophy  that  confines  the  passions  to  the  body.  We  speak 
of  the  passion  of  hatred,  or  the  passion  of  love.  Some  of  the  passions 
belong  particularly  to  the  body ;  others,  to  the  mind.  These  two  classes, 
Paul  enumerates  together,  as  the  ivorks  of  the  flesh.  (Gal.  v.  19 — 21.) 
Anger,  wrath,  malice,  hatred,  envy,  &.c.,  belong  to  the  mind.  Paul  found 
depravity  in  the  mind.  What  he  meant  by  the  body  of  death,  we  may, 
perhaps,  learn  from  chapter  6th,  verse  6th,  of  the  same  epistle :  "  Know- 
ing that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be 
destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin."  The  old  man,  or 
corrupt  nature,  is  crucified  ;  and  the  new  man,  or  renewed  nature,  leads 
to  a  holy  life.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed,  when  he  says,  "  Tjiey  that 
are  Christ's,  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  the  affections  and  lusts." 

The  gentleman  is  now  placed  in  this  predicament;  he  must  maintain 
the  absurd  doctrine,  that  depravity  is  only  in  the  body,  and  not  in  the 
mind — and  certainly  his  arguments  look  that  way — and  therefore  infants, 
being  pure  when  they  leave  the  body,  can  go  to  heaven  ;  or  he  must  hold, 
that  they  die  in  their  moral  corruption,  and  are  forever  lost!  There  is  no 
way  to  escape  from  these  absurdities,  but  by  abandoning  his  theory  con- 
cerning spiritual  influence.  I  cannot  but  believe  it  would  be  better  to 
abandon  his  theory,  than  meet  the  consequences. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  691 

But  he  seeks  to  shield  himself  by  charging  our  church  with  holding 
the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation.  The  expression  "  elect  infants,"  used 
in  our  confession  of  faith,  teaches  no  such  thing.  The  word  elect  signi- 
fies chosen  from  or  out  of;  and  infants  are  chosen  from  the  world,  the 
human  family.  But  he  sa5's,  as  there  cannot  be  adults  without  infants, 
so  there  cannot  be  elect  infants  without  non-elect  infants.  I  was  not 
aware  that  there  could  not  be  adults  without  infants.  I  know  there  have 
been  adults  without  infants,  and  possibly  there  might  be  again.  It  is  not 
true,  that  the  word  elect,  applied  to  infants  dying  in  infancy,  implies  that 
there  are  non-elect  infants  !  Though  he  cannot  prove  the  doctrine  to  be 
in  our  confession,  he  tells  us  he  has  heard  it  preached  in  good  old  Scot- 
land. I  was  never  in  Scotland,  nor  can  1  know  what  strange  things  he 
may  have  heard  there;  but  I  again  call  on  him  to  produce  one  respecta- 
ble Presbyterian  author,  who  has  taught  this  doctrine.  He  has  asserted, 
that  the  Presbyterian  church  holds  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  ;  and 
I  demand  the  proof.  Whenever  I  prefer  a  charge  against  his  church,  the 
proof  shall  be  forthcoming  when  called  for ,  and  when  he  makes  charges 
against  my  church,  I  shall  certainly  expect  him  to  prove  them.  I  hope 
he  will  not  shrink  from  proving  his  assertions. 

Concerning  the  doctrine  of  election  I  will  only  remark,  that  I  am  not 
disposed  to  mingle  together  things  which  are  entirely  distinct ;  I  am, 
however,  prepared  to  discuss  this  doctrine  with  him,  whenever  he  chooses 
to  enter  into  it  properly  ;  but  I  do  not  intend  to  permit  him  to  divert  the 
attention  of  the  audience  from  the  subject  under  consideration. 

That  infants  are  depraved,  he  admits.  That  they  cannot  be  sanctified 
through  the  truth,  we  know.  He  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified  with- 
out the  truth.  They  must,  therefore,  die  in  sin,  and  be  forever  lost.  I 
leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine  whether  a  doctrine  involving  such 
consequences  can  be  true. 

Strangely  enough,  Mr.  C.  denies  that  God  created  man  holy.  I  quot- 
ed the  passage,  "  God  made  man  upright."  But  now,  for  the  first  time 
in  my  life,  I  have  heard  it  asserted,  that  the  word  holy  does  not  express 
moral  quality.  When  the  heavenly  hosts  exclaim  "  holy,  holy,  holy, 
Lord  God  Almighty,"  do  not  they  express  moral  quality?  But  the  gen- 
tleman says,  the  word  implies  previous  sinfulness.  Angels  are  said  to  be 
holy,  and  God  is  holy.  Does  the  word,  in  these  cases,  imply  previous 
sin.  If,  however,  the  gentleman  is  disposed  to  be  hypercritical  about  the 
word  holy,  I  will  take  the  word  upright.  "  God  made  man  upright." 
This  word  signifies,  literally,  standing  erect  or  straight ;  and,  as  applied  to 
denote  moral  qualities,  it  means  conformity  of  God's  law.  He  whose 
heart  and  life  accord  with  that  rule,  is  said  to  be  an  upright  man. 

The  gentleman  is  now  placed  in  the  same  difficulty  from  which  he 
vainly  sought  to  escape  ;  for  certain  it  is,  that  God  made  man  upright., 
and  that  he  did  it  not  by  words  and  arguments.  If,  then,  God  did,  at 
first,  create  him  upright,  not  by  words  or  arguments,  who  shall  say  he 
cannot  exert  on  his  mind  a  divine  influence,  creating  him  anew  unto  good 
works  ?  And  if  he  can  exert  such  an  influence  on  the  mind  of  an  adult, 
who  will  deny  that  he  can  sanctify  the  infant? 

He  asks  whether  faith  is  the  cause  or  the  effect  of  regeneration.  I  am 
not  disposed  to  be  diverted  from  the  proposition  before  us,  to  the  discus- 
sion of  other  questions.  The  question  now  before  us  is — whether  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the  truth  ?  Does  the  Bible  say,  the 
Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth?  It  does  not.     But  it  does  plainly 


692  DEBATE  ON  THE 

teach,  that  infants  must  be  regenerated,  or  born  again.  "For,"  said  our 
Savior,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  bom 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.*'  This  is  the  reason  why  the  new  birth  is  abso- 
lutely necessary.  But  infants  are  born  of  the  flesh  ;  therefore  they  must 
be  born  of  the  Spirit.  They  cannot  be  regenerated  through  the  truth; 
consequenfly  they  must  be  regenerated  without  it.  This  passage,  there- 
fore,  teaches  clearly  the  doctrine  that  regeneration  may  be,  and  is,  eflfect- 
ed  by  the  Spirit  without  the  truth. 

But  the  gentleman  returns  to  the  position,  that  there  can  be  no  holiness 
without  knowledge ;  and  he  asks — can  an  infant  love  holiness  or  hate  sin, 
when  it  knows  nothing  of  either  ?  And  I  ask,  can  an  infant  love  music 
before  it  has  heard  it  ?  You  say — no.  But  still  there  may  be  such  a  taste 
for  music,  that  the  moment  when  it  first  hears  it,  it  will  be  charmed  and 
delighted.  So  the  heart  of  an  infant  may  be  so  purified,  that  it  will  love 
and  adore  Jesus  Christ  so  soon  as  it  may  be  able  to  contemplate  his  char- 
acter. Just  here  I  will  very  briefly  answer  the  genfleman's  question  con- 
cerning faith  and  regeneration,  though  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  do  it. 
A  dead  man  does  not  perform  the  acts  which  flow  from  life.  He  is  first 
alive,  and  then  he  acts.  Those  who  are  spiritually  dead,  do  not  put  forth 
the  acts  of  spiritual  life.  They  are  first  quickened,  then  they  exercise 
true  faith  and  love.  Spiritual  acts  flow  from  spiritual  life.  This  I  take 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  God's  Word. 

Having  now  paid  due  attention  to  the  gentleman's  speculations  and  ar- 
guments, I  will  invite  the  attention  of  the  audience  to  some  further  Scrip- 
ture evidences  in  favor  of  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification.  I  prefer  to  establish  the  doctrine  for  which  I 
contend,  by  the  clear  testimony  of  the  Bible. 

I  will  read  for  your  consideration  Luke  xxiv.  45,  "  Then  opened  he 
their  understanding,  that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures."  The 
Savior,  after  his  resurrection,  appeared  to  his  disciples,  who  as  yet  un- 
derstood not  the  things  concerning  him,  which  are  taught  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. It  is  not  said,  that  he  opened  their  understandings  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, tut  he  opened  their  understandings,  that  they  might  understand 
the  Scriptures.  David  felt  his  need  of  this  divine  illumination,  when  he 
prayed — "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wonderful  things  out 
of  thy  law,"  Ps.  cxix.  18.  There  were  wonderful  things  in  God's  Word; 
but  because  of  his  comparative  blindness,  he  did  not  see  them  in  all  their 
divine  excellency.  These  passages  clearly  teach  the  doctrine  of  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  enlightening  the  minds  of  men. 

The  next  passage  I  read  is  in  the  epistle  to  Titus  iii.  5,  "  Not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundanfly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior." 
We  are  saved  by  the  renewing  [making  anew]  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
God  shed  on  us.  Does  not  this  language  teach  with  perfect  clearness 
the  doctrine  of  a  direct  divine  influence  on  the  heart  ?  Or  are  we  to  un- 
derstand by  the  Spirit  being  shed  upon  them,  only  their  having  the  words 
and  arguments  contained  in  God's  revelation  ?  If  such  was  the  apostle's 
meaning,  he  certainly  took  a  very  singular  method  of  expressing  it.  Let 
us  compare  with  this  the  language  employed  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
concerning  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost :  "  I  will 
pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  Does  not  this  language  express 
an  influence  of  the  Spirit  not  exerted  merely  by  words  and  arguments — a 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  693 

direct  influence  ?  All  agree  that  it  does.  If,  then,  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit  expresses  an  influence  distinct  from  mere  words  and  arguments, 
does  not  the  expression,  "  shed  upon,''''  mean  the  same  thing.  The  ex- 
pressions are  very  similar,  and  both  evidently  express  a  divine  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  men,  in  addition  to  the  truth,  and  distinct  from  it. 
Similar  language  is  also  used  in  regard  to  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
family  of  Cornelius:  "While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy 
Ghost  /e//  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word,"  Acts  x.  44.  Was  not 
this  a  direct  influence  of  the  Spirit  ?  All  admit  that  it  was.  If,  then, 
the  expression,  fell  on,  expresses  a  direct  divine  agency,  not  by  word  or 
argument ;  does  not  the  expression,  shed  upon,  also  express  a  special 
divine  agency  ?  It  will  not  do  to  say,  that  one  of  these  expressions  has 
reference  simply  to  the  word,  and  the  other  to  an  influence  distinct  from 
the  word.  In  employing  this  strong  language  without  qualification,  the 
apostles  did  not  seem  to  feel  the  least  apprehension,  that  their  language 
would  be  understood  to  teach  the  necessity  of  an  immediate  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  which  they  did  not  believe.  We  must,  then,  understand  their 
language  in  its  obvious  sense. 

I  will  now  invite  your  attention  to  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  I  am  acquainted 
with  Mr.  C.'s  mode  of  commenting  on  this  passage ;  and  I  bring  it  for- 
ward now,  that  he  may  have  an  opportunity  of  defending  his  interpreta- 
tion of  it,  if  he  can.  "  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God ;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  The  first  question  in  or- 
der to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  is  concerning  the  expres- 
sion, natural  man.  I  understand  the  natural  man  to  be  man  as  he  is  by 
nature — unsanctified.  Tliat  this  is  the  correct  explanation  of  the  expres- 
sion, is  evident  from  the  other  instances  in  which  the  word  natural  is 
employed  in  the  New  Testament.  Thus  in  1  Cor.  xv.  44,  45,  "It  is  sown 
a  7iatural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.  There  is  a  natural  body, 
and  there  is  a  spiritual  body."  The  natural  body  here  evidently  is  the 
body  in  its  natural  state,  unchanged.  The  spiritual  body  is  the  body  as  it 
will  be  changed  and  refined  at  the  resurrection.  So  the  natural  man 
means  man  as  he  is  by  nature,  unrenewed.  The  word  translated  natural 
is  also  used  by  James  iii.  15,  "This  wisdom  descendeth  not  from  above, 
but  it  is  earthly,  sensual,  (Greek — natural,)  devilish."  Here  the  word 
sensual  or  natural  evidently  denotes  moral  corruption.  The  word  is  again 
found  in  the  I9th  verse  of  the  epistle  of  Jude  :  "These  be  they  who  sep- 
arate themselves,  sensual,  (Greek — natural,)  having  not  the  Spirit." 
The  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  "  mockers  in  the  last  time,  who  should 
walk  after  their  own  ungodly  lusts ;"  and  he  says,  they  are  natural,  hav- 
ing not  the  Spirit. 

These  are  all  the  instances  in  which  the  word  translated  natural,  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament;  and  it  is  a  fact,  that  in  every  instance  where  it  is 
employed,  with  reference  to  moral  character,  it  is  used  in  a  bad  sense. 
When  used  with  reference  to  the  body,  it  denotes  its  natural  state.  It  is, 
then,  clear  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  that,  by  the  "  natural  man,"  Paul 
means  man  as  he  is  by  nature,  sinful.  The  correctness  of  this  interpretation 
is  rendered  certain  by  the  connection.  The  natural  man  does  not  receive 
the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Why  ?  Because  "  they  zre  foolishness  to  him." 
The  meaning  of  this  expression  is  made  perfectly  clear  by  the  eighteenth 
verse  of  the  first  chapter :  "  For  the  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them 
that  perish,  foolishness  ;  but  unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is  the  power  of 


694  DEBATE  ON  THE 

God."  That  is,  they  that  perish  see  in  the  preaching  of  the  cross,  no 
wisdom,  no  adaptation  of  the  plan  of  salvation  to  their  condition,  nothing 
attractive.  It  appears  to  them  foolishness.  So  the  natural  man,  like 
those  who  perish,  receives  not  the  gospel,  the  truths  revealed  by  the 
Spirit ;  for  they  appear  to  him  unmeaning,  unwise,  unlovely. 

But  if,  as  Mr.  C.  supposes,  the  natural  man  were  simply  a  pagan,  ig- 
norant of  divine  revelation,  the  apostle  would  have  said — Tlie  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit ;  for  they  are  not  revealed  to 
him.  But  when  he  says,  they  ave  foolishness  to  him,  we  ai-e  compelled 
to  understand  that  they  have  been  presented  to  his  mind,  and  that  he  sees 
in  them  no  wisdom,  nothing  lovely  or  attractive  to  him ;  and  therefore  he 
rejects  them  ;  for  a  thing  of  which  a  man  has  never  heard,  cannot  be  said 
to  be  foolishness  to  him  ;  and  especially  can  it  not  be  said,  that  he  does 
not  receive  what  was  never  presented  to  hira,  because  it  is  foolishness 
to  him. 

By  the  natural  man,  then,  we  are  to  understand  the  unrenewed  man, 
man  as  he  is  by  nature.  All  such  reject  the  gospel  of  Christ,  "  the  things 
of  the  Spirit."  Consequently  the  gospel  alone  is  not  sufticient  to  effect 
their  conversion.  They  do  not  receive  it — cannot  understand  it.  Hence 
the  absolute  necessity  of  an  agency  of  the  Spirit,  additional  to  the  Truth, 
and  distinct  from  it.  They  must  experience  such  a  change  as  will  cause 
them  to  see  wisdom,  adaptation  to  their  condition,  beauty  and  attractive- 
ness in  the  gospel.  The  spiritual  or  regenerated  man,  enlightened  from 
above,  admires  and  embraces  the  truths  of  divine  revelation. 

The  next  passage  of  Scripture  to  which  I  call  your  attention,  is  1  Cor. 
i.  22 — 24  :  "  For  the  Jews  require  a  sign,  and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wis- 
dom ;  but  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block, 
and  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are  called  both 
Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God." 
Here  you  will  observe  tlie  gospel  was  preached  indiscriminately  to  Jews 
and  Greeks,  and  both  rejected  it.  There  was,  however,  a  third  class, 
composed  of  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  to  whom  it  was  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation.  Those  who  received  the  gospel,  and  were  converted  and 
saved,  are  mentioned  by  the  apostle  as  "  them  ivhich  are  called.''''  By 
this  language  he  cannot  mean  the  call  of  the  Word,  for  all  had  this  in- 
discriminately. It  must  be,  then,  an  additional  influence,  an  influence  ef- 
fectual in  securing  their  conversion  ;  for,  to  all  such,  the  gospel  was  the 
power  of  God  to  salvation.  By  this  call,  then,  we  must  understand  the 
special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  simply  by  words  and  arguments, 
calling  them  "  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light."  This  passage 
establishes  beyond  controversy  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend.  That 
I  have  given  the  correct  interpretation  of  it,  would  appear  still  more  ma- 
nifest, by  comparing  it  with  other  passages  in  which  the  same  apostle 
uses  the  word  called. 

I  have  time  only  to  read  one  other  passage  in  Hebrews  viii.  10  :  "  For 
this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those 
days,  saith  the  Lord;  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them 
in  their  hearts :  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a 
people."  This  is  a  prophecy  quoted  by  the  apostle  from  Jeremiah. 
What  does  God  promise  to  do  ?  "I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind, 
and  write  them  in  their  hearts."  Are  we  to  understand  by  this,  that  he 
would  influence  them  simply  by  words  and  arguments  ?  They,  at  that 
time,  had  the  Word  of  God  before  their  minds — "  line  upon  line,  and  pre- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  695 

cept  upon  precept."  Inspired  men  were  sent  to  reform,  exhort,  ami 
warn  them ;  but  God  declares  his  purpose,  at  a  future  day,  to  teach  them 
effectually,  to  write  his  laws  upon  their  hearts,  and  to  cause  all  to  know 
him,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  and  to  walk  in  his  statutes  and  do  them. 
Does  not  this  language  most  clearly  and  conclusively  establish  the  doc- 
trine that,  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  exerts  on  the  human 
mind  an  influence  in  addition  to  that  of  the  Word,  and  more  powerful 
and  efficacious?  It  is  this  agency  only  that  can  subdue  the  rebellious 
dispositions  of  men,  melt  their  obdurate  hearts,  and  cause  them  to  love 
and  serve  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  and  in  truth. — [Time  expired. 

611 
Tuesday,  Nov.  28 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
\wR.  Campbell's  seventh  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  gentleman  has  finally  complied  with  my  re- 
quest. He  has  given  an  answer  to  so  much  of  the  question  as  concerns 
the  priority  of  faith,  or  regeneration.  He  has  clearly  committed  himself 
by  avowing  his  conviction  that  regeneration,  or  a  change  of  heart,  is  pre- 
vious to  faith.  This  is  a  point  which  I  desired  to  elicit  at  an  earlier  pe- 
riod of  this  discussion.  It  would  have  saved  time.  We,  however,  thank- 
fully accept  it  at  this  late  hour.  The  gentleman  backed  it  well  with  a 
liberal  collection  of  scriptures.  The  only  exception  to  his  quotations  is, 
that  they  happen  not  at  all  to  pertain  to  the  subject.  He  tries  to  shew 
that  the  Spirit  operates  through  the  Word.  But  that  is  not  the  question. 
We  both  professedly  agree  in  that  point.  That  the  Spirit  operates,  is 
agreed  on  both  sides.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  attempt  to  make  an- 
other false  issue  here.  He  also  admits  that  the  Spirit  sometimes  operates 
through  the  Word.  That  is  not  the  point  to  be  proved.  What,  then, 
must  I  again  ask,  is  the  proposition?  Is  it  not  that  "  In  conversion  and 
sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the  Word  ?"  He 
has  proved  that  it  operates  through  the  Word.  Tiiis  I  aflirm.  Has  he 
come  over?  Or  does  he  mean  to  use  the  scriptures  that  prove  his  opera- 
tion through  the  Word,  to  prove  his  operation  without  the  Word!!  All 
scriptures,  then,  that  prove  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the 
Word,  are  irrelevant  to  his  position,  but  relevant  to  mine,  unless  he  comes 
fully  over  and  aflarms  that  it  operates  only  through  the  Word. 

I  do  not,  indeed,  think  that  the  gentleman  understands  those  portions 
of  scripture  right,  else  he  could  not  have  so  quoted  them.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  now  to  make  a  commentary  upon  them.  You  will  all  under- 
stand that  a  passage  of  Scripture  that  proves  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
through  the  Word,  does  not  prove  that  he  operates  ivithout  the  Word, 
or  independent  of  it.  It  is  with  him,  then,  essentially  necessary  that  a 
change  of  heart  should  precede  faith.  All  men  are  dead.  They  must  be 
quickened.  True,  all  living  men  are  dead  to  something.  And  a  Pagan 
man,  or  a  Jewish  man,  may  be  alive  to  his  own  theory,  and  dead  to  an- 
other. But  the  sophism  seems  to  be,  what  rhetoricians  sometimes  call, 
killing  the  metaphor,  or  running  it  mad.  Now  a  man  tliat  is  metaphysi- 
cally dead  to  one  thing,  is  not  literally  dead  to  every  thing  else.  There 
is  still  something  alive  in  him,  through  which  truth  may  find  its  way  to 
his  heart.  His  reason  and  conscience  are  not  dead,  although  his  heart 
may  be.  Paul  says  of  a  certain  person — "  She  that  liveth  in  pleasure,  is 
dead  while  she  lives."  All  this  I  have  shewn  in  my  opening  speech,  to 
which  the  gentleman  has  yet  paid  so  little  attention.  Whenever  any 
point  or  portion  of  Scripture  is  so  interpreted,  as  to  make  another  void,  I 


696  DEBATE  ON  THE 

set  it  down,  that  it  is  most  certainly  miseonstrued.  Any  theory,  or  view, 
of  any  passage  which  makes  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  no  use,  that 
makes  faith  vain,  or  the  Bible  useless  to  that  particular  end,  I  hold  to  be 
infallibly  wrong. 

It  is  no  new  development.  I  have  read  it  from  the  days  of  Thomas 
Boston  till  now.  I  presume  the  gentleman  w^ould  make  regeneration  a 
miracle,  a  positive  immediate  act  of  Omnipotence,  without  any  instrumen- 
tality at  all.  And  I  have  drawn  him  out  as  large  as  life  on  that  topic. 
w?  change  of  heart  is  therefore  before  belief;  because  the  throng  of  the 
old  modern  school  of  self-ycleped  orthodoxy  stands  in  need  of  it.  What- 
ever is  before  any  thing,  is  without  it.  The  cause  may  be  without  the 
effect,  in  one  sense  of  the  word  cause,  but  the  effect  can  in  no  sense  be 
without  the  cause. 

I  say  again,  my  voice  never  could  have  been  raised  upon  the  subject 
of  spiritual  influence,  had  not  I  seen  in  these  extravagant  forms,  as  I 
judge,  it  making  void  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel. 
I  yet  remember  the  singular  impressions  that  sometimes  accompanied  my 
early  readings  of  modern  revivals.  Many  years  since  I  read  of  a  singu- 
lar outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  New  York.  In  a  certain  neighborhood, 
there  were  a  thousand  converts  reported,  as  the  result  of  a  great  outpour- 
ing of  the  Spirit.  Of  these  thousand  converts  about  one-third  went  to 
each  of  the  three  leading  denominations  in  that  neighborhood — Presby- 
terians, Methodists,  Baptists.  Tlie  iirsl  impression  was — Did  the  Spirit 
of  God  thus  at  one  outpouring  make  three  hundred  Presbyterians,  Me- 
tliodists.  Baptists  ! !  Strange  operation  !  In  old  times  he  made  them  all 
christians ;  and  of  one  heart  and  soul.  I  concluded  there  was  some  de- 
lusion in  the  affair:  that  man's  spirit  had  likely  as  much  to  do  in  it,  as 
the  Spirit  of  God.  Since  that  time  I  have  been  an  observer  of  such  oc- 
casions and  reports,  and  suffice  it  to  say,  twenty-five  years  observation 
has  gready  confirmed  the  first  impression.  Men  and  parties  often  make 
revivals,  and  now  we  have  got  a  class  of  preachers,  known  by  the  title 
of  "  revivalists,^^  men  well  disciplined  in  the  art  and  mystery  of  obtain- 
ing outpourings  of  the  Spirit. 

But  my  standing  proof  of  the  great  amount  of  deception  practiced  on 
such  occasions,  is  the  lamentable  fact,  that  after  the  excitement  ceases, 
and  reason  resumes  her  wonted  dominion,  the  converts  are  about  as  unen- 
lightened in  the  religion  of  the  volume  of  God's  own  inspiration  as  before. 
Their  feelings  were  moved,  and  their  hearts  quailed,  or  their  affections 
were  overcome  by  the  scenes  around  them ;  yet  still  their  minds  were 
not  enlightened,  their  spirits  were  not  more  elevated,  nor  their  faith  en- 
larged. In  most  instances,  the  converts  are  as  ignorant  of  God  and 
Christ,  after,  as  before.  Persons  so  converted,  too,  rarely  lore  the  Bible. 
They  believe  more  in  excitement  than  in  the  twelve  apostles ;  and  would 
rather  listen  to  exciting  speeches,  than  keep  the  commandments  of  God. 
Children  love  their  proper  parents  more  than  others.  Hence  those  born 
of  great  excitements,  love  them — born  in  storms  and  tempests  of  the  soul, 
they  have  a  great  attachment  to  them.  They  feel  more  in  debt  to  the 
revivalist  than  to  the  Bible ;  and  they  love  him  more  ardently,  and  will 
obey  him  more  joyfully  and  faithfully.  They  soon  learn  a  few  texts, 
and  by  these  they  prove  every  thing.  A  universal  favorite  is — "  The 
Spirit  bears  witness  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." 
They  reason  from  that  within  to  prove  that  without,  rather  than  from 
that  without  to  prove  that  within.     They  prove  the  doctrine  to  be  true 


LNFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  697 

by  their  feelings,  and  then  they  prove  their  feelings  to  be  true  by  the 
doctrine.  Tliey  reason  ia  a  most  fallacious  circle  ;  and  multitudes,  it  is 
to  be  feared,  are  deluded  into  fatal  mistakes. 

I  heard  the  other  day,  indeed  since  the  discussion  commenced,  that  a 
preacher  of  some  pretensions,  and  of  some  notoriety  in  this  state — a  man 
fond  of  conspicuity — in  a  recent  discourse  undertook  to  prove  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  to  his  audience  by  their  feelings.  He  was  himself  sud- 
denly transported  into  an  ecstacy  at  the  discovery  of  the  new  proof.  He 
was,  with  Archiraides,  ready  to  say,  eureka — I  have  found,  I  have  found. 
He  said.  My  friends,  1  have  never  heard  it  uttered,  I  have  never  read  it 
in  a  book.  It  is  to  me  a  perfectly  original  argument,  but  really  it  appears 
to  me  the  best  I  have  ever  heard.  It  is  simple,  and  you  can  all  apply  it. 
Paul  says,  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen  faith  is  vain,  preaching  is  vain ;  you 
are  yet  in  your  sins."  Now  follows  it  not,  that  when  sins  are  pardoned, 
preaching  is  proved  to  be  not  in  vain,  and  faith  is  demonstrated  not  to  be 
in  vain,  and,  consequently,  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead.  Now,  breth- 
ren, I  feel  that  my  sins  are  pardoned,  and  you  feel  that  your  sins  are  par- 
doned ;  surely,  then,  neither  our  faith  nor  our  preaching  is  vain.  Hence 
we  are  infallibly  certain,  from  our  own  hearts,  that  Jesus  Christ  rose  from 
the  tlead  !  But  suppose  this  sense,  or  feeling  of  forgiveness,  is  a  delusion, 
what  comes  of  the  argument? ! 

In  one  word,  if  a  spiritual  illumination  makes  a  Methodist,  and  a  spir- 
itual illumination  makes  a  Baptist  and  a  Congregationalist,  it  is  not  only 
a  new  light,  a  modern  illumination,  but  it  makes  these  parties  of  divine 
authority ;  and  thus  the  Spirit  is  at  war  with  itself  in  these  different  de- 
nominations. Here  is  A  preaching  against  the  Baptists  by  divine  illu- 
mination, and  here  is  B  preaching  against  the  Methodists  by  divine  illu- 
mination, and  here  is  C  preaching  against  them  both,  and  in  favor  of  old- 
fashioned  Presbyterianism,  by  the  same  divine  illumination.  Well,  there 
are  different  ways  to  London,  they  say ;  and  so  there  are  to  heaven, 
they  argue ! 

But  I  will  submit  another  case  to  these  learned  doctors.  Of  the  nu- 
merous converts  that  joined  a  certain  church,  many  have  gone  over  to 
infidelity.  They  told  of  raptures,  felt  ecstacies,  had  their  visions,  and 
rejoiced  in  the  assurance  of  pardoned  sins.  But  now  the  Bible  and  relig- 
ion are  with  them  a  mere  delusion.  They  affirm  it  all  to  be  a  hoax. 
What  now  has  become  of  their  former  illuminations  ?  their  visions  and 
their  ecstacies  ?  They  are  all  abandoned  as  a  mere  delusion.  It  is  not 
denied  that  they  once  had  those  feelings,  emotions,  and  transporting  views. 
They  still  admit  the  fact  of  their  former  actual  existence ;  but  they  were 
the  results  of  a  delusion  ?  With  their  faith  in  the  Bible,  those  pleasant 
dreams  and  fancies  fled.  No  more  light,  nor  spirit,  nor  inward  witness. 
Now  does  not  this  prove,  that  there  is  no  real  foundation  of  confidence, 
no  true  hope  in  God,  no  real  love  of  the  truth,  nor  of  the  God  of  truth, 
in  these  phantasies  !  Had  they  been  solid  substantial  evidences,  would 
not  their  faith  in  them  have  remained  when  their  faith  in  the  testimony  of 
prophets  and  aposdes  failed  ? 

For  these  reasons,  and  not  from  any  aversion  to  the  doctrine  of  spirit- 
ual influence,  do  we  repudiate  the  popular  notions  of  getting  religion,  and 
of  enjoying  religion.  We  rejoice  in  the  belief  of  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  the  great  work  of  our  salvation  from  sin.  We  pray  for 
larger  measures  of  these  divine  influences.  We  desire  them  for  the 
union  of  christians,  and  as  an  end  to  all  these  vain  wranglings  and  con- 

3N 


698  DEBATE  ON  THE 

troversies.  No  greater  proof  of  the  enjoyment  of  God's  Spirit  can  be 
given,  than  an  ardent  devotion  to  all  his  oracles,  and  to  the  keeping  of  his 
commandments. 

To  return  again  to  regeneration.  Mr.  R.  has  got  the  heart  purified 
without  faith,  if  I  rightly  understand  him.  The  heart  is  renewed, 
changed,  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  before  faith ;  consequently  faith  is  not 
necessary  to  the  purification  of  the  heart.  There  is  much  difference  be- 
tween our  two  systems.  Mr.  Rice  has  the  heart  purified  before  faith,  I 
have  the  heart  purified  through  faith.  My  reason  for  so  believing  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  Peter  said,  God  made  no  difference  between  Jew 
and  Gentile,  in  that  "  he  purified  their  hearts  by  faith." 

We  are  accustomed  to  regard  the  purification  of  the  heart  as  the  great- 
est of  all  things  in  religion.  If,  then,  that  be  accomplished  without  faith, 
of  what  essential  use  is  faith  afterwards  ?  If  the  greatest  of  all  events  is 
achieved  without  it,  why  may  not  the  effects  of  that  change  be  accom- 
plished without  it  ?  Why  do  we  preach  the  gospel  to  convert  men,  if,  be- 
fore they  believe  the  gospel,  and  without  the  gospel,  men  are  renewed 
and  regenerated  by  the  direct  and  immediate  influence  of  God's  Spirit  ? 
I  would  conclude,  that  if  a  man  may  be  born  of  the  Spirit  without  faith, 
he  may  also  be  saved  without  faith  ;  and  thus  faith,  from  being  the  primary 
principle  in  religion,  is  anticipated  and  set  aside  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
capital  point  of  the  renewal  of  the  heart. 

In  the  case  of  adults,  for,  with  Mr.  Rice  regeneration  is  the  same  in 
all  cases,  we  have  a  regenerated  unbeliever  ;  and  if  we  could  suppose  an 
interval  between  regeneration  and  faith,  as  must  be  the  case  in  all  infants, 
then  we  have  not  only  a  regenerated  unbeliever,  but  also  the  possibility, 
in  the  case  of  death,  of  such  a  one  being  saved  without  faith.  Again,  in  the 
case  of  infants,  the  interval  between  regeneration  and  faith,  may  be  an 
interval  of  years,  for  anything  known  to  the  contrary,  and  then  we  have 
the  extraordinary  case  of  an  infant  being  a  child  of  God,  and  living  in 
the  world  without  the  knowledge  of  God,  without  Christ,  and  without 
hope ! 

I  hope  Mr.  Rice  will  throw  some  light  on  this  knotty  subject,  and  if 
possible,  reconcile  these  views  of  his  church  with  those  of  the  Bible,  and 
the  experiences  and  observations  of  a  christian  community.  He  has  cer- 
tainly been  driven  to  a  very  high  latitude,  by  adverse  winds,  when  he  has 
to  assume  that  regeneration  is  wholly  independent  of  faith,  and  always 
anterior  to  it — and  thus,  by  one  bold  assumption,  make  void  alJ  the  means 
of  grace,  and  the  utility  of  a  christian  ministry.  But  we  shall  wait  for  his 
expositions. 

The  gentleman,  in  his  disquisitions  upon  holiness,  still  compares  it  to  a 
taste.  This  is  his  only  escape  from  the  difficulties  propounded  in  my  last 
address.  According  to  his  church,  holiness  is  set  forth  as  the  supreme 
love  of  God — or,  "  he  is  said  to  be  holy,  who  loves  the  Lord  with  all  his 
heart,  and  soul,  and  mind,  and  strength."  A  regenerated  child  possesses 
not  this  holiness — himself  being  judge.  Neither  has  it  a  disposition  to- 
wards God,  for  it  has  no  knowledge  of  him.  These  concessions  Mr.  R. 
is  obliged  to  make.  The  common  sense  of  community  requires  them  at 
his  hand.  But  will  it  saUsfy  the  intelligent,  after  having  defined  regener- 
ation to  be  a  change  of  heart,  from  the  love  of  sin  to  the  love  of  holiness, 
to  be  informed,  that,  instead  of  having  this  love  of  holiness,  and  hatred  of 
sin,  an  infant  has  an  undeveloped  taste  for  them — something  like  a  taste 
for  music?  ! !    But  even  this  taste  is  an  assumption.    However,  the  gentle- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  699 

man  does  not  even  say  it  has,  but  a  child  ^^  might  have  a  taste  for  music." 
Still  this  might  have,  and  having  are  different  things.  And  inasmuch  as 
the  gentleman  has  not  yet  produced  any  child,  nor  any  well-authenticated 
fact  of  any  child  having  a  taste  for  holiness,  as  having  been  charmed,  as 
with  music,  on  the  first  presentation  of  the  subject,  we  must  put  it  down 
as  a  complete  failure  on  his  part,  to  sustain  his  infant  regeneration.  He 
has  truly  toiled  hard  in  this  case,  but  certainly  has  not  made  out  either 
the  theory  or  the  fact  o{  instinctive  holiness. 

We  have  also  had  another  dissertation  on  the  word  holiness.  Any 
thing  but  the  question  on  hand.  Well,  now,  must  I  repeat  that  this  term 
indicates  no  real  substantial  attribute,  or  virtue,  but  mere  separation  from 
all  impurity  ? — or,  if  any  one  prefers  it — it  is  purity  itself.  The  taber- 
nacle, and  afterwards  the  temple,  and  all  its  functions,  were  holy.  God's 
presence  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  makes  all  things  holy,  as  did  his  presence 
in  the  mount  with  Moses.  And  even  Mount  Tabor,  where  Moses  and 
Elias  appeared  to  Jesus,  is  called  the  "  Holy  Mount,"  by  Peter.  The 
angels  incessantly  repeat  this  adorable  conception  of  God  ;  and  thus  repre- 
sent him  as  infinitely,  eternally  and  perfectly  pure — removed  from  all  con- 
taminations. They  say,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  God  Almighty  1" 
But  with  them  this  is  not  merely  a  single  attribute,  but  an  ineffable  concep- 
tion of  his  infinite,  awful,  and  glorious  purity.  In  their  eyes,  it  is  his  su- 
perlative beauty  and  loveliness.  He  is  said  to  be  of  purer  eyes  than  to  be- 
hold iniquity  ;  and  the  very  heavens  are  represented  as  not  clean  in  his  sight. 

But  we  are  reminded,  that  holiness  is  a  substantive  requisite  from  chris- 
tians ;  and  that  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  is  made  unto  us  by  God — "  wisdom, 
righteousness,  holiness  and  redemption."  It  is,  therefore,  important  to 
understand  it  well,  inasmuch  as  "  without  holiness,  no  man  shall  enjoy 
God."  Jesus  is  not  imputed  to  us  for  wisdom,  righteousness,  <fec.,  but 
he  is  the  author  of  these  perfections  in  us.  These  terms  comprehend 
much,  and  are  indicative  of  very  distinct  conceptions  and  excellencies. 
Justice,  or  righteousness,  has  respect  to  positive  duties  and  obligations  to 
society.  Holiness,  or  sanctification,  a  hatred  of,  and  separation  from  all 
impurities ;  and  redemption  expresses  our  deliverance  from  death  and  the 
grave.  We  may,  indeed,  suppose  it,  as  this  term  indicates,  the  consumma- 
tion of  salvation — that  as  it  is  the  ultimate  goal  of  man's  aspirations,  ("  be 
you  holy,  for  I  am  holy,")  it  must  indicate  the  supreme  of  moral  gran- 
deur, and  the  perfection  of  moral  excellence.  But,  in  discussing  the  term 
philologically,  it  intimates  no  more  than  simple  separation  from  sin,  or  any 
kind  of  legal  or  moral  impurity.  But  we  shall  now  proceed  to  a  new  ar- 
gument on  the  modus  operandi,  or  means  of  sanctification,  which  we  shall 
call  our  ninth  argument. 

IX.  It  shall  be  based  on  the  special  commission  given  to  Paul,  as  ex- 
pounded by  that  given  to  the  Messiah  himself.  And,  therefore,  we  shall 
read  that  to  the  Messiah,  as  introductory  to  that  presented  to  the  apostle 
Paul.  "  I  give  thee,"  says  Jehovah,  "  for  a  covenant  of  the  people  ;  for 
a  light  of  the  gentiles;  to  open  the  blind  eyes;  to  bring  out  the  prisoners 
from  the  prison,  and  them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison-house." 
'  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me ;  because  the  Lord  has  anointed 
me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  meek ;  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the 
broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and  the  opening  of  the 
prison  to  them  that  are  bound ;  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God  ;  to  comfort  all  that  mourn." 
Isaiah  x!ii.  6,  7  ;  Ixi.  1,  2.     We  shall  now  hear  Paul  relate  his  own,  as 


700  DEBATE  ON  THE 

he  had  it  from  the  mouth  of  the  Lord :  "  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for 
this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness  both  of  these  things 
which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto 
thee.  Delivering  thee  from  the  people  and  from  the  gentiles,  unto  whom 
now  I  send  thee — to  open  their  eyes,  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light, 
and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith,  that  is 
in  me."  Here,  then,  we  have  a  full  development  in  these  grand  com- 
missions, of  the  manner  and  means  employed  in  the  wisdom  and  grace  of 
God  in  converting  and  sanctifying  the  nations  of  the  earth,  through  the 
mediation  of  the  Messiah.  The  most  conspicuous  point,  or  the  chief 
means  stated,  is — that  God  would  use  light,  knowledge,  the  gospel,  and 
that  he  would  open  the  eyes  of  men — turning  them  from  darkness  to 
light,  and  from  the  kingdom  and  power  of  Satan  to  God.  God,  then, 
who  commanded  light  to  arise  out  of  darkness,  has  used  moral  spiritual 
light — that  is,  revelation,  the  gospel — as  the  means  of  conversion  and 
sanctification.  Illumination  is,  therefore,  an  essential  prerequisite  to  con- 
version and  holiness.  Without  light  there  is  no  beauty;  for  in  the  dark, 
beauty  and  deformity  are  undistinguishable.  Without  light  there  is  no- 
thing amiable,  because  amiability  requires  the  aid  of  light  for  its  exposi- 
tion, as  much  as  beauty.  The  power  of  Satan  is  in  darkness;  the  power 
of  God  is  in  light.  God,  therefore,  works  by  light ;  and  Satan  by  dark- 
ness. Hence,  in  Paul's  commission,  it  reads,  "Turn  them  from  darkness 
to  light  ;^^  and  the  consequence  will  be,  "from  the  power  of  Satan  to 
God ;"  and  the  ultimate  effect  will  be  remission  of  sins,  and  an  inheritance 
among  the  sanctified.  After  the  study  of  these,  and  many  such  similar 
documents,  found  in  the  Bible,  I  confess  I  am  wholly  unable  to  conceive 
of  a  religion  without  knowledge,  without  faith,  without  an  apprehension, 
an  intellectual,  as  well  as  a  cordial  reception,  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  1 
repudiate,  therefore,  with  my  whole  heart,  this  notion  of  infant,  idiot  and 
pagan  regeneration — this  speculative  conversion,  without  light,  knowledge, 
faith,  hope  or  love.  It  makes  void  the  whole  moral  machinery  of  the 
Bible,  the  christian  ministry,  and  the  commission  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  no  advocate  of  Christ ;  it  is  no  comforter  of  the  soul,  on  the  hypothesis 
of  infant,  and  pagan,  and  idiot  regeneration. 

But  again,  what  is  orthodoxy  worth  on  Mr.  Rice's  hypothesis  ?  what 
is  it  better  than  heterodoxy  ?  In  not  one  single  point.  Persons  are 
regenerated  without  any  doctrine,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent.  It  is  a  work 
that  depends  on  nothing  but  the  special,  direct,  and  immediate  impulse, 
or  impression  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  naked  soul  of  an  infant,  a  pagan,  or 
a  gospel  hearer.  This  rage  for  orthodoxy  is  madness  upon  his  hypo- 
thesis. Why  this  crusade  against  us  on  the  part  of  my  friend  ?  We  can 
do  no  harm,  if  his  theory  of  conversion  and  sanctification  be  true !  All 
that  the  Spirit  regenerates  live  for  ever  according  to  him !  Consequently 
they  cannot  be  injured  ;  and  none  else  can  be  saved.  In  what  a  singular 
attitude  stands  he  before  this  community  and  the  universe,  if  his  notions 
of  regeneration  are  worth  any  thing !  The  gentleman  will  not,  because 
he  cannot,  explain  his  zeal  for  orthodoxy  on  his  principles.  If  the 
Spirit  descends  from  heaven  on  a  person,  and  by  a  direct  touch  regen- 
erates him  without  faith,  without  knowledge,  or  preparation  of  any  sort, 
what  can  sound  doctrine  and  sound  preaching  avail  ?  Mr.  Rice's  theory 
is  a  moral  paralysis  to  the  tongue  and  to  the  heart  of  a  preacher.  It  is 
to  the  hearers  a  moral  stupor,  a  spiritual  lethargy. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  701 

There  are  no  means  of  regeneration  at  all  on  his  assumption.  I  wish 
I  could  say,  with  an  emphasis  that  would  seal  it  upon  the  heart  forever, 
if  Mr.  Rice's  theory  be  any  thing  but  a  mental  hallucination,  there  are  no 
means  of  conversion  or  sanctification— no  means  whatever  of  regenera- 
tion. I  ask  him  what  are  the  means  ?  Can  he  name  them  ?  He  cannot. 
Prayer,  preaching,  reading,  all  ordinances,  are  useless.  Man,  with  him, 
is  born  again  before  he  believes.  He  is  as  passive  in  the  new  birth 
as  in  the  first  birth.  There  were  no  motives,  no  volitions,  no  previous 
impulses  of  the  soul  in  his  first ;  nor  are  there  any  in  his  second  birth. 
He  runs  the  two  metaphers  oi  birth  and  death  into  a  fatal  paralysis. 

Are  you  prepared,  fellow-citizens  of  the  nineteenth  century — are  you 
prepared  to  receive  a  doctrine  of  regeneration,  that  at  one  fell  swoop, 
annihilates  all  means  of  grace  whatsoever? — that  makes  faith,  preaching, 
praying,  reading,  &c.  altogether  vain  !  This  has  been,  in  my  esteem 
for  many  years,  the  most  false  delusion.  I  saw  the  doctrine  of  metaphys- 
ical and  romantic  regeneration  leading  just  to  this  point.  This  is  its 
natural  Ultima  Thule  issue.  If  it  always  ends  not  here  Avith  you,  it  is 
only  because  you  cannot,  or  do  not  understand  it.  Well  did  the  Messiah 
say,  of  certain  Rabbis,  you  make  void  the  Word  of  God  by  your  tradi- 
tions. 

I  do,  sir,  most  sincerely  regard  the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  author  of  every 
spiritual  and  noble  desire  in  the  human  heart ;  the  author  of  every  pious 
affection,  of  every  holy  aspiration  of  our  souls.  His  mysterious  but 
certain  power,  is  in,  and  with  the  gospel,  and  he  makes  it  the  power  of 
God  to  salvation  to  every  one  that  believes  it.  He  sanctifies  us  through 
the  truth.  He  works  in  us  by  it  to  will  and  do  of  his  good  pleasure. 
He  is  the  Spirit  of  grace,  because  he  is  the  Spirit  of  truth. 

Much  has  been  said,  and  whispered,  and  gossiped,  concerning  my 
heterodoxy.  But,  sir,  allow  me  to  compliment  myself — I  am,  in  all  the 
great  and  weighty  matters  of  religion,  more  orthodox  than  any  of  ray 
impugners.  I  speak  it  not  boastingly,  sir,  but  in  declaration  of  my  gen- 
eral views  of  all  gospel  truths.  I  do  not  believe,  sir,  most  sincerely,  that 
there  is  any  of  those  gentlemen  that  oppose  us,  more  radically  and 
universally  orthodox  on  all  these  great  subjects  of  evangelical  faith,  piety, 
and  morality,  than  we. — [Time  expired. 

Tuesday,  Nov.  28— U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  seventh  reply.] 

Mr.  President — 1  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen  a  man  who 
pretended  to  religion  of  any  kind,  who  did  not  consider  himself  rather 
more  orthodox  than  others.  This  is  a  common  weakness  of  human  na- 
ture. It  displays  itself  everywhere,  and  especially  in  men  who  imagine 
themselves  to  be  great  reformers,  and  believe  all  but  themselves  in  serious 
error.  If  it  be  true,  as  my  friend  evidendy  thinks,  that  of  all  the  world 
he  only,  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  are  in  the  light,  whilst  all  Chris- 
tendom grope  in  midnight  darkness  ;  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
that  he  is  one  of  the  most  orthodox  men  !    There  can  be  no  doubt  about  it. 

We  might,  perhaps,  excuse  the  other  remarks  the  gentleman  has  so 
repeatedly  made,  concerning  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterians,  which  he 
professes  perfectly  to  understand ;  but  when  he  charges  our  church  with 
holding  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  we  have  the  right  to  expect  him 
to  produce  at  least  one  Presbyterian  author  who  has  taught  it.  I  have 
challenged  him  to  produce  even  one,  and  he  has  not  done  it ;  nor  has  he 

3n3 


702  DEBATE  ON  THE 

been  able  to  prove  that  it  is  countenanced  by  our  confession  of  faith.  I 
deny  that  our  church  holds  the  doctrine.  He  has  made  the  charge,  and 
once  more  I  demand  the  proof.  I  had  supposed  him  to  be  a  man  who 
had  so  much  experence  in  public  discussions,  that  he  would  be  prepared, 
at  once,  when  he  stated  facts,  to  prove  them.  But  it  is  not  so.  Very 
far  otherwise. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  respond  to  his  remarks  and  arguments,  if,  in- 
deed, he  has  offered  arguments,  to  prove  the  proposition  he  affirms.  Let 
me  ask  you,  my  friends,  has  he  produced  one  passage  of  Scripture  that 
says,  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctification  only  through 
the  truth  ?  What  passage  has  he  quoted  1  Do  you  remember  one  ?  I  cer- 
tainly did  not  hear  one  quoted.  Yet  the  gentleman  boasts  that  he,  more 
than  all  other  men,  confines  his  faith  within  the  lids  of  the  Bible. 

He  says,  I  have  been  proving  only  that  the  Spirit  does  operate,  and 
this  he  admits.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  fact.  I  have  been  proving 
that  the  Spirit  does  not  operate  only  through  the  truth,  but  that  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit,  an  addition  to 
the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  This  doctrine  he,  in  his  writings  and 
discussions,  has  positively  denied.  I  like  to  see  a  man  march  up  boldly 
and  fearlessly  to  the  defence  of  his  published  principles,  or  openly  and 
candidly  retract  them.  He  has  very  repeatedly  taught  and  published,  that 
only  moral  power  can  be  exerted  on  mind,  and  moral  power  can  be  ex- 
erted only  by  words  and  arguments,  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  Yet 
from  what  we  have  heard  from  him  on  this  occasion,  no  one  would  ima- 
gine that  he  had  ever  believed  such  a  doctrine.  I  do  desire  to  see  him 
come  up  and  openly  defend  his  published  doctrines,  or  retract  them.  I 
have  been  proving  that  in  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  adults,  there 
is,  1st,  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word ;  and,  2nd,  a  distinct  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  for  which  the  pious  are  accustomed  to  pray — an  influ- 
ence eflectually  renewing  and  sanctifying  the  soul.  This  latter  agency 
Mr.  C.  denies.  This  is  the  most  important  point  in  regard  to  which  we 
differ ;  and  I  am  resolved  to  keep  it  prominently  before  the  audience. 

The  gentleman  has  asserted,  that  a  number  of  his  arguments  remain  un- 
noticed. If  there  are  such,  I  have  entirely  missed  them  ;  and  I  do  not  know 
how  it  could  have  happened,  for  I  have  taken  full  notes  of  his  speeches. 
If  there  are  any  that  remain  unanswered,  I  hope  he  will  mention  them. 

He  has  informed  us  how  he  was  led  to  adopt  his  present  views.  He 
heard  of  the  Spirit  being  poured  out  in  divers  places,  and  the  result  was, 
that  so  many  Baptists,  so  many  Methodists,  and  so  many  Presbyterians 
were  made ;  and  he  concluded,  that  if  all  this  had  been  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  it  would  have  been  more  unique.  Really  I  had  supposed,  that  he 
professed  to  have  been  led  to  the  adoption  of  his  views  simply  by  a  calm 
and  unprejudiced  examination  of  the  Bible ;  but  it  appears  that  I  was 
mistaken.  He  now  informs  us,  that  his  faith  in  the  special  agency  of  the 
Spirit  was  shaken,  if  not  destroyed,  by  hearing  that  the  Spirit  was  poured 
out  in  this,  that,  and  the  other  place.  Verily  I  see  nothing  in  this  to  shake 
the  faith  of  a  believer  in  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  What  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  on  this  subject?  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  the  prophecy 
of  Joel  began  to  be  fulfilled,  in  which  he  said,  "It  shall  come  to  pass  in 
the  last  days,  (saith  God,)  I  will  jjour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,^^ 
&c.  And  Paul  says,  God  saves  us  "  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly,  through 
Jesus  Christ."    I  cannot  envy  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  speak 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIKIT.  703 

slightingly  of  the  very  language  of  the  Bible.  If  Paul,  and  Peter,  and 
Joel  were  in  error,  I  am  willing  to  err  with  them. 

But  he  says,  if  the  Spirit  had  converted  all  those  Baptists,  Presbyterians, 
and  Methodists,  they  would  all  have  been  alike.  I  see  no  absurdity  or 
inconsistency  in  believing,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  may  renew  the  hearts 
of  several  hundred  persons,  and  that  some  of  them  might  become  Bap- 
tists, others  Presbyterians,  and  others  Methodists.  I  believe,  that  in  all 
these,  and  other  evangelical  denominations,  there  are  vast  numbers  who, 
with  garments  washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  will  stand  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  where  there  is  fullness  of  joy  forever.  I  have  never  taken 
the  ground  that  the  Presbyterian  church  constitutes  the  whole  family  of 
God  on  earth,  and  that  all  other  churches  are  synagogues  of  Satan !  The 
gentleman  cannot  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God  would  make  Methodists, 
Episcopalians,  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians.  But,  I  ask,  has  he  not  re- 
peatedly published  his  belief  that  there  are  christians  among  "  the  sects  ;" 
christians,  of  course,  converted  by  the  Holy  Spirit? 

But  he  says,  the  work,  if  it  were  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  would  be  more 
unique^  those  converted  would  be  in  their  views  more  alike.  Is  the 
work  unique  in  his  own  church,  where  he  holds  that  disciples  are  made 
on  principles  truly  apostolic  ?  Do  he  and  his  brethren  agree  with  each 
other  in  their  views  ?  I  can  point  to  a  preacher  of  high  standing  in  his 
church,  who,  for  a  length  of  time  after  joining  his  church  and  being  re- 
cognized as  a  minister,  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  !  I 
can  point  to  another  prominent  preacher  in  his  church,  who  denies  that 
man  has  a  sold,  and  contends  most  zealously  that  in  the  Scriptures  the 
word  soul  means  breath!!  !  Why  is  not  the  work  of  the  Spirit  unique  in 
his  church  ?  If  this  be  a  fair  test  of  the  work  of  God,  and  Mr.  C.  pro- 
fesses to  think  it  is,  his  church  is  the  very  last  place  in  this  wide  world 
where  we  could  expect  to  find  it;  for  in  it,  as  he  himself  has  informed 
us,  all  sorts  of  doctrines  have  been  preached  by  all  sorts  ofinen!!!  If 
the  uniqueness  of  the  work  be  the  ground  on  which  we  are  to  form  a  judg- 
ment of  its  character,  he  would  better  have  said  nothing  on  the  subject. 

He  has  told  you  an  anecdote  illustrative  of  the  fanaticism  to  which  our 
doctrine  leads,  and  I  like  to  hear  anecdotes  occasionally.  He  told  you  of 
a  certain  preacher  who  adopted  a  very  singular  method  of  proving  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection ;  and  he  argues,  even  gravely,  that  those  who 
are  said  to  have  experienced  the  special  influences  of  the  Spirit,  are  quite 
as  ignorant  of  the  Word  of  God  as  before.  Well,  I  must  tell  an  anecdote 
to  match  his.  I  hope  my  "laughing  committee  "  are  all  present.  [Laugh- 
ing.] A  young  man  not  far  from  Lexington  had  been  immersed  into  the 
church  of  my  friend,  where,  we  are  to  suppose,  converts  are  made  in  the 
right  way.  After  his  immersion  he,  as  is  rather  common  in  certain  quar- 
ters, was  somewhat  wise  in  his  own  conceit,  and  anxious  to  make  con- 
verts to  his  new  views.  He  soon  got  into  a  discussion  with  some  per- 
sons older  and  belter  informed  than  himself,  who  quoted  against  his  doc- 
trine a  passage  from  the  Old  Testament.  Not  being  quite  prepared  to 
meet  the  argument,  he  replied,  "  I  care  nothing  about  that — the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  written  before  the  flood."  [A  laugh.]  I  doubt  whether  he  was 
even  so  well  taught  as  the  gentleman's  preacher.  Indeed,  it  admits  of  very 
serious  doubt,  whether,  as  a  general  thing,  his  people,  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  can  justly  claim  any  superiority  over  others. 

But  as  further  evidence  that  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend  is  not 
true,  Mr.  C.  tells  you,  that  he  has  known  many  who  professed  to  be 


704  DEBATE  ON  THE 

converted  by  the  Spirit,  who  afterwards  apostatized  and  became  infidels. 
Does  he  know  whether  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  were  any 
cases  of  the  kind  ?  Were  there  not  many  who  seemed  to  run  well 
for  a  time,  and  then  turned  to  the  beggarly  elements  of  the  world  ?  Per- 
haps the  apostles  did  not  preach  as  they  should  ?  Certainly  they  em- 
ployed language  very  much  like  that  we  use  on  this  subject.  This  cir- 
cumstance may,  perhaps,  account  for  the  fact  that  many  apostatized !  !  I 
should  like  to  inquire  of  my  friend,  whether  any  who  have  become  mem- 
bers of  his  church,  and  who  appeared  zealous  for  a  time,  have  afterwards 
apostatized  ?  I  think  he  will  admit  that  many  such  cases  have  occurred, 
and  that  they  became  worse  than  before  their  professed  conversion.  One 
of  his  preachers,  as  I  remarked  several  days  since,  stated,  that  he  knew 
churches  to  which,  some  little  time  since,  large  accessions  had  been 
made,  that  were  now  almost  dead.  It  is  not  wise  in  my  friend  to  use 
arguments  that,  if  at  all  sound,  will  ruin  his  own  cause.  The  same  class 
of  arguments  miglit  be  urged  with  equal  conclusiveness  against  Christi- 
anity itself.  At  any  rate,  his  argument,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  affords 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  himself  preaches  false  doctrine. 

But  it  is  a  principle  universally  acknowledged,  that  the  abuse  of  a 
doctrine  is  no  valid  argument  against  it.  If  men  delude  themselves,  or  are 
deluded  by  others  into  the  belief  that  they  have  experienced  a  change  of 
heart,  when  in  truth  they  have  not ;  is  this  to  be  urged  against  the  fact, 
that  all  true  conversions  are  effected  by  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  ? 
Another  objection  urged  by  Mr.  C.  is,  that  according  to  our  doctrine  re- 
generation precedes  faith.  Suppose  the  matter  to  be  just  as  he  has  rep- 
resented it,  he  is  reasoning  as  decidedly  against  the  apostle  John  as 
against  us.  John  says,  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  God,"  1  John  v.  1.  According  to  the  apostle,  every  believer 
is  born  of  God,  is  regenerated.  Regeneration  is  the  cause  of  which  faith 
is  an  e^ect.  The  fact  that  an  individual  believes,  is  proof  that  he  is  re- 
generated. Paul,  too,  represents  men  as  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins," 
and  God  as  quickening  them,  Eph.  ii.  1 — 5.  If  my  friend  had  lived 
in  those  days,  and  had  entertained  his  present  views,  I  cannot  but  think 
he  would  have  disapproved  of  Paul's  theology.  For  certainly  a  dead 
man  cannot  put  forth  acts,  as  one  who  is  alive.  And  he  would  have  ex- 
posed the  ridiculous  absurdity  of  preaching  to  men  who  are  dead  ! 
Faith  is  certainly  the  act  of  a  being  who  is  spiritually  alive,  and  he 
must  be  quickened  before  he  exercises  faith. 

But,  says  Mr.  C,  this  doctrine  makes  faith  and  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  wholly  unnecessary  and  useless.  There  is  a  passage  in  Paul's 
defence  before  Agrippa,  that  completely  refutes  this  objection.  "King 
Agrippa,"  exclaimed  Paul,  "  believest  thou  the  prophets?  I  know  that 
thou  believest,"  Acts  xxvi.  27.  Was  Agrippa  a  pious  man?  Had  he  the 
faith  that  overcomes  the  world  ?  He  had  faith,  but  not  the  faith  that  se- 
cures salvation.  He  believed  the  truth  of  divine  revelation  ;  but  he  did  not 
approve  and  embrace  it.  In  this  sense  multitudes  believe.  They  doubt 
not  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  that  they  teach  the  great  and 
essential  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity  ;  but  they  do  not  love  and  em- 
brace the  gospel.    Evangelical  faith  works  by  love,  and  leads  to  good  works. 

The  kind  of  faith  exercised  by  Agrippa,  though  it  could  not  secure  jus- 
tification and  eternal  life,  is  not  useless.  It  induces  men  to  hear  the 
Word,  to  read  it,  to  think  of  it ;  and  God  may,  through  the  truth,  renew 
and  sanctify  them.     This  faith  precedes  regeneration ;  but  the  faith  that 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  705 

works  by  love  and  overcomes  the  world,  is  consequent  upon  regeneration. 
He  who  is  induced  to  embrace  fundamental  error,  is  jiot  likely  ever  to  be 
converted  ;  for  God  does  not  sanctify  through  error.  But  he  who  theo- 
retically believes  the  truth,  may  be  converted  and  sanctified  by  the  Spirit 
through  the  truth. 

As  to  the  objection,  that  this  doctrine  makes  the  preaching  of  the  Word 
unnecessary,  it  has  not  the  least  foundation.  God  is  pleased  to  work  by 
means,  when  they  can  be  employed.  And  not  only  does  he  employ 
means  where  they  are  wholly  inefficient  without  the  exertion  of  his 
power;  but  he  has  employed  such  means  as  had  not  the  least  tendency  to 
produce  the  desired  effect.  Our  Savior  used  clay  and  spittle  in  opening 
the  eyes  of  a  blind  man.  According  to  the  logic  of  Mr.  C,  it  was  wholly 
unnecessary  and  unwise  to  use  such  means.  He  would  ask,  why  use 
means  that  will  not  produce  the  effect  ?  God  has  been  pleased  to  say, 
that  he  will  convert  and  sanctify  the  heart  through  the  truth,  though  the 
truth  alone  cannot  convert  and  sanctify  ;  and  who  shall  say,  it  is  unwise? 
The  gentleman's  whole  difficulty  arises  from  an  entire  misapprehension 
of  our  views. 

He  tells  us,  he  has  known  persons  who  professed  to  have  been  regen- 
erated one  day,  and  yet  they  did  not  believe  for  many  days  afterwards  ! 
I  am  obliged  to  admit,  that  he  has  found  more  singular  people  in  this 
world,  than  any  man  I  have  ever  known  !  I,  of  course,  cannot  dispute 
the  truth  of  his  statement ;  but  I  have  never  heard  of  persons  entertaining 
such  notions.  Just  as  rationally  might  you  talk  of  a  man  being  alive 
several  days  without  breathing.  The  moment  when  there  is  life,  there  are 
the  actions  that  flow  from  it.  Lazarus  was  no  sooner  made  alive,  than 
he  breathed.  So  soon  as  there  is  in  the  soul  spiritual  life,  it  manifests 
itself  by  spiritual  acts.  He  who  is  regenerated,  believes,  loves  and  obeys 
God.     Such  is  the  simple  truth  on  this  subject.     It  is  God's  truth. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  that  I  have  reduced  holiness  to  mere  instinct. 
And  he  asks,  how  can  there  be  holiness,  which  is  love  to  God,  where 
there  is  no  knowledge  of  God  ?  How  can  an  infant  be  holy,  when  it 
cannot  know  God  ?  In  reply,  I  say,  every  thing  possesses  what  we  call 
nature.  Our  Savior  said — "  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the 
heart,  bringeth  forth  good  things  ;  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure, 
bringeth  forth  evil  things,"  Matt.  xii.  35.  Here  the  heart  or  moral  na- 
ture of  man  is  represented  as  a  treasure,  fountain  or  source  from  which 
flow  all  his  good  and  all  his  evil  actions.  If  the  heart  be  impure,  it  will 
prompt  to  conduct  of  the  same  character.  There  is  something  in  a  fruit- 
tree  which  we  call  its  nature,  which  causes  it  to  produce  fruit  of  a  partic- 
ular kind.  Two  trees  may  grow  in  the  same  soil,  be  watered  by  the 
same  stream,  and  warmed  by  the  same  sun ;  and  yet  they  will  produce 
different  kinds  of  fruit.  Common  sense  leads  us  to  ascribe  these  different 
effects  to  causes  equally  different.  The  circumstances  being  the  same,  we 
conclude,  that  the  causes  are  in  the  trees ;  and  we  say,  they  have  differ- 
ent natures.  The  chemist  cannot  analyze  the  trees,  and  point  out  what 
we  call  their  nature  ;  yet  common  sense  forces  us  to  admit  its  existence. 

No  less  certain  is  it,  that  men  may  and  do  possess  a  nature  or  disposi- 
tion, prior  to  their  acts  and  choices,  which  is  sinful  or  holy.  It  was  in 
illustration  of  this  very  principle,  that  our  Savior  said — "  Make  the  tree 
good,  and  his  fruit  good ;  or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt  and  his  fruit 
corrupt :  for  the  tree  is  known  by  his  fruit,"  Matt.  xii.  33.  Of  two  men, 
who  are  living  under  the  government  of  the  same  God,  and  enjoying  the 
45 


706  DEBATE  ON  THE 

same  gospel  privileges,  one  loves,  adores,  and  serves  God  ;  and  the  other 
knowingly,  wilfully,  and  deliberately  rebels  against  him.  You  call  the 
one  a  good  man — a  holy  man,  and  the  other  an  unholy — a  wicked  man. 
Common  sense  compels  us  to  believe,  that  the  actions  of  the  one  flow 
from  a  pure  source — a  holy  nature,  and  those  of  the  other,  from  an  un- 
holy nature.  The  cause  exists  before  the  efTect ;  and  these  different  na- 
tures or  dispositions  exist  before  the  actions  to  which  they  prompt. 
There  may,  then,  be  in  the  mind  of  an  infant  the  disposition  which  will 
induce  it  to  love  and  serve  God,  or  the  opposite  disposition,  which  will 
induce  it  to  rebel  against  him,  so  soon  as  capable  of  knowing  him. 
There  is  in  this  nothing  more  unphilosophical,  than  that  there  should  be 
a  disposition  to  love  music.  If  I  were  to  assert,  that  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  before  the  person  has  heard  music ;  how  could  he  prove  the 
contrary  ?  He  asserts,  that  there  can  be  no  disposition  to  love  God, 
where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  him.  To  prove  this  lie  can  produce  no 
acknowledged  principle  of  philosophy ;  and,  as  I  have  proved,  it  is  direct- 
ly contradictory  of  the  Bible.  I  will  not  give  up  plain  and  positive  dec- 
larations of  the  Word  of  God  for  his  unphilosophical  speculations. 

In  reply  to  the  gentleman's  charge,  that  our  church  holds  the  doctrine 
of  infant  damnation,  I  gave  the  common  interpretation  of  the  language  of 
our  confession  of  faith.  This  interpretation,  he  says,  he  never  heard 
until  recently.  Well,  I  verily  believe,  there  are  a  great  many  things  in 
this  world  of  which  he  has  never  heard;  for  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the 
interpretation  I  gave  of  the  language  of  our  book,  is  the  one  universally 
given  by  Presbyterians. 

All  the  gentleman's  learned  criticisms  on  the  word  holy,  even  if  they 
were  correct,  could  not  help  him  out  of  the  difficulty,  arising  from  his 
limiting  the  power  of  God  over  the  human  mind.  The  word  holy,  he 
says,  does  not  express  moral  quality.  Suppose  we  admit  it.  I  have 
proved,  that  God  originally  made  man  upright ;  and  all  we  desire,  is  to 
have  him  made  upright  again.  If  God  made  him  upright  once,  he  is  able 
to  make  him  so  again.  Mr.  C,  says,  God  cannot  exert  on  the  human 
mind  any  moral  power,  except  by  words  :  I  say  he  can. 

The  word  holy,  when  applied  to  moral  character,  as  it  is  constantly  in 
the  Bible,  does  not  mean  simply  separation  from  all  impurity.  A  log  of 
wood  might  be  separated  from  all  impurity  ;  but  it  would  still  not  be  holy. 
The  word  expresses  most  clearly  moral  purity.  But  I  will  not  spend 
time  in  such  criticisms. 

My  friend  has  brought  forward  one  more  passage  of  Scripture  to  sus- 
tain his  doctrine.  We  occasionally  induce  him  to  leave  his  metaphysics, 
and  enter  the  Bible.  He  quotes  Acts  xxvi,  18,  where  we  are  told  that 
God  sent  Paul  to  the  gentiles, "  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God."  But  here  a 
very  important  question  arises,  viz  :  Was  Paul  sent  to  do  this  work  by 
the  Word  only?  The  passage  does  not  say  so.  Paul  had  a  certain 
work  to  do.  He  was  sent  to  preach  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ. 
But  God  had  also  a  work  to  do.  So  Paul  taught  the  Ephesians.  They 
were  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins,  and  God  quickened  them,  Eph  ii. 
1 — 5.  I  should  like  to  hear  the  gentleman  explain  that  passage,  so  as  to 
make  it  consistent  with  his  faith.  He  has  brought  forward  several  pas- 
sages ;  but,  unfortunately,  they  all,  when  properly  understood,  refute  his 
doctrine,  and  establish  ours. 

He  says,  he  cannot  conceive  of  a  religion  that  begins  in  darkness — ic 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  707 

mere  blind  feeling.  Neither  can  I.  But  I  can  conceive  that  God  may 
*'  call  men  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light,"  (1  Pet.  ii.  9,)  that 
he  may  open  their  eyes  and  renew  their  hearts,  causing  them  to  love  the 
light;  for,  our  Savior  said,  "  This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is 
come  into  the  world;  and  men  love  darkness  more  than  light."  For  this 
pure  light  David  prayed :  "  Open  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wonder- 
ful things  out  of  thy  law."  The  Word  was  before  his  mind ;  but  he 
prayed  that  God  would  grant  him  more  purity  of  heart,  that  he  might 
better  understand  it,  and  appreciate  more  fully  its  glorious  truths.  Such 
is  the  religion  in  Avhich  we  believe. 

I  have  now  gone  througli  the  whole  catalogue  of  my  friend's  argu- 
ments. I  do  not  consider  tliem  very  strong.  I  believe  he  quoted  but 
one  text  of  Scripture.  I  will  now  very  brielly  present  one  more  argu- 
ment, in  proof  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Spirit  operates,  not  through  the 
truth  only.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  God  gives  repentance.  Christ 
was  exalted  a  prince  and  a  Savior,  "  for  to  give  repentance  unto  Israel, 
and  remission  of  sins,"  Acts  v.  31.  Can  any  one  believe  that  God  gives 
both  remission  and  repentance,  merely  by  the  preaching  of  the  Word  ? 
The  obvious  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  he  inclines  men  by  his  blessed 
Spirit,  to  repent,  that  he  may  grant  to  them  remission  of  sins."  So  again, 
in  Acts  xi.  18  :  "Then  hath  God  also  to  the  gentiles  granted  repentance 
unto  life."  Now,  what  is  meant  but  that  God  granted  the  gentiles  the 
gracious  influence  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  thus  induced  them  to  repent  ? 
The  grace  of  God  brought  them  to  repentance  ;  but  going  to  God  brought 
them  also  to  repentance.  I  have  one  more  passage,  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  26 : 
"In  meekness,  instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves;  if  God  perad- 
venture  will  give  them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth: 
and  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare  of  the  devil,  who 
are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will."  The  truth  is  before  them.  They 
have  heard  it ;  but  will  not  receive  it.  Now,  here  God  is  said  to  give 
them  repentance,  or  a  change  of  mind,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
truth.  I  ask  any  man,  if  this  language  does  not  mean  something  addi- 
tional to  the  mere  influence  of  the  Word  ?  They  had  heard  the  truth, 
but  it  failed  to  lead  them  to  repentance ;  and  now  God  exerts  in  their 
minds  a  more  effectual  agency.  We  do  not  see  how  it  was  possible  for 
the  Savior  and  the  apostles  to  have  taught  more  plainly  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition  to  the  Word  ?  I  defy  any  one  to 
teach  it  in  stronger  language.  If  the  Bible  does  not  teach  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit,  distinct  from  the  Word,  I  defy  mortal  man  to  teach  it  by  any 
language.  When  the  apostles  used  the  strongest  language,  without  quali- 
fication, did  they  not  wish  it  to  be  understood  according  to  its  obvious 
import  ?  It  is,  then,  clear  that  they  taught  that  the  Spirit  operates  not 
only  through  the  Truth,  but  in  addition  to  it.  They  all  taught  it,  and 
took  delight  in  it.  It  is  one  of  the  chief  pillars  in  the  Temple  of  Truth ; 
and  he  who  denies  it,  leaves  man  to  perish  without  hope.  But  I  will 
close  for  the  present. — [Time  expired. 

TVednesday,  Nov.  29 — 10  d'doch,  A.  M. 

[mr.  Campbell's  eighth  address.] 

Mr.  President — It  is  all-important  in  every  debate,  especially  in  this 

one,  that   the  proper  issue  be  kept  distinctly  and  definitely  before  the 

minds  of  the  debatants  and  of  the  auditors.     There  is  no  question  of  more 

sublime  comprehension,  of  more  awful  grandeur,  or  of  more  transcendent 


708  DEBATE  ON  THE 

importance,  than  the  question  of  spiritual  and  Divine  influence.  Like 
the  vital  principle,  however,  it  is  the  most  sublimated,  and  in  its  naked 
and  abstract  form,  the  most  unapproachable  of  all  the  entities  of  creation. 
It  is,  indeed,  the  vital  principle  of  religion,  and,  therefore,  the  most  incom- 
prehensible, though  the  most  real  and  substantive  existence  in  the  uni- 
verse. The  question  before  us  involves  the  value  of  the  Bible,  and  all  its 
ordinances — the  gospel,  its  ministry,  and  all  that  mortals  have  compre- 
hended under  that  most  precious  conception  called  the  means  of  grace. 
1  feel  that  I  am  discussing  the  value  of  the  Bible,  the  gospel,  the  church, 
the  ministry,  while  endeavoring  to  know  what  the  converting  and  sancti- 
fying power  and  influence  of  God's  Spirit  is.  Let  us,  then,  fix  our  minds 
upon  the  precise  points  expressed  in  the  proposition  before  us.  "/n  con- 
version  and  sanctijication  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons  only 
through  the  truth.''' 

There  is  no  debate  upon  spiritual  operations.  They  are  of  an  abstract 
nature  and  quality.  It  is  not  possible  for  a  man  to  conceive  of  spiritual 
operations.  The  fact  of  the  operation  is  as  evident  as  gravity,  but  who 
can  explain  it  ?  No  man  can  form  a  single  conception  of  any  spiritual 
influence  or  operation.  Who  can  grasp  the  idea  of  a  spirit?  Who  can 
apprehend  its  nature,  its  identity,  its  form,  its  person,  or  its  modes  of 
living,  moving,  and  operating !  We  can  neither  have  a  consistent  idea 
of  a  spirit  nor  of  any  of  its  operations.  That  the  Spirit  of  God  operates 
on  the  human  understanding  and.  heart  is  just  as  certain  as  that  man  has 
an  understanding  and  affections.  Our  spirit  is  allied  to  the  spiritual 
system,  to  the  Great  Spirit.  God  can  commune,  and  does  commune 
with  man,  and  man  with  God. 

It  is  the  glory  of  our  religion  that  it  is  spiritual  and  divine,  and  that  as 
man  has  both  a  body  and  a  spirit,  his  religion  also  has  both.  This  ques- 
tion has  respect  rather  to  the  means  and  to  the  effect  of  the  operation,  nad 
not  to  the  operation  itself.  Times  witliout  number  have  I  declared  that 
the  Scriptures  are  but  an  instrument,  an  embodiment  in  speech  of  spiritual 
power,  and  like  all  other  instruments,  this  instrument  is  adapted  to  some 
end.     Without  that  instrument  the  end  proposed  by  it  cannot  be  obtained. 

Now,  does  the  Spirit  operate  through  the  instrument,  or  without  it,  in 
the  ordinary  work  of  conversion  and  sanctification  ?  This  is  the  ques- 
tion in  its  present  form.  This  question  involves  various  other  questions. 
No  question  either  in  nature,  religion,  or  society,  is  properly  insular. 
These  are  all  perfect  systems,  and,  therefore,  there  is  not  one  insular  or 
independent  truth  in  any  one,  nor  all  of  them.  Not  a  particle  of  the 
universe,  not  an  atom  of  our  planet  is  independent  of  other  atoms  and 
principles.  Nor  is  there  an  isolated  verse,  nor  an  independent  period  in 
the  Bible.  Those  atoms  of  the  universe,  those  particles  of  our  planet,  and 
those  verses  of  our  Bible,  are  to  be  contemplated  with  reference  to  the 
whole.     Little  minds  sport  with  particles,  great  minds  with  systems. 

Mr.  Rice  has  quoted  some  passages  of  Scripture.  But  have  they  been 
quoted  as  proverbs,  or  as  parts  of  great  contexts  ?  I  do  not  believe  that 
any  one  passage,  read  you  by  my  friend,  has  any  thing  specially  to  do 
vrith  the  question  before  us.  I  might  throw  into  a  speech  thirty  verses, 
and  make  thirty  assertions,  and  prove  nothing,  only  that  I  intended  to 
employ  some  one  else,  some  other  mind  than  my  own,  for  not  one  of 
the  thirty  may  come  within  a  thousand  miles  of  the  real  issue.  My 
manner  is  to  notice  every  thing  relied  upon  as  proof  of  the  proposition  on 
hand ;  not  every  thing,  however,  that  may  be  oflTered  on  various  other 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  709 

matters.  That  would  be  the  work  of  months  and  not  of  weeks.  I  will, 
so  far  as  I  have  recollection  or  memoranda,  allude  to  some  of  the  proofs 
offered,  to  show  that  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  without  the  Word. 
These  are  supposed  to  be  against  my  views.  I  have  proved  that  it  oper- 
ates through  the  Word,  and  my  proofs  are  in  the  main  unassailed.  Mr. 
R.'s  plan  is  to  prove  a  proposition  the  contrary  of  our  stipulated  pro- 
position. He  seeks  to  prove  that  the  Spirit  operates  without  the  Word 
from  such  passages  as  the  following:  Luke  xxiv.  45. 

"  Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures."  In  the  first  place  it  is  irrelevant,  because  this  has  no  respect 
to  regeneration  nor  conversion  ;  nor  does  it  speak  particularly  of  sanctifi- 
cation.  Again,  it  was  Jesus  and  not  the  Spirit.  They  were  disciples 
andj-not  sinners.  "To  open  the  understanding"  is  also  explained  in  the 
context,  verse  32.  Thus  the  subject  of  the  operation  is  explained  in  these 
words ;  "  Did  not  our  hearts  burn  within  us,  while  he  talked  with  us, 
and  while  he  opened  to  us  the  Scriptures?"  To  open  the  Scriptures  to 
the  understanding,  is  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrewistic  phrase,  "open  the 
understanding  to  understand  the  Scriptures."  Their  hearts  burned  not  by 
the  abstract  spirit,  but  through  the  talk — "  while  he  talked  with  us."  So 
dispose  we  of  this  passage.  Was  the  opening  previous  to,  and  indepen- 
dent of  the  speaking  of  the  Word  ? ! 

Another  proof  text  was  1  Cor.  ii.  14:  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him ;  neither 
can  he  know  them,  because  tliey  are  spiritually  discerned."  The  natural 
man  is  here  contrasted  with  the  spiritual  man.  The  word  is  sometimes 
rendered  physical,  natural,  animal,  sensual.  Natural  is  tiie  most  com- 
mon. It  is  four  times  natural,  and  twice  sensual  in  the  common  version, 
McKnight  prefers  the  animal  man,  and  he  is  high  authority  in  Scodand, 
and  I  learn,  of  high  authority  in  the  theological  school  at  Princeton. 
Some  of  the  professors  there,  1  am  told,  speak  of  him  in  much  admiration. 
The  animal  man,  then,  in  the  context,  means  the  "  ivise  man  accord- 
ing to  tliejlesh,'''' — in  contrast  with  the  spiritual  man,  ivisc  according  to 
the  Spirit. 

A  sensual  man  is  a  man  merely  of  sense ;  but  it  has  come  to  signify 
one  enslaved  to  sense.  Now  such  a  man,  who  has  no  other  guide  than 
sense,  cannot  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  "  The  things  of 
the  Spirit^'  can  only  be  discerned  by  him  that  is  spiritual — one  that  is 
enlightened  by  the  Spirit,  But  the  things  of  the  Spirit  are  revealed 
things — and,  therefore,  the  discernment  of  revealed  things  is  very  differ- 
ent from  the  discernment  of  nothing — as  in  the  case  of  infants,  pagans, 
idiots,  &c.  supposed  to  be  regenerated  without  having  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  discerned  at  all.  The  text,  therefore,  comes  not  within  a  thousand 
miles  of  the  subject  on  hand. 

I  object,  however,  altogether  to  the  theological  appropriation  of  this 
terra.  Our  gospel-hearers  are  not  Paul's  natural  men — and,  therefore, 
it  is  the  sophism  of  equivocation,  or  of  an  ambiguous  term,  of  which  all 
are  gudty,  who  use  this  word  as  equivalent,  to  the  citizens  of  Kentucky 
who  read  the  Bible.  We  have  no  natural  men  in  that  sense,  nor  in  the 
proper  sense  of  that  word.  Adam  was  a  natural  man  ;  we,  as  his  mere 
offspring,  are  preternatural  men,  and  under  Christ  we  hope  to  rise  to  be 
supernatural  men. 

I  object  to  much  of  the  nomenclature  of  modern  theology.  We  have 
drawn  too  much  on  the  paganized  vocabulary  of  Rome.    Neither  Jewish, 

30 


710  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Christian,  nor  Pagan,  but  a  mongrel  dialect  is  the  jargon  of  the  present 
age.  Nature  and  grace  are  from  the  same  God — twin  sisters  of  the  same 
divine  family.  But  man  has  strayed  away  from  God  and  nature,  and 
has  become  a  preternatural  being.  From  this  miserable  condition  God 
proposes,  in  his  glorious  philanthropy,  to  redeem  man  and  to  make  him 
supernatural  through  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven. 
God  made  man  upright,  and  while  he  remained  in  nature,  that  is,  in  his 
natural  or  original  state,  he  had  not  a  passion,  appetite,  or  instinct  which 
he  might  not  most  religiously  gratify.  But  now  his  soul  is  harrasscd 
with  the  tumult  of  a  thousand  passions,  lusts,  appetites,  and  elements  that 
war  against  his  soul.  If  there  were  no  sin  in  human  nature,  there  could 
be  none  in  obeying  all  its  passions.  Sceptics  are  deceived,  always  de- 
ceived, and  fatally  deceived,  in  their  reasonings  from  Mr.  Rice's  premises. 
Lilie  him,  they  suppose  man  to  be  in  the  state  of  nature ;  and,  therefore, 
think  it  no  crime  to  gratify  their  passions.  Their  reasoning  is  just,  but 
tiieir  premises  are  false,  and  their  conclusion  is  a  fatal  error. 

We  have  had  numerous  allusions  and  rei'erences  to  Titus  iii.  5.  The 
gendeman  can  find  in  the  phrase,  "  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  no 
proof  of  a  proposition  contrary  to  mine.  The  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  in  the  second  birth  connected  with  other  means.  He  has  saved 
us  through  the  washing  of  the  new  birth,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  renewing  of  the  Spirit  is  not  immediate,  nor  exclusive  of 
other  means ;  it  being  associated  with  a  washing,  and  a  shedding  forth 
of  the  Spirit  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior. 

The  gentleman  has  more  than  once  called  upon  me  to  read  something 
from  some  of  my  books  contrary  to  what  he  has  read.  Being  here  in  per- 
son, I  prefer  speaking  on  these  subjects  viva  voce,  to  reading  my  views  alrea- 
dy published.  Besides,  I  have  no  time  to  debate  a  hundred  questions,  grow- 
ing out  of  his  designs,  of  which  I  am  now  apprized.  The  gentleman 
may  read  from  them  when  he  is  hard  pressed  for  matter.  I  perceive  this 
is  his  principal  use  of  them.  For  me,  when  my  present  resources  are 
exhausted,  I  may  turn  in  and  debate  with  him  on  those  writings.  I  have 
another  reason;  I  do  not  find  just  such  passages  as  suit  all  the  topics  that 
occur.  Yet,  as  a  matter  of  complaisance,  I  will  furnish  the  gentleman 
with  one  or  two  extracts,  if  he  will  ask  me  for  no  more:  (^Christian 
System,  p.  66.) 

"  Some  will  ask,  has  not  this  gift  been  conferred  on  us  to  make  us  chris 
tiansl  True  indeed,  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord  but  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  As  observed  in  its  proper  place,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  perfecter 
and  finisher  of  all  divine  works.  '  The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  wat- 
ers;' '  the  hand  of  the  Lord  has  made  me ;  the  Spirit  of  the  Almighty  has 
given  me  life  ;'  '  by  his  Spirit  he  has  garnished  the  heavens  ;  his  hand  has 
formed  the  crooked  serpent' — the  milky  way ;  '  the  Spirit  descended  upon 
him  ;'  '  God  himself  bare  the  apostles  witness,  by  divers  miracles  and  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  his  will ;'  '  holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;'  '  when  the  Spirit  of  truth,  the  Advocate, 
is  come,  he  will  convict  the  world  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me, 
and  of  justification,  because  I  go  to  my  Father ;'  '  God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  and  justified  by  the  Spirit.' 

Now  we  cannot  separate  the  Spirit  and  word  of  God,  and  ascribe  so  much 
power  to  the  one  and  so  much  to  the  other :  for  so  did  not  the  apostles. 
Whatever  the  word  does,  the  Spirit  does  ;  and  whatever  the  Spirit  does  in 
the  work  of  converting  men,  the  word  does.  We  neither  believe  nor  teach 
abstract  Spirit,  nor  abstract  word  ;  but  word  and  Spirit,  and  Spirit  and 
word." 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  711 

Again  :  (pp.  277,  278.) 

"  '  He  has  saved  us,'  says  the  apostle  Paul,  '  by  the  bath  of  regeneration, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  he  poured  on  us  richly  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Savior;  that  being  justified  by  his  favor,  [in  the  bath  of 
regeneration,]  we  might  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal 
life.'  Thus,  and  not  by  works  of  righteousness,  he  has  saved  us.  Conse- 
quently being  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  as  ne- 
cessary as  the  bath  of  regeneration  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  to  the 
enjoyment  of  the  hope  of  heaven,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  Into  the  king- 
dom of  which  we  are  born  of  water,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  the  atmosphere 
in  the  kingdom  of  nature :  we  mean,  that  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit are  as  necessary  to  the  new  life,  as  the  atmosphere  is  to  our  animal  life 
in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration,  God 
our  Father  effects  by  the  word,  or  the  gospel  as  dictated  or  confirmed  by  his 
Holy  Spirit.  But  after  we  are  thus  begotten  and  born  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
— after  our  new  birth,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  on  us  richly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Savior;  of  which  the  peace  of  mind,  the  love,  the  joy,  and  the 
hope  of  the  regenerate  is  full  proof:  for  these  are  amongst  the  fruits  of  that 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise  of  which  we  speak." 

Many  other  such  passages  might  be  read  from  our  numerous  writings 
on  this  subject.  But  this,  as  a  specimen,  may  perhaps  suffice  to  gratify 
my  friend. 

The  gentleman  also  relies  upon  the  new  covenant  in  proof  of  his  pro- 
position. Of  the  four  provisions  of  the  new  institution,  only  one  of  them 
applies  to  this  subject.  The  first  is — "I  will  put  my  laws  into  their 
mind,  and  write  them  vipon  their  heart."  Now  in  every  covenant  there 
are  parties — the  covenanter  and  the  covenantees.  God  is  the  covenanter, 
and  christians  the  covenantees.  "  With  the  house  of  Israel,  (not  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  but  according  to  the  Spirit,)  I  will  make  a  new  covenant." 
Now  what  bearing  has  this  on  the  question  before  us  ?  Were  the  cove- 
nantees infants,  pagans,  idiots,  unconverted  men  1  !  If  not,  the  passage  is 
wholly  misapplied,  because  brought  to  prove  a  subject  wholly  dilferent 
from  that  in  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  We  are  debating  about  tlie  work  of 
the  Spirit  on  conversion,  and  in  that  discussion  a  question  has  arisen 
about  regeneration,  and  the  question  on  that  subject  is — are  persons  re- 
generated by  the  Spirit  without  the  Word  ?  This  position  the  gentleman 
is  now  seeking  to  prove,  and  this  is  one  of  his  proofs.  Having  shown 
its  entire  impertinence  to  the  subject,  Ave  shall  attend  to  another  point. 

Mr.  Rice,  from  some  remarks  made  in  some  of  my  essays,  in  illustra- 
tion of  the  converting  power  in  the  divine  Word,  on  tlie  influences  which 
the  writings  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  have  exerted  upon  the  %vorld,  has 
sought  to  institute  a  comparison  for  me — to  make  me  say,  that,  as  all  the  mor- 
al or  argumentative  power  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  is  in  their  writings, 
so  all  God's  moral  power  is  in  his  Word.  So  far  so  good  ;  but  the  gen- 
tleman goes  a  little  farther,  and  w^ould  not  allow  the  case  to  terminate 
there,  but  supposed  me  to  assign  no  other  power  or  presence  to  the  Spirit 
of  God  than  to  the  spirit  and  personal  influence  of  those  ancient  orators. 
I  am  prepared  to  say,  that,  so  far  as  moral  power  is  concerned,  the  argu- 
ments and  motives  of  the  Spirit  of  God  are  all  set  forth  in  the  New  Insti- 
tution, in  all  their  perfection ;  and  that  this  power  cannot  be  increased. 
Nay,  I  argue,  that  if  the  Spirit  of  God  were  again  to  descend,  as  on 
Pentecost,  and  in  the  person  of  a  new  legate  from  heaven,  should  plead 
with  the  human  race,  touching  their  condition  and  destiny  under  God's 
philanthropy  and  active  benevolence  ;  when  he  had  set  forth,  in  all 
their  amplitude,  all  the  facts  and  promises  in  the  universe  on  this  subject, 


712  DEBATE  ON  THE 

he  would  then,  at  the  close  of  the  efTort,  have  not  increased  one  grain 
the  amount  of  the  moral  momentum  and  influence  of  the  gospel.  He 
would  not  then  have  increased,  in  the  least,  its  converting  power.  For 
if  the  story  is  all  told  now,  and  if  God  veraciously  and  sincerely  asks, 
what  more  could  be  done  than  what  I  have  done  for  my  vineyard,  then 
there  is  no  possibility  of  accumulating  the  power  by  any  other  means ; 
but  whether  the  ever-living  and  ever-present  Spirit  of  our  God  may  not 
through  that  truth,  in  ways  unknown  to  mortals,  affect  the  soul  of  man, 
by  fixing  the  attention  upon  it,  or  removing,  providentially,  obstructions, 
&;c.,  is  neither  afliirmed  nor  denied  in  that  comparison,  nor  in  the  circum- 
stances that  called  it  forth.  And  this  having  been  spoken  with  special 
reference  to  the  fanaticism  and  wild  enthusiasm  of  the  age,  in  certain  cases 
of  pretended  new  light  and  new-converting  power,  ought  to  have  been 
construed  accordingly.  But  this  method  of  torturing  men's  words  by 
putting  them  on  the  partizan  rack,  and  dislocating  every  joint,  works  as 
pervertingly  on  them  as  on  the  Woixl  of  God.  Whenever  all  the  gospel 
argument  is  comprehended,  ail  the  moral  power  of  God  is  exhausted ; 
for  beyond  tliat  he  has  never  displayed  any  to  any  man,  and  he  that  hears 
not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  Christ  antl  his  apostles,  would  not  be  per- 
suaded though  one  rose  from  the  dead. 

The  gentleman  has  more  than  once  asked  me  for  proof  that  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  the  Word  ;  and  avows  that  unless  I  shew  him 
some  text  that  exactly  affirms  that,  he  will  not  believe.  Well,  I  gave  him 
in  my  proposition  on  the  design  of  baptism  the  very  words  in  the  book, 
with  the  mere  supplement  yjos^  to  which  he  did  not  demur,  and  then  he 
would  not  believe.  And  I  verily  believe  if  I  gave  him  every  word  in  one 
verse,  he  would  be  for  construing  it  in  a  diiferent  sense.  But  this  is  a 
new  mode  of  argumentation,  by  which  he  could  not  prove  one  article  in 
his  creed  ;  for  not  one  of  them  is  found  in  the  identical  words  of  the  book. 
Nor  could  we  prove  any  proposition  not  found  verbatim  in  the  Bible. 
But  I  have  proved  only  through  the  Word.  By  shewing  first,  that  the 
Spirit  does  regenerate  and  sanctify  through  the  Word — and,  in  the  same 
place,  by  that  great  law  of  the  physical  and  moral  universe,  that  whatever 
is  necessary  to  any  given  result,  is  always  necessary.  Also,  by  various 
other  considerations  and  arguments,  yet  unnoticed  by  him.  Did  I  not, 
on  yesterday,  demonstrate  on  his  own  definition  of  regeneration,  the  utter 
impossibility  of  infant  regeneration  ?  and  yet  he  has  neither  retracted  nor 
defended  the  definition.     Surely  he  ought  to  do  the  one  or  the  other. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  discussion  he  clearly  stated  that  the  Spirit 
does  sometimes  operate  on  adults  through  the  Word.  Had  it  not  been 
for  idiots,  pagans,  and  infants,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  said  only  through 
the  Word.  He  has  since  admitted  that  on  adults  he  operates  generally 
through  the  Word.  It  was  some  time  before  he  gave  us  a  definition  of 
regeneration ;  and  still  longer  before  he  informed  us,  whether  faith  or  re- 
generation were  prior,  or  which  was  the  cause  of  the  other.  Finally,  he 
informed  us  that  regeneration  preceded  faith,  therefore  both  infants  and 
adults  are  regenerated  without  faith,  and  prior  to  faith.  Without  perceiv- 
ing, and,  I  am  confident,  without  intending  it,  he  has  thus  indispu- 
tably proved  my  fourth  argument,  which,  you  will  remember,  says — 
Whatever  is  essential  to  regeneration  in  one  case,  is  essential  in 
all  cases.  For  having  been  brought  to  concede — namely :  that  re- 
generation is  prior  to  faith ;  thus  making  adults  the  subject  of  regene- 
ration without  belief,  and  infants  as  a  matter  of  course,  because  incapa- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7I3 

ble  of  belief;  we  have  obtained  from  him  tlie  admission  of  my  fourth 
argument.  Again,  we  have  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  Spirit 
generally  operates  through  the  Word  on  adults,  and  in  some  cases  only 
through  the  Word  ;  follows  it  not,  then,  that  according  to  our  fourth  argu- 
ment, regeneration  must  be  through  the  Word,  and  therefore  infant  regen- 
eration is  impossible.  In  any  view  of  the  matter,  then,  I  may  say,  with- 
out the  fear  of  successful  contradiction  from  any  quarter,  that  Mr.  Rice 
has  given  us  the  data  for  his  own  refutation,  and  now  stands  self-refuted 
for  the  reasons  now  assigned.  This  subject  is  still  susceptible  of  farther 
illustration,  but  my  time  being  almost  expired,  I  shall  only  add  a  few 
words  on  the  plan  of  the  Bible  as  developing  its  theory  of  regeneration. 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  arranged  upon  the  same  grand  plan. 
They  present  a  record  of  facts  well  documented  and  proved.  The  first 
five  books  of  both  Testaments  are  historical.  The  historical  and  the  di- 
dactic go  together.  The  fact,  first,  the  testimony  concerning  it,  and  then 
the  development  of  it.  There  is  one  grand  arrangement  of  revelation, 
adapted  to  the  constitution  and  philosophy  of  man.  The  order  of  things 
is  simple,  because  it  is  rational.  The  connection  is  first,yrtc/ — next,  testi- 
mony concerning  that  fact — that  something  said  or  done  ; — then  faith,  or 
the  belief  of  that  testimony; — after  that,  feeling — in  harmony  with  what- 
ever is  believed — joyful  or  sorrowful,  good  or  bad; — and  in  the  last 
place,  action — a  course  of  conduct  corresponding  with  that  feeling.  This 
is  not  only  the  rational,  but  it  is  the  fixed  and  necessary  and  immutable 
arrangement  of  things  producing  faith  and  growing  out  of  it.  It  is  no  ar- 
bitrary division — no  conventional  arrangement.  It  must  be  so  while  man 
is  a  being  that  walks  by  faith,  and  while  faith  is  the  belief  of  testimony. 
These  five  words — fact,  testimony,  faith,  feeling,  action — set  forth  the 
economy  of  the  Bible, — and  are  the  grand  links  in  that  Divine  chain  that 
give  to  the  facts  of  revelation  their  influence  on  the  soul  of  man. 
The  thing  done  or  spoken  by  God,  or  man,  called  the  fact,  passes  into 
the  testimony,  and  the  testimony  passes  into  faith,  and  the  fact,  in  that 
faith,  passes  into  correspondingyee/j;?o-,  and  then  it  is  made  living  and  ef- 
ficient in  the  action.  Now  this  being  the  immutable  order  of  things,  and 
regeneration  being  the  offspring  of  the  Word  of  God  believed,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  any  one,  incapable  of  understanding  the  fact,  of  believing  the 
testimony,  of  exercising  faith,  of  possessing  moral  feeling,  and  of  corres- 
pondent action,  can  be  regenerated. — [_Time  expired. 

TVednesday,  Nov.  29 — 10^  o'clock,  A.  M. 
|]mr.  rice's  eighth  reply.] 
Mr.  President — I  intend  that,  throughout  this  discussion,  the  precise 
points  in  debate  shall  be  kept  distinctly  in  view.  Mr.  C.  says,  he  ad- 
mits that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  does  operate,  and 
that  the  Word  is  only  the  instrument.  I  inquired  of  him,  on  yesterday, 
what  he  meant  by  this  language  ?  Whether  he  holds  that  there  is  any 
operation  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  Word  ?  or  whether  he  believes 
only,  that  the  Spirit  dictated  the  Word  and  confirmed  it  by  miracle,  and 
now  the  Word  converts  and  sanctifies  ?  To  this  important  question  I  re- 
ceived no  answer.  If  he  believes  the  Spirit  to  be  the  agent  in  this 
work,  he  must  put  forth  some  power;  for  there  cannot  be  an  agent 
without  an  action.  If,  then,  his  language  means  any  thing,  it  must  be, 
that  at  the  moment  when  the  soul  is  converted,  the  Spirit  of  God  exerts 
converting  power,  performs  an  act  which  produces  this  result.     I  wished 

3o2 


714  DEBATE  ON  THE 

to  be  informed,  whether  he  believes  that  the  Spirit  exerts  an  influence 
distinct  from  the  Word  ;  but  he  would  not  answer  the  question. 

He  told  us  also,  that  the  Spirit  is  always  present  with  the  Word.  I 
asked  him  what  he  meant  by  this  language;  but  I  received  no  answer! 
I  discover  plainly,  that  the  audience  are  not  to  see  the  real  point  at  issue, 
unless  I  constantly  keep  it  before  them ;  and  this  I  am  resolved  to  do. 

The  great  question,  is  not  whether  ordinarily  the  Spirit  operates 
through  the  truth;  but  whether  the  only  influence  exerted  in  conversion 
and  sanctification,  is  that  of  words  and  arguments — Avhether  the  Spirit 
of  God  operates  on  the  hearts  of  men  only  as  Mr.  C.'s  spirit  operates  on 
the  minds  of  this  audience  ?  This  is  the  question — I  use  the  genfleman's 
own  illustration.  We  are  not  debating  the  question,  by  what  instru- 
mentality the  Spirit  converts  and  sanctifies  men ;  but  what  is  the  work 
which  the  Spirit  does  ?  We  hold,  that  in  the  case  of  infants  and  idiots, 
inasmuch  as  instrumentality  cannot  be  employed,  sanctification  takes 
place  without  the  truth.  In  the  case  of  adults  we  hold,  that  there  is  not 
only  the  influence  of  words  and  arguments,  but  a  distinct  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  opening  the  eyes  and  purifying  the  heart.  This  Mr.  C.  denies- 

The  genfleman  has  a  clear  head.  I  wonder  at  the  confusion  in  which 
he  keeps  his  real  sentiments.  On  some  subjects  he  delivers  himself  with 
great  clearness  ;  and  on  the  one  before  us  he  has  written  clearly  .  Yet 
this  is  the  third  day  we  have  been  on  this  proposition ;  and  I  must  say, 
that  more  fog  and  mist  I  never  did  see  thrown  around  any  subject ! 

Let  me  now  give  you  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  my  bibli- 
cal friend  expounds  Scripture.  He  professes  to  be  a  very  biblical  man. 
In  proof  of  a  divine  influence  in  addition  to  the  AVord,  I  quoted  Luke 
xxiv.  45 :  "  Then  opened  he  their  understandings,  that  they  might  un- 
derstand the  Scriptures."  The  inspired  writer,  you  observe,  does  not 
say,  he  opened  their  understandings  in  order  that  they  might  understand 
the  Scriptures.  What  is  the  gentleman's  reply?  He  turns  to  the  27th 
verse — "And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  un- 
to them  in  all  the  scriptures,  the  things  concerning  himself."  Now  ac- 
cording to  his  principles  of  interpretation,  expounding  the  Scriptures  and 
opening  their  understandings  that  they  might  understand  them,  are  the 
same  thing!  Why,  you  might  expound  the  Scriptures  to  persons  by  the 
hour,  and  yet  they  might  have  no  correct  understanding  of  them  ;  but  if 
you  had  power  to  open  their  understandings,  the  whole  difficulty  would 
be  at  once  removed.  Remove  the  causes  of  their  blindness,  and  they 
will  see  clearl)'.  So  did  David  pray — "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I 
may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law."  Did  he  not  pray  for  a 
divine  influence  on  his  mind,  opening  his  understanding  ?  It  is  vain  to 
attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  language  so  perfectly  plain.  It  will  not  do 
to  say,  that  to  open  the  understanding  and  to  open  the  Scriptures,  are 
phrases  meaning  the  same  thing. 

To  prove  the  necessity  of  the  special  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  I 
quoted  1  Cor.  ii.  14:  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit ;  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him :  neither  can  he  know  them,  be- 
cause they  are  spiritually  discerned."  The  gentleman  appeals  to  Mc- 
Knight,  who  translates  the  phrase  "  animal  man.''^  And  he  tells  us,  he 
has  somewhere  heard,  that  the  professors  in  the  Princeton  theological 
seminary  have  placed  McKnight  at  the  head  of  critical  commentators. 
This  may  be  true ;  but  I  should  prefer  to  have  some  proof  of  the  fact. 
But  let  us  take  his  translation.     Now  the  question  is,  who  is  the  animal 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  715 

man?  Mr.  C.  says  he  is  the  pagan  without  a  divine  revelation  to  guide 
him.  But  the  fact  is,  the  word  translated  natural  or  animal,  has  not  this 
meaning  in  one  instance  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  used  in  I  Cor. 
XV.  44,  45,  to  distinguish  the  natural  body  from  the  spiritual  body. 
The  natural  body,  we  know,  means  the  body  as  it  is  by  nature,  un- 
changed. "  It  is  sown  (or  buried)  a  natural  body."  The  spiritual  body 
means  the  body  as  it  will  be  changed  at  the  resurrection.  So  the  natu- 
ral man  means  man  as  he  is  by  nature — depraved;  and  the  spiritual  man 
is  the  man  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  same  word,  as  I  have  already  stated,  is  used  by  James,  who  de- 
scribes the  wisdom  which  is  not  from  above,  as  "earthly,  sensual,  [Gr. 
natural,']  devilish."  In  this  passage  the  word  is  used  with  reference  to 
moral  character,  and  it  certainly  expresses  the  idea  of  depravity.  It  is 
also  used  by  Jude,  v.  19,  where  he  describes  the  wicked  thus:  "  These 
be  they  who  separate  themselves,  sensual,  [Gr.  7iatural,]  having  not  the 
Spirit."  The  wicked,  who  have  not  the  Spirit,  are  described  as  natural 
or  sensual.  On  the  use  of  the  word  in  these  passages,  the  gentleman  for- 
got to  make  even  a  passing  remark.  The  usage  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  regard  to  this  word,  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  what  is  its  meaning.  The 
natural  man  certainly  is  man  in  his  native  depravity.  Mr.  C.  objects  to 
the  use  of  the  word  natural,  as  applied  to  man  in  his  depravity,  because 
by  nature  he  was  not  depraved.  He,  therefore,  uses  the  word  preter- 
natural. But  he  seems  not  to  remember,  that  in  making  this  objection 
he  is  finding  fault  with  the  language  of  inspiration.  In  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  Paul  says,  men  are  "  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,"  ch. 
ii.  3.  The  word  here  used  is  phusis,  the  literal  and  uniform  meaning  of 
which  is  nature.  If  Paul  thus  uses  the  word  nature,  I  may  be  excused 
for  following  his  example  ! 

But  Mr.  C.  was  careful  not  to  notice  the  succeeding  part  of  the  verse 
under  discussion.  Why  does  not  the  natural  man  receive  the  things  of 
the  Spirit?  Because,  says  Paul,  '■'■they  are  foolishness  unto  him.^''  The 
meaning  of  this  language,  as  I  proved,  is  made  perfectly  clear  by  ch.  i. 
18,  "  The  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that  perish,  foolishness  ;  but 
unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is  the  power  of  God."  That  is,  when  they 
hear  the  Gospel  preached,  it  is  to  them  foolishness  ;  they  see  in  it  no  wis- 
dom, no  adaptation  to  their  condition,  nothing  attractive;  and  therefore 
they  reject  it.  So  to  "the  natural  man"  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel,  are  foolishness,  and  he  rejects  them.  But  if  Mr. 
C.'s  interpretation  be  correct,  the  passage  should  read  thus:  The  animal 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit, /or  they  are  not  revealed  to 
him  ! 

It  is  now  perfectly  clear,  that  "  the  natural  man"  is  the  unrenewed 
man;  and  since  unrenewed  men  do  not  receive,  but  uniformly  reject  the 
gospel;  it  follows,  inevitably,  that  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, in  addition  to  the  Word,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  their  conversion 
and  sanctification.  Consequently,  in  every  case  of  conversion,  such  a 
divine  influence  is  actually  exerted. 

To  show  you  how  much  I  have  misrepresented  him,  the  gentleman 
read  a  paragraph  or  two  from  his  Christian  System.  I  am  pleased  to 
see  him  read  his  publications;  and  I  am  quite  disposed  to  aid  him  in  pre- 
senting them  before  you.  On  page  66  he  read  as  follows :  "  Some  will 
ask,  has  not  this  gift  [of  the  Spirit]  been  conferred  on  us  to  make  us 
christians  ?  True,  indeed,  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  by  the 


716  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Holy  Spirit.  As  observed  in  its  proper  place,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
perfecter  and  finisher  of  all  divine  works.  '  The  Spirit  moved  upon  the 
waters,'  "  &c.  But  the  difficulty  is,  that  in  this  whole  paragraph  he  says 
not  one  word  concerning  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart,  in 
conversion !  He  quotes  several  passages,  as  follows :  "  The  hand  of  the 
Lord  has  made  me,  the  Spirit  of  the  Almighty  has  given  me  life ;"'  "  By 
his  Spirit  he  has  garnished  the  heavens,  his  hand  has  formed  the  crooked 
serpent;"  "The  Spirit  descended  upon  him;  God  himself  bore  the 
apostles  witness,  by  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ac- 
cording to  his  will."  Not  one  of  these  passages,  nor  any  one  quoted  by 
him,  has  the  slightest  reference  to  a  change  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

He  also  read  on  the  next  page:  "Now  we  cannot  separate  the  Spirit 
and  the  Word  of  God,  and  ascribe  so  much  power  to  the  one  and  so 
much  to  the  other ;  for  so  did  not  the  aposUes.  Whatever  the  Word 
does,  the  Spirit  does ;  and  whatever  the  Spirit  does,  in  the  work  of  con- 
verting men,  the  Word  does.  We  neither  believe  nor  teach  abstract  Spi- 
rit nor  abstract  Word — but  Word  and  Spirit,  and  Spirit  and  Word."  AH 
this  is  perfectly  ambiguous.  For  if  the  Spirit  dictated  and  confirmed  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  converts  and  sanctifies  men;  it  is  true,  in  a  sense, 
that  the  Spirit  does  the  work.  But  does  Mr.  C.  hold  to  an  influence  of 
the  Spirit  in  conversion,  distinct  from  the  Word?  On  this  point  these 
paragraphs  give  us  no  light.  Let  me  read  on  the  277th  page  of  his  Chris- 
tianity Restored.  Perhaps  we  shall  here  gain  some  information.  He  sa3's  : 

"  But  this  pouring  out  of  the  influences,  this  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  as  necessary  as  the  bath  of  regeneration  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and 
to  the  enjoyment  of  the  hope  of  heaven,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  In 
tlie  kingdom  into  which  we  are  born  of  water,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  the 
atmosphere  in  the  kingdom  of  nature:  we  mean,  that  tlie  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  as  necessary  to  the  new  life,  as  the  atmosphere  is  to  our 
animal  life  in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regene- 
ration, God  our  Father  effects  by  the  word,  or  the  gospel  as  dictated  and 
confirmed  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  But  after  we  are  thus  begotten  and  born  by 
the  Spirit  of  God — after  our  new  birth,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  on  us  richly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior  ;  of  which  the  peace  of  mind,  the  love,  the 
joy,  and  the  hope  of  the  regenerate  is  full  proof:  for  these  are  amongst  the 
fruits  of  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  of  which  we  speak." 

On  this  passage  I  make  two  or  three  remarks.  1.  "This  pouring  out 
of  the  influences,  this  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  says,  "  is  as  ne- 
cessary as  the  birth  of  regeneration  [immersion]  to  the  salvation  of  the 
soul,  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  hope  of  heaven."  The  influences  of 
the  Spirit  only  as  necessary  to  salvation,  as  iinmersion — not  more  so  ! ! ! 
2.  Observe,  he  says — "  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration  [im- 
mersion]  God  our  Father  effects  by  the  Word,  or  the  gospel  as  dictated 
and  coiyfirmed  by  his  Holy  Spirit.^^  Here  we  have  a  denial  as  clear 
and  as  strong  as  language  can  make  it,  of  any  influence  in  conversion, 
except  that  of  the  AVord  as  dictated  and  confirmed  by  the  Spirit.  This  is 
the  most  important  point  about  which  we  differ,  and  which  I  desire  the 
audience  not  to  lose  sight  of.  3.  As  my  friend  is  fond  of  asking  ques- 
tions, I  wish  to  ask  him — What  kind  of  influence  does  the  Spirit 
EXERT  ON  THE  MINDS  OF  IMMERSED  BELIEVERS  ?  This  is  a  very  important 
question.  He  has  said  in  his  publications — that  there  are  but  two  kinds 
of  power — moral  and  physical.  He  has  also  said,  that  the  only  power 
that  can  be  exerted  on  mind,  is  moral  power;  and  he  has  said,  that  "  eve- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7 17 

ry  spirit  puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words," — that  "  all  the  power  it 
has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning 
and  arrangement  of  its  ideas  expressed  in  words ;  or  in  significant  signs 
addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear."  Now  I  am  particularly  anxious  to  know 
what  kind  of  influence  the  Spirit  does  exert  on  the  minds  of  believers, 
afterthey  are  immersed.  Is  it  physical  power?  My  friend  will  say — 
no.  Is  it  spiritual  power — neither  physical  nor  moral  ?  He  will  say — no. 
Is  it  a  moral  influence  which  sanctifies  the  heart  ?  If  so,  it  must  be  an 
influence  simply  and  only  of  the  Word.  Will  ihe  gentleman  enlighten 
us  on  this  subject?  We  wish  to  know  something  about  this  influence 
whick  is  not  physical,  nor  moral,  nor  any  thing  else  ! 

I  was  pleased  to  hear  him,  for  once,  come  out  and  express  with  some 
clearness  his  real  sentiments.  The  Spirit  of  God,  he  tells  us,  produces 
moral  effects  only  by  arguments  ;  that  when  all  his  arguments  and  motives 
are  brought  to  bear  on  the  mind,  his  moral  power  is  exhausted.  This  is 
precisely  what  I  read  on  yesterday  from  his  Christianity  Restored.  What 
more  moral  power  could  Demosthenes  or  Cicero  exert  on  their  hearers  or 
readers,  after  they  had  put  forth  all  their  arguments  ?  So  it  appears,  ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  no  more  power  over  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  men  than  had  those  ancient  orators,  except  that  he 
may  reason  more  powerfully  !  !  !  So  he  teaches  in  his  Christianity  Me- 
stored:  (pp.  348,  349.) 

"  Because  arguments  are  addressed  to  the  understanding,  will,  and  affec- 
tions  of  men,  they  are  called  moral,  inasmuch  as  their  tendency  is  to  form 
or  change  the  habits,  manners,  or  actions  of  men.  Every  spirit  puts  forth 
its  moral  power  in  words  ;  that  is,  all  the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  hab- 
its, manners,  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangement  of  its 
ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  in  significant  signs  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear. 
All  the  moral  power  of  Cicero  and  Demosthenes  was  in  their  orations  when 
spoken,  and  in  the  circumstances  which  gave  them  meaning  ;  and  whatever 
power  these  men  have  exercised  over  Greece  and  Rome  since  their  death, 
is  in  their  writings.     *     *     *     * 

From  such  premises  we  may  say,  that  all  the  moral  power  which  can  be 
exerted  on  human  beings,  is,  and  must  of  necessity  be,  in  the  arguments  ad- 
dressed to  them.  No  other  power  than  moral  power  can  operate  on  minds  ; 
and  this  power  must  always  be  clothed  in  words,  addressed  to  the  eye  or 
ear.  Thus  we  reason  when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when 
we  think  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted  upon  minds  or  human 
spirits,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  imagine,  that  that  power  can  consist  in 
any  thing  else  but  words  or  arguments.  Tiius,  in  the  nature  of  things,  we 
are  prepared  to  expect  verbal  communications  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that 
Spirit  operates  at  all  upon  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every  man 
ts  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  argu- 
vients." 

This  limiting  of  the  power  of  God,  I  have  said,  is  both  unscriptural 
and  unreasonable.  God  originally  created  man  upright.  He  exerted  on 
him  an  influence,  not  by  words  and  arguments,  which  made  him  holy. 
Who  shall  venture,  in  view  of  this  fact,  to  say,  he  cannot  now  exert  an 
influence  which  will  renew  his  sinful  nature? 

The  gentleman  asks,  what  can  the  Spirit  do,  after  all  his  arguments 
have  been  put  forth  ?  Will  he  inform  us,  how  the  devil  tempts  men  to 
sin  ?  He  acknowledges,  that  the  devil  has  access  to  the  minds  of  men, 
and  exerts  a  moral  influence,  not  by  words  and  arguments  addressed  to 
the  eye  or  ear ;  yet  he  cannot  tell  us  how  that  influence  is  exerted.  If, 
tJien,  we  do  not  know  how  good  or  evil  spirits  can  exert  an  influence  on 


718  DEBATE  ON  THE 

our  minds ;  is  it  not  most  presumptuous  in  any  man  to  assert,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  cannot  exert  a  moral  or  spiritual  influence  except  by  words 
and  arguments  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear  ?  Shall  we  venture  to  say, 
that  the  devil  has  more  power  over  the  human  mind,  than  God  ? ! ! 

Let  all  this  false  philosophy  go  to  the  winds,  and  give  us  the  Bible. 
The  gentleman  is  attempting  to  prove,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  the  Spirit  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  truth.  If  there  is 
a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  expresses  such  a  sentiment,  let  us  have  it.  I 
desire  to  see  the  passage,  if  it  is  in  the  Bible.  If  it  is  not,  he  would  bet- 
ter abandon  his  doctrine. 

But  he  says,  the  proposition  he  affirmed  on  the  design  of  baptism,  was, 
with  the  exception  of  one  word,  precisely  the  language  of  the  Bible,  and 
yet  I  was  not  satisfied  with  it.  The  difficulty  was,  that  I  was  not  satis- 
fied with  his  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  Bible,  because  it  flatly 
contradicted  many  of  the  plainest  declarations  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  ! 
The  gentleman  has  a  remarkable  tact  at  representing  all  men  who  differ 
from  him,  as  fighting  against  the  Scriptures.  I  verily  do  not  believe,  that 
he  is  infallible ;  and  believing  him  fallible,  I  must  venture  to  differ  from  him. 

He  has  given  you,  my  friends,  some  important  information  this  morn- 
ing, viz  :  that  on  yesterday  I  gave  up  the  whole  question  !  I  venture  to 
say,  that  not  an  individual  in  the  house,  except  himself,  discovered  that  I 
had  done  so.  It  was,  therefore,  particularly  important  that  he  should 
make  the  announcement !  But  how  did  I  give  up  the  question  ?  By  ad- 
mitting, that  generally  the  Spirit  operates  through  the  truths  So  says 
Mr.  C.  Let  me  repeat  the  substance  of  my  remarks  on  this  point,  and 
the  audience  will  judge  whether  I  gave  it  up.  I  stated  distinctly,  that  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  two  kinds  of  faith,  very  different  in  their  character 
King  Agrippa  had  the  one,  and  Paul  had  the  other.  Paul,  in  his  defence, 
thus  addressed  the  king:  "King  Agrippa,  believest  thou  the  prophets  ?  I 
know  that  thou  believest."  Yet  Agrippa  was  not  a  christian,  but  only 
almost  persuaded  to  be  a  christian.  It  is  evident  to  every  man's  com- 
mon sense,  that  you  may  believe  a  thing  to  be  true,  and  yet  be  perfecdy 
indifferent  concerning  it.  "  Gallio  cared  for  none  of  these  things."  You 
may  be  constrained  by  clear  evidence  to  believe  a  truth,  and  yet  most 
earnestly  wish  it  were  not  a  truth.  Thousands  believe  the  Bible  to  be  a 
divine  revelation,  and  yet  are  wholly  indifferent  to  its  sublime  truths. 
Their  minds  are  occupied  with  other  subjects,  and  their  time  employed  in 
worldly  pursuits.  One  goes  to  his  farm,  another  to  his  merchandize; 
and  each  says,  "  I  pray  thee,  have  me  excused."  There  are  others  who 
are  constrained  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  but  are  deeply  averse  to  its 
doctrines  and  precepts.     "  The  devils  believe  and  tremble." 

This  faith,  though  it  leads  the  soul  not  immediately  to  Christ,  is  yet 
important ;  because  it  causes  men  to  hear  and  to  think,  that  their  con- 
sciences may  be  reached,  and  that  God  may  regenerate  and  sanctify  them 
through  the  truth.  Thus  they  may  be  induced  to  embrace  the  gospel, 
which  before  they  both  believed  and  hated ;  or  to  the  appeals  of  which 
they  were  indifferent.  The  faith  of  Agrippa  is  the  faith  which  precedes 
regeneration ;  and  the  faith  of  Paul  is  the  effect  of  it.  The  faith  of  Paul 
worked  by  love,  and  overcame  the  world.  This  is  the  faith  of  which 
John  speaks,  as  an  effect  of  the  new  birth :  "  Whosoever  believeth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  I  should  be  pleased  to  knorv,  ivhether 
Mr.  C.  ascribes  to  faith  any  rnoral  quality ;  or  whether  he  supposes 
that  men  believe  in  Christ,  just  as  they  believe  that  there  was  such  a  man 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  719 

as  Caesar,  and  as  they  believe  what  he  relates  of  his  wars.  Is  not  faith 
the  cordial  reception  of  Christ  as  our  Savior?  I  did  not  give  up  the 
question. 

I  have  offered  a  considerable  number  of  arguments,  to  which  my  friend 
has  attempted  no  reply.  He  has  pursued  his  usual  course.  He  says  they 
are  irrelevant.  This  is  the  easiest  way  in  the  world  to  answer  arguments. 
If  a  man  finds  them  unanswerable,  he  can  say  they  are  all  irrelevant !  To 
prove  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit, 
distinct  from  the  Word,  I  quoted  such  passages  as  the  following:  "  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed."  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  1  put  within  you."  "  I  will  give  them  one  heart  and 
one  mind,"  &c.  They  are  all  irrelevant,  says  the  gentleman.  Such  is 
his  answer;  though  every  one  can  see  that  they  bear  directly  and  most 
conclusively  on  the  point  at  issue  ;  for  they  teach  in  the  clearest  manner, 
that  men  repent  and  believe,  because  God  sheds  upon  them  his  Holy 
Spirit. 

My  time  is  so  nearly  out,  that  I  will  not  now  introduce  another  argu- 
ment.— [Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  29 — 11  o^ clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  ninth  address.] 

Mr.  President — More  than  half  the  time  occupied  by  my  friend  has 
been  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  passages  of  Scripture  more  or  less 
animadverted  on  before.  He  deems  them  of  great  importance,  and  I  am 
■willing  that  he  should  think  so.  But  as  I  deem  them  no  way  relevant  to 
our  position  in  the  question,  I  shall  hasten,  in  the  first  place,  to  state 
some  other  arguments  ;  reserving  for  farther  notice  of  these  to  circumstan- 
ces. His  remarks  on  spiritual  operations,  when  further  explained,  may, 
perhaps,  be  comprehended.  As  yet,  however,  to  me  they  are  not  compre- 
hensible. I  will  answer  his  interrogations  when  they  are  more  definitely 
set  forth.  Let  him  explain  his  distinct  power.  I  cannot  comprehend 
his  theory  of  an  abstract  power.  If  he  say  superadded  power,  I  wish  to 
know  of  what  character  it  is  :  physical  or  moral?  I  can  readily  conceive 
of  various  means  being  employed  to  secure  the  attention  of  persons  to 
impress  the  subject  on  the  mind,  and  of  means  used  providentially 
to  remove  obstructions ;  but  to  talk  of  superadded  power,  of  a  distinct 
power,  without  any  definition  of  the  nature  and  character  of  it,  seems  not 
in  the  least  to  enlighten  us.  If  I  see  a  man  take  an  axe  and  fell  a  tree,  I 
call  the  axe  the  instrument,  and  I  say,  whatever  power  he  puts  forth  in 
felling  the  tree  is  put  forth  through  the  axe.  Not  one  chip  is  removed 
without  it.  This  illustrates  so  much  of  the  subject  as  pertains  to  instru- 
mentality. I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  his  additional  power.  I  see  but 
tlie  man  and  the  axe,  and  the  tree  falls.  That  the  Spirit  operates  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  I  doubt  not ;  but  if  asked  to  explain  the 
modus  operandi,  I  confess  my  inability.  The  fact  of  the  power  I  admit, 
but  the  hoiv  it  works  I  presume  not  to  comprehend.  If  Mr.  Rice  will 
set  it  forth,  I  will  cheerfully  avow  my  assent  or  dissent,  as  the  case  may 
be  ;  for  I  keep  no  secrets  on  that  subject,  or  any  other,  connected  with 
man's  salvation.  I  candidly  consider,  that  the  gentleman  has,  however, 
conceded  the  real  issue.  He  has  got  a  regeneration  without  true  faith, 
but  now  seems  to  have  need  of  a  pretended  faith,  or  some  sort  of  an  in- 
describable, partial,  imperfect  faith  as  a  prerequisite.  He  has  a  faith  be- 
fore, and  a  faith  after  regeneration.  But  this  seems  not  to  meet  the  case, 
nor  relieve  him  from  the  dilemma.    His  indefinable,  previous  faith  is  just 


780  DEBATE  ON  THE 

no  faith  at  all;  and,  therefore,  his  true  doctrine  is  regeneration  without 
faith,  and  consequently  without  any  human  instrumentality.  A  faith  that 
does  not  renew  the  heart,  is  a  species  of  infidelity.  His  infant  and  adult, 
his  pagan  and  idiot,  regeneration  are  therefore  all  of  one  sort ;  all  special 
miracles  without  any  instrumentality  Avhatever.  He  has,  indeed,  as  before 
shown,  admitted  my  fourth  argument ;  and,  according  to  it,  as  regenera- 
tion is  in  one  case,  it  is  in  all  cases.  Whatever  means  are  necessary  to 
produce  one  ear  of  corn,  are  necessary  to  the  production  of  every  other 
ear  of  corn.  So  in  all  well  regulated  states,  whatever  is  necessary  to  con- 
stitute one  foreigner  a  citizen,  is  necessary  to  the  naturalization  of  every 
other  foreigner.  We  shall,  then,  till  otherwise  informed,  regard  this  case 
as  settled. 

On  my  side  of  this  question,  I  have  only  to  prove  that  the  seed  is 
essential  to  the  fruit,  and  on  this,  I  presume,  amplification  is  not  called  for. 
When,  however,  Mr.  Rice  again  brings  up  this  same  view,  I  may  amplify 
still  farther.  Till  then,  I  will  not  spend  time  in  expatiating  on  principles 
so  well  established,  so  universally  admitted.  Neither  need  I  dwell  upon  the 
peculiar  arrangement  of  the  Scriptures,  on  the  principle  submitted  at  the 
close  of  my  last  address.  It  is  true,  that  I  intend  it  to  be  the  basis  of  a 
branch  of  the  evidence  adduced,  in  confirmation  of  the  views  given.  Our 
feelings  are  properly  called  our  active  powers.  Now,  in  religion,  they 
are  properly  dependent  on  our  faith — no  true  faith,  no  true  feeling.  That 
again  depends  not  merely  upon  the  testimony  being  good  and  valid,  but  up- 
on our  appreciation  of  it.  No  one  can  believe  testimony  which  he  does  not 
understand :  hence,  if  either  the  te-^.timony  of  God,  or  the  facts  contained 
in  the  Bible,  have  any  thing  to  do  with  renewing  or  purifying  the  heart, 
there  can  be  no  renewal  without  a  previous  belief. 

But  I  hasten  to  state  another  argument,  which  shall  obtain  the  rank  of 
my  tenth  argument,  in  proof  of  the  proposition.  It  is  expressed  in  the 
following  words : 

X.  Whatever  influence  is  ascribed  to  the  TVord  of  God  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  is  also  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  Or  in  other  words,  what 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  at  one  time,  and  in  one  place,  said  to  do,  is  at  some 
other  time  or  in  some  other  place,  ascribed  to  the  Word  of  God.  Hence  I 
argue  that  they  do  not  operate  separately,  but  in  all  cases  conjointly. 
We  shall  give  an  induction  of  a  number  of  cases  in  exemplification  of  the 
fact.  Are  we  said  to  be  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  We  are  told 
in  another  place,  "  The  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening 
the  eyes."  Again,  "  The  entrance  of  thy  word  giveth  light,  and  makes 
the  simple  wise."  Are  we  said  to  be  converted  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ? 
we  hear  the  prophet  David  say,  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  con- 
verting the  soul."  Are  we  said  to  be  sanctified  through  the  Spirit  of 
God  ?  we  hear  our  Lord  praying  to  his  Father,  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy 
truth,  thy  Word  is  the  truth."  Are  we  said  to  be  quickened  by  the  Spi- 
rit of  God?  the  same  is  ascribed  to  the  Word  of  God.  David  says, 
"  Thy  Word,  O  Lord,  hath  quickened  me," — "  Stay  me  with  thy  pre- 
cepts, thy  statutes  quicken  me."  This  is  one  of  the  strongest  ex- 
pressions. 

In  other  forms  of  speech,  the  same  effects  and  influence  are  ascribed  to 
both.  Paul,  in  one  context,  says,  "Be  filled  with  the  Spirit;"  and  when 
again  speaking  of  the  same  subject,  in  another,  he  says,  "  Let  the  Word  of 
Christ  dwell  in  you  richly."  In  both  cases  the  precepts  are  to  be  ful- 
filled in  the  same  way,  "  teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  721 

and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  making  melody  in  your  hearts  to  the 
Lord."  "  The  Spirit,"  says  Paul  to  Timothy,  "  speaketh  expressly  that 
in  the  latter  day  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith."  Again,  "Know  ye,  in 
the  last  days  perilous  times  shall  come."  Again,  Paul  says  he  has  sancti- 
fied the  church  and  cleansed  it  with  "  a  bath  of  water  and  the  Word." 
In  another  instance  he  says,  he  hath  saved  us  "  with  the  washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewal  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Are  we  said  to  be  "  born 
of  the  Spirit  ?"  we  are  also  said  to  be  born  again,  or  "  regenerated  by 
the  Word  of  God."  I  might  trace  this  matter  much  further,  but  I  pre- 
sume, as  we  have  touched  upon  the  most  important  items,  we  have  found 
such  an  induction  as  will  satisfy  the  most  scrupulous.  Unless  questioned, 
I  shall  then  affirm  it  as  a  conclusion  fairly  drawn,  that  whatever  effects 
or  influences  connected  with  conversion  and  sanclification  are,  in  one 
portion  of  Scripture,  assigned  to  the  Word,  are  ascribed  also  to  the 
Spirit;  and  so  interchangeably  throughont  both  Testaments.  Whence 
we  conclude,  that  the  Spirit  and  Word  of  God  are  not  separate  and  dis- 
tinct kinds  of  power — the  one  superadded  to  the  other,  but  both  acting 
conjointly  and  simultaneously  in  the  work  of  sanclification  and  salvation. 

As  Mr.  liice  would  seem  to  argue  for  two  substantive  powers,  essen- 
tially distinct  from  each  other,  I  do  hope  he  will  be  at  pains  to  explain 
to  us  the  peculiar  discriminating  characteristics  or  attributes  of  each. 

XI.  My  eleventh  argiunent  is  deduced  from  the  important  fact,  that  re- 
sisting the  Word  of  God,  and  resisting  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  shown 
to  be  the  same  thing,  by  very  clear  and  explicit  testimonies  :  such  as 
Stephen,  the  proto-martyr,  when  filled  with  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  and,  indeed, 
speaking-  as  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  him  utterance,  in  the  presence  of  the 
sanhedrim,  said,  "  You  uncircumcised  in  lieart  and  ears,  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  you.  You  do  ahvuys  resist  the  Holy  Spirit.''^  What  proof 
does  he  alledge  ?  He  adds,  "  As  your  fathers  did,  so  do  you,"  (resist.) 
"Which  of  the  prophets  did  diey  not  persecute?"  This,  tlien,  is  his 
proof.  In  persecuting  the  prophets,  they  resisted  the  Holy  Spirit;  be- 
cause the  words  spoken  by  the  prophets,  were  suggested  by  the  Spirit. 
We  are  said  to  resist  a  person,  when  we  resist  his  word.  When,  then, 
any  one  resists  the  words  of  the  prophets  or  the  apostles,  he  is  said  by 
inspired  men  to  resist  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  important  fact  should  be 
more  frequently  insisted  on  than  it  is.  Men  should  be  (aught,  that  in  re- 
sisting the  words  spoken  by  apostles  and  prophets,  they  are,  in  truth,  re- 
sisting the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  they  uttered  those  words.  May  we 
not,  then,  consistently  say,  with  vStephen,  that  when  men  resist  the  pro- 
phets and  aposdes  in  their  writings,  and  will  not  submit  to  their  teach- 
ings, they  are  resisting  the  Holy  Spirit?  This  being  admitted,  follows 
it  not  again,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the  trutii;  and  that 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  they  do  not 
act  separately  and  distinctly  from  each  otlier  ? 

A  still  more  impressive  instance  of  tliis  kind,  Ave  find  in  the  book  of 
Nehemiah.  In  his  admirable  prayer,  preserved  in  the  ninth  chapter,  he 
has  two  very  remarkable  expressions  ;  one  m  the  20th  and  one  in  the 
29th  verse.  In  the  former,  when  speaking  of  the  instructions  given  the 
Jews  by  Moses,  he  said,  "  Thou  gavest  also  thy  good  Spirit  to  instruct 
them  ;"  and  in  the  latter,  he  says,  "  Many  years  didst  thou  forbear  them, 
and  testifiedst  against  them  by  thy  Spirit  in  thy  prophets,  yet  would 
they  not  hear."  Here,  then,  Ave  are  taught  that  God,  by  his  Spirit  in 
Moses,  instructed  the  Jews  by  his  good  Spirit,  and  that  in  testifying  to 
46  3  P 


722  DEBATE  ON  THE 

them  by  the  prophets,  God  was  testifying  to  them  by  his  Holy  Spirit. 
We  are,  then,  still  more  fully  confirmed  in  the  conclusion  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  operates  through  his  Word,  and  only  through  his  Word,  in  con- 
version and  sanetification  ;  and  that  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God,  in  those 
spiritual  and  moral  changes  and  influences  of  which  we  now  speak,  are 
never  to  be  regarded  as  operating  apart ;  that  whatever  is  done  by  the 
Word  of  God,  is  done  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  whatever  is  done  by 
the  Spirit,  is  done  through  the  Truth — and  certainly  he  can  through  that 
instrument  operate  most  powerfidly  on  the  spirit  of  man,  as  all  christians 
experience,  and  the  saints  of  all  time  exhibit. 

Notwithstanding  the  pains  taken  in  my  opening  speech  on  this  subjec  , 
to  indicate  the  difTerenl  offices  assigned  to  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  work  of  salvation,  it  seems,  from  some  of  the  quo- 
tations offered  by  Mr.  Rice,  that  he  indiscriminately  assigns  to  any  one 
of  them  the  work  peculiarly  and  exclusively  assigned  to  another.  See- 
ing tiiis  so  often  done  by  others,  and  presuming  that  it  might  occur  here, 
T  remonstrated  against  it  as  both  illogical  and  unscriptural.  How  often  is 
the  passage,  Matt.  xvi.  17,  "  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  this  to  you, 
Peter,  but  my  Father,  who  is  in  heaven,"  quoted,  with  a  special  reference 
to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  system-makers  and  system-mong- 
ers, almost  to  a  man,  press  this  passage  into  their  service.  They  prove 
by  it  a  special  revelation  to  Peter  by  the  Holy  Spirit :  to  all  of  which  I 
have  no  objection  whatever,  so  far  as  either  the  possibility  or  practicabil- 
ity of  making  original  suggestions  to  Peter,  on  this  or  any  other  subject, 
is  concerned.  But  I  plead  for  the  proper  application  and  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  much  more  than  for  the  particular  import  of  a  single 
text,  however  important  that  text  may  be. 

It  was  the  Father,  and  not  the  Spirit,  of  whom  Jesus  here  speaks.  It 
was  "  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven,''''  that  revealed  this  fact  to  you, 
Peter,  that  I  am  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Christ  of  God.  The  fact,  as 
stated,  too,  is  very  plain.  God  spake  out  from  heaven,  after  the  Mes- 
siah's baptism,  and  revealed  who  he  was.  He  also  indicated  him  by  the 
Spirit  descending  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  his  head. 
This  being  done  very  publicly,  and  reported  in  Jerusalem,  as  we  learn 
from  John,  chapter  v.,  "  Peter  must  have  heard  and  believed,"  whether 
at  the  Jordan  Avhen  it  happened,  or  not.  Thus  it  was  that  the  Father  re- 
vealed, and  in  person  introduced,  his  Son.  Peter,  in  common  with  some 
others,  believed  it. 

I  said  in  the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  that  I  did  not  affirm 
nor  deny  as  to  any  other  operations  of  the  Spirit,  save  in  conversion 
and  sanetification.  What  he  may  do  in  the  way  of  suggestions  or  im- 
pressions, by  (iir(*ct  communication  of  original  ideas,  or  in  bringing 
things  to  remembrance  long  since  forgotten,  I  presume  not  to  discuss. 
I  believe  he  has  exerted,  and  can  exert,  such  influences.  Nor  do  I  say 
what  influence  he  may  exert,  or  cause  to  be  exerted,  in  bringing  men's 
minds  to  consider  these  matters  ;  but  I  confine  my  reasonings  and  proofs 
to  conversion  and  sanclijication.  I  wish  Mr.  liice,  when  he  next  quotes 
John  iii.  5,  would  give  us  the  predicate  of  "  So  is  every  one  born  of  the 
Spirit."     What  means  the  word  so? 

XII.  My  twelfth  argument  is  deduced  from  the  fact — that  God  created 
nothing  without  his  Word.  "  He  said,  let  there  be  light,  and  there  was 
light."  "  By  faith,"  says  Paul,  "  we  know  that  the  worlds  were  framed 
by  the  Word  of  God."     All  the  details  of  the  six  days  show  that,  "  God 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  723 

made  all  things  by  the  Word  of  his  power."  Of  course,  then,  we  have 
no  idea  of  any  new  creation  or  regeneration  without  the  Word  of  God. 
Mr.  Rice  has  taken  it  for  granted,  that  God  made  man  holy  at  first  with- 
out his  Word.  But  this  is  a  mere  assumption.  It  is  an  overwhelming 
fact,  that  God  does  nothing  in  creation  nor  redemption  without  his  Word. 
His  creative  power  has  always  been  embodied  in  that  sublime  instrument. 
Nay,  it  is  the  sword  of  the  Spirit.  Still,  there  was  through  that  Word 
an  almighty  power  put  forth,  and  still  there  is  both  in  conversion  and 
sanctification  God  works  mightily  in  the  human  heart  by  his  Word. 
The  heart  of  the  King's  enemies  are  mightily  broken  by  it.  Hence,  faith 
comes  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Word  of  God. 

Indeed,  there  is  much  of  this  wisdom  of  God  apparent  in  the  fact  that 
he  has  chosen  the  term  Logos  to  represent  the  author  and  founder  of 
the  christian  faith,  in  his  antecedent  state  of  existence.  And  hence, 
John  represents  Jesus  Christ  himself  as  the  JVord  of  God  incarnate. 
"  Now  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  or  became  flesh,  "  and  dwelt  amongst 
us."  This  is  a  mysterious  name.  He  had  a  name  given  him  which  no 
one  can  comprehend.  His  name  is  the  Word  of  God."  Now,  as  Jesus 
Christ  was  "once  God  manifest  in  Word,"  and  now  God  manifest 
in  flesh,  we  have  reason  to  regard  the  JFord  of  God  as  an  embodiment 
of  his  wisdom  and  power.  This,  however,  is  spoken  with  a  reference  to 
the  gospel  Word  ;  for  Jesus  Christ  is  both  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of 
God,  and  so  is  his  gospel ;  because  containing  this  development.  It  is 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  every  one  that  believes  it. 

It  was  not,  however,  in  creating  light  alone  that  God  employed  his 
Word.  Every  work  of  creation  is  represented  as  the  product  of  his 
Word.  He  said,  "  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters," 
and  it  was  so.  Again,  "  Let  the  dry  land  appear,"  and  it  was  so.  "  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,"  and  it  was  so.  And  last  of  all,  "  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness,  and  let  them  have  dominion. 
So  God  created  man."  God,  tlierefore,  made  man  in  his  own  image 
by  his  Word,  and  he  now  restores  him  to  that  same  image,  by  his  Word 
of  power.  Thus  we  have  all  the  authority  of  the  Bible  with  us  in  our 
views  of  spiritual  and  divine  influence.  A  sjjiritual,  or  moral,  or  creative 
power,  without  the  Word  of  God,  is  a  phantom,  a  mere  speculation.  It 
receives  no  coimtenance  from  the  Bible. 

The  gentleman  said  something  about  false  premises.  It  will  come  up 
in  its  own  time.  If  he  would  follow  my  argument  in  the  usual  way  of 
response,  it  would  prevent  many  such  assertions.  These  matters  would 
then  come  up  in  their  proper  place,  as  well  as  in  their  proper  time. 

The  Lord  has  embodied  his  will  in  his  Word.  Now  the  will  of  God 
is  another  form  of  his  power.  Divine  volition  is  divine  power.  The 
Word  of  God  is  the  fiat  of  God.  "  Let  there  6e,"  is  a  mere  volition 
expressed.  Indeed,  we  may  go  further,  and  say,  that  the  Word  of  the 
Lord,  is  the  Lord  himself.  The  word  of  a  king,  is  the  king  himself,  so 
far  as  authority  or  power  is  considered.  As  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the  Word 
of  God  incarnate,  so  is  his  Word  an  embodiment  of  his  power.  For,  as 
Solomon  says,  "  Where  the  word  of  a  king  is,  there  is  power;"  there  is 
the  power  of  the  king  himself.  The  Word  of  God  is,  then,  the  actual 
power  of  God,  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  and  his  "  Word  is  as  fire,  and 
as  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock  to  pieces."  It  should  not,  therefore, 
be  thought  strange,  that  the  AVord  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  are 
sometimes   represented   as   equi-potent — as   equivalent.     Indeed,  in    all 


724  DEBATE  ON  THE 

those  passages  that  represent  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  as  being  the 
causes  of  the  same  effects,  this  equivalency  is  clearly  implied.  Hence, 
while  Peter  says,  "  By  the  Word  of  God  the  heavens  were  of  old,"  Job 
says,  "  By  his  Spirit  he  has  garnished  the  heavens." 

Can  any  one  imagine  what  power  could  have  been  superadded  to  the 
Word  of  God,  that  created  light,  that  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
that  made  man  upright  or  holy,  as  Mr.  R.  says  !  Let  him  explain  what 
that  power  could  have  been,  which  was  distinct  from,  and  attached  to,  or 
that  accompanied  that  word  by  which  all  things  were  created  and  made. 
Explain  that  accompanying  power,  and  I  will  explain  the  accompanying 
spiritual  or  superadded  power  in  the  case  of  regeneration !  You  cannot 
break  a  man  down  by  physical  power.  You  cannot  soften  and  subdue  the 
heart,  as  you  grind  a  rock  to  pieces.  A  superadded  power  beyond  mo- 
tive, is  inconceivable  to  any  mind  accustomed  to  think  accurately  upon  spi- 
ritual and  mental  operations.  The  heart  of  man  is  to  be  subdued,  melted, 
purified  from  all  its  haired  of  God  and  enmity,  by  love  ;  by  developments 
of  grace,  and  not  by  any  conceivable  influence  of  a  different  nature.  His 
love  is  poured  out  into  our  hearts,  says  Paul,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  that  is 
given  to  us. 

Men  had  better  be  careful  how  they  speak  of,  and  how  they  treat,  the 
word  of  God.  It  will  stand  forever.  Till  the  heavens  pass  away,  not  one 
word  shall  fail.  Mountains,  by  the  wasting  hand  of  time,  may  crumble 
down  to  dust — oceans  may  recede  from  their  ancient  limits — the  heavens 
and  the  earth  may  pass  away — but  God's  word  shall  never,  never  pass 
away.  It  is  God's  mighty  moral  lever,  by  which  he  raises  man  from  earth 
to  heaven.  It  is  his  almighty,  awful,  sublime  and  gracious  will,  embodied 
in  such  a  medium  as  can  enter  the  secret  chambers  of  the  human  heart  and 
conscience,  and  there  stand  up  for  God,  and  confound  the  sinner  in  his 
presence.  The  love  of  God  is  all  enveloped  in  it,  and  that  is  the  great  se- 
cret of  its  charm — the  mystery  of  its  power  to  save.  It  is  love,  and  love 
alone,  that  can  reconcile  the  heart  of  man  to  God,  Now  love  is  a  matter 
of  intelligence — a  matter  that  is  to  be  told,  heard,  believed,  and  received 
by  faith.  "  The  power  of  God  to  salvation,"  is  the  persuasive  power  of 
infinite  and  eternal  love,  and  not  the  compulsive  and  subduing  power  of 
any  force  superadded  to  it.  The  promise  of  eternal  life  is  itself  a  power 
of  rnight)^  magnitude.  So  are  all  the  promises  that  enter  into  the  christian 
hope.  These  are  almighty  impulses,  when  understood  and  believed,  up- 
on the  veracity  and  faithfulness  of  God. 

But  tliere  yet  remains  another  argument,  of  the  inductive  kind,  which 
adapts  itself  to  all  minds,  which  I  may,  in  my  next  address,  offer  to  your 
consideration.  We  shall  have  an  examination  of  every  case  of  conversion 
reported  in  the  Bible  history  of  the  primitive  church,  down  to  the  end  of 
the  inspired  record.  Meantime,  I  must  attend  to  some  texts  of  Scripture 
advanced  by  Mr.  Rice,  to  show  that  repentance  is  the  gift  of  God.  But 
who  denies  it?  He  has  quoted  three  texts  upon  this  subject.  Two  of 
the  three  speak  of  the  grant  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  in  the 
sense  of  the  gospel.  And  one  of  them,  the  last,  speaks  of  one  opposing 
the  truth.  They  are  the  following:  "He,"  the  Messiah,  "is  exalted  a 
Prince  and  a  Savior,  to  grant  repentance  to  Israel,  and  the  forgiveness  of 
sins;" — a  dispensation  of  mercy.  The  second  is,  "Then  has  God  also 
granted  unto  the  gentiles  repentance  unto  life."  He  has  also  extended 
salvation  to  the  gentiles  upon  the  same  principles  of  repentance  given  to 
the  Jews.     And,  in  the  case  of  an  opponent,  says  Paul,  "  Instruct  him 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  725 

meekly ;"  that  if  he  have  not  hardened  liimself  against  the  truth,  God 
may,  peradventure,  extend  to  him  the  advantage  of  repentance. — '\_Time 
expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  29 — 11^  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  ninth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  was  very  much  gratified  to  hear  the  illustration  of 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  introduced  by  the  gentleman  at  the  commence- 
ment of  his  last  argument.  It  is  this :  An  individual  takes  an  axe  and 
cuts  down  a  tree.  All  the  power  he  exerts  is  through  the  axe.  Now  I 
wish  to  know,  whether  the  man  does  not,  at  the  time  he  is  cutting  the 
tree,  put  forth  power?  Is  this  not  the  fact?  Then  if  the  illustration  be 
appropriate,  it  follows,  that  at  the  time  when  a  man  is  converted,  the 
Spirit  of  God  must  put  forth  power  in  some  form — by  some  direct  act; 
and  that  is  precisely  what  my  friend  denies.  For  he  contends,  as  I 
proved  in  my  last  speech,  that  before  immersion  no  other  influence  is  ex- 
erted on  the  mind,  but  that  of  the  Word.  To  make  the  illustration  suit 
his  doctrine,  the  axe  must  cut  the  tree  till  it  is  almost  ready  to  fall,  and 
then  the  man  must  take  hold  of  it,  and  complete  the  work  !  I  think  I 
can  give  a  much  more  correct  and  striking  illustration  of  his  doctrine, 
than  the  one  he  has  given.  A  certain  man  made  and  tempered  the  axe ; 
the  axe  cut  the  tree ;  and  therefore  the  maker  of  the  axe  might  be  said  to 
have  cut  it.  So  the  Spirit  of  God  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word;  the 
Word  converts  men  ;  and  in  this  sense  the  Spirit  converts  them.  Just  as 
the  man  who  made  and  tempered  the  axe  might  be  said  to  do  what  the 
axe  does,  so  the  Spirit  who  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word,  may  be 
said  to  do  what  the  Word  does.  Or,  a  certain  man  made  a  gun  ;  and  the 
gun,  in  the  hands  of  some  other  person,  shot  a  man.  Then  the  maker 
of  the  gun  is  chargeable  with  having  killed  the  person  who  was  shot  with 
it!  These  illustrations  are  precisely  in  point;  and  if  my  friend  can  gain 
any  thing  to  his  cause  by  them  he  shall  be  welcome  to  them.  But  in  the 
cutting  of  the  tree  there  must  be  an  agency  distinct  from  the  axe,  which 
is  the  instrument.  The  man  who  employs  the  axe  as  the  instrument, 
must,  at  the  time,  put  forth  power;  or  the  instrument  can  accomplish  ab- 
solutely nothing.  Now  the  question  before  us  is,  whether  conversion  is 
effected  hy  the  truth  alone;  or  whether  the  Spirit  puts  forth  its  power  in 
addition  to  the  influence  of  the  Word  ?  The  gentleman's  illustration 
proves  our  doctrine  conclusively. 

I  have  not  admitted,  nor  will  I  admit,  that  in  regeneration  or  conver- 
sion, God's  mode  of  proceeding  is,  in  all  cases,  the  same.  The  Bible 
does  not  teach,  that  God  always  produces  this  change  by  the  same  instru- 
mentality. Mr.  C.  has  not  produced  a  passage  which  sustains  his  asser- 
tion. I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  where  God  has  not  limited  himself,  no 
man  dares  attempt  to  limit  him.  Ordinarily  he  works  by  means;  but  he 
has  not  said,  that  he  will  never  work  without  means.  When  his  people 
were  journeying  in  the  wilderness,  where  food  could  not  be  procured  by 
means,  h)  gave  them  manna  for  food;  and  if  he  fed  the  bodies  of  the 
children  of  Israel  without  means,  may  he  not  save  the  souls  of  infants 
without  means  ? 

There  is  not  a  text  in  the  whole  Bible  which  says,  that  the  Lord  can- 
not sanctify  the  heart  without  the  intervention  of  the  Word.  Nor  is 
there  one  which  says,  he  xoill  not.  Yet  my  friend  has  ventured  to  say, 
that  he  trill  not,  and  that  he  cannot!  In  his  Christianity  Restored  he 
says,  if  all  the  reasons  and  arguments  by  which  men  can  be  converted, 

3f2 


726  DEBATE  ON  THE 

are  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  spent — that  he  will  not,  and  that  he  cannot  do  more.  The  Bi- 
ble says  neither  one  nor  the  other.  And  if  it  be  true,  either  that  he  can- 
not, or  that  he  will  not,  exert  a  sanctifying  agency  in  any  case  without 
the  truth,  all  infants  must  go  to  perdition.  The  argument  is  one  that  can- 
not be  answered. 

The  gendeman  has  repeatedly  contradicted  himself,  since  this  subject 
has  been  before  us.  You  will  remember,  that  on  the  first  day  of  this  dis- 
cussion, he  told  us,  that  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  secure  the  salvation 
of  infants,  than  the  atonement  of  Christ.  I  replied,  that  the  atonement 
cannot  change  the  heart.  On  yesterday  he  told  us,  that  depravity  was 
seated  in  the  body,  not  in  the  mind,  and  therefore  infants  need  no  change 
to  fit  them  for  heaven,  but  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body.  Now 
he  seems  to  have  it  in  the  mind.  So  he  is  still  involved  in  the  old  diffi- 
culty, and  has  left  infants  and  idiots  without  the  possibility  of  being 
saved ! 

The  gendeman  excuses  himself  for  having  been  so  constantly  involved  in 
the  mists  of  metaphysics,  by  telling  you,  that  he  is  following  me.  Did  you 
hear  his  first  speech  ?  It  was  one  of  the  most  metaphysical  discourses  I 
ever  heard.  There  was  scarcely  a  passage  of  Scripture  in  it.  Now  he 
is  following  me !  I  did  not  introduce  these  philosophical  or  unphiloso- 
phical  speculations.  He  introduced  them,  and  I  followed  him  partially. 
On  this,  as  on  all  other  religious  subjects,  I  am  perfecdy  satisfied  with 
the  plain  instructions  of  the  Bible — a  book  which  I  love  infinitely  more 
than  his  philosophy. 

In  his  last  speech  he  gave  us  what  he  considers  the  philosophy  of  the 
Bible  concerning  conversion  and  sanctification.  It  is  this  :  first,  fact — 
then  testimony — then  faith — then  feeling — then  action.  Now,  there  is  a 
very  serious  difficulty  about  this  philosophy.  For  when  a  fact  is  proved, 
and  the  people  are  constrained  to  believe  it  true,  their  feelings  are  of  difier- 
ent  and  even  opposite  characters.  One  approves,  another  disapproves  ;  one 
loves,  another  hates.  So  it  is  in  regard  to  the  Bible.  All  men  by  nature 
are  opposed  to  it.  AVhen  convinced  that  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  and 
informed  concerning  its  contents,  they  do  not  approve  and  embrace  them  ; 
nor  will  they,  until  their  hearts  are  renewed.  And  if  ever  they  are  to  be 
induced  to  love  God,  tlie  Spirit  must  so  purify  their  hearts,  that  they  will 
no  longer  love  darkness  more  than  light;  that  they  will  see  the  odious- 
ness  of  sin,  the  beauty  of  holiness,  and  the  glory  of  the  divine  perfections. 
There  must  be  a  radical  change  ;  for  no  human  being  ever  loved  a  moral 
character,  which  is  the  opposite  of  his  own.  This  difficulty  completely 
overturns  all  the  gentleman's  philosophy.  It  will  answer  him  no  pur- 
pose. His  fact,  his  testimony,  his  faith,  may  all  exist,  and  yet  the  righJ 
kind  oi  feeling — the  great  thing,  after  all,  may  be  wanting, 

I  will  now  briefly  reply  to  his  arguments  drawn  from  the  Scriptures. 
He  says,  whatever  influence  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  in  the  Bible,  is  also 
ascribed  to  the  Word.  If  tiie  Spirit  enlightens,  tlie  Word  also  enlightens  : 
if  the  Spirit  converts,  the  Word  converts.  By  this  argument  he  expects 
to  prove,  that  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
the  written  Word  is  meant — that  when  the  Word  operates  on  the  heart, 
the  Spirit  is  said  to  operate.  By  this  mode  of  reasoning  I  could  establish 
some  very  singular  propositions.  I  could  prove,  that,  when  the  Lord 
Jesus  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  the  light  caused  him  to  see. 
What  would  you  think,  if  I  should  thence  infer,  that  he  opened  his  eyes 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT..  727 

by  means  of  light? !  It  is  true,  the  psahmist  says,  "  The  entrance  of  thy 
Word  giveth  light;"  but  if  my  eyes  are  diseased,  the  light  cannot  heal 
them.  This  is  the  work  of  the  great  Physician.  When  he  put  forth  his 
power  and  healed  the  eyes  of  the  bhnd  man,  then  the  light  broke  in,  and 
he  could  see.  In  one  sense  it  is  true,  that  the  light  caused  him  to  see. 
In  another  and  most  important  sense,  the  Savior,  and  not  the  light,  gave 
him  vision.  There  was  a  divine  power  exerted,  which  was  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  the  light.  So  in  one  sense  it  is  true,  that  the  Word  of  God 
causes  the  spiritually  blind  to  see  ;  but  in  another  and  most  important 
sense,  the  Holy  Spirit  opens  their  eyes,  eflects  their  conversion. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Aposdes,  (ch.  xxvi.)  it  is  said,  that  Paul  was  sent 
to  open  the  eyes  of  the  bhnd.  Now,  by  adopting  the  logic  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, I  could  prove  by  this  passage,  that  whatever  influence  is  ascribed  to 
the  Word,  is  ascribed  also  to  Paul  ;  and  from  this  fact  I  would  reach  the 
conclusion  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  human  instrumentality .'  I  could  also  prove  conclusively,  that, 
if  conversion  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  it  is  also  ascribed  to  Paul  and  other 
preachers  of  the  gospel ;  for  James  the  apostle  says — "  Brethren,  if  any 
of  you  do  err  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert  him,  let  him  know,  that  he 
which  CONVERTETH  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way,  shall  save  a  soul 
from  death,  &c.  Now  does  the  Spirit  of  God  convert  sinners  ?  So  does 
Paul — so  do  other  preachers.  Therefore,  (and  the  conclusion  is  precisely 
as  legitimate  as  that  by  which  the  gentleman  proved  that  the  Spirit  ope- 
rates only  through  the  truth) — therefore,  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
the  Spirit  never  operates,  except  through  a  preacher.  Such  is  the  rea- 
soning of  my  worthy  friend. 

The  truth  is,  that  conversion  and  sanctification  are  commonly  eflfected 
by  three  distinct  agencies :  the  agency  of  the  Word  ;  the  agency  of  the 
man  who  presents  it,  and  the  agenc}''  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  taught  as 
distinctly  as  the  others,  and  is  represented  as  more  important — causing 
men  to  receive  the  truth  in  the  love  of  it,  and  to  obey  it.  I  believe  in  all 
the  three.  God  does  not  confine  the  operations  of  his  grace  in  converting 
men  to  the  instrumentalit)'^  of  the  living  preacher.  My  friend  will  agree, 
that  some  have  been  converted  by  reading  the  Word,  without  a  preacher. 
Sometimes  all  the  three  are  employed — the  preacher,  tlie  Word,  and  the 
Spirit ;  sometimes  only  two  ;  and  sometimes  only  one,  as  in  the  case  of 
infants,  where  it  is  impossible  that  either  the  Word  or  the  ministry  can 
be  emploj'ed. 

The  fact  that  the  Word  is  said  to  convert  men,  does  not  prove  that  the 
Spirit  does  not  sanctify  infants  without  the  Word;  nor  that  conversion 
is  ever  effected  simply  by  the  influence  of  the  Word.  I  might  say  with 
truth,  that  the  blowing  of  the  rams'  horns  prostrated  the  walls  of  Jericho  ; 
for  they  would  not  have  fallen,  if  the  horns  had  not  been  blown.  But  it 
would  be  folly  to  say,  that  the  blowing  of  the  horns  was  the  power  by 
which  alone  they  were  made  to  fall.  Christ  opened  the  eyes  of  the  man 
born  blind,  by  the  use  of  spitde  and  clay  :  but  if  I  were  to  aflFa-m,  that  his 
eyes  were  opened  only  by  spitfle  and  clay,  I  should  speak  most  unwisely. 
So  the  gentleman's  argument  will  not  bear  one  moment's  careful  exami- 
nation.    It  is  absolutely  worthless. 

Mr.  C.  told  us,  a  few  days  ago,  that  according  to  a  correct  principle  of 
language,  the  definition  of  a  word,  if  substituted  for  it,  will  make  good 
sense.  Now  let  us  try  his  doctrine  by  this  principle.  He  says,  that 
when  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  the  Word  is  meant.     Let  us 


728  DEBATE  ON  THE 

try  it — *'  He  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing 
of  his  Word,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly,"  &c.  !  Now,  did  the 
apostle  mean,  that  he  shed  his  Word  on  men  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ?  Again — "  I  will  pour  out  my  PFord  upon  your  seed  !"  Is  this 
the  idea  the  prophet  intended  to  convey  ?  Again — "  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh."  That  is,  I  will  reason,  talk,  argue 
with  you  !  Is  this  the  meaning  of  the  prophet  ?  The  fact  is,  there  are 
passages  of  Scripture  which  teach,  that  conversion  and  sanctification  are 
effected  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word ;  but  not  by  the  Word  only. 
There  are  others  that  recognize  the  agency  of  man ;  but  not  his  agency 
only.  The  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  the  only  agency  which  is  declared  to  be 
absolutely  necessary  in  all  cases.  The  ministry  is  sometimes  necessary, 
and  so  is  the  Word ;  because  God  has  appointed  these  as  the  ordinary 
means  through  which  the  blessings  of  his  salvation  shall  be  conveyed  to 
men.  But  neither  of  these  is  always  necessary.  The  agency  of  the  Spirit 
is  absolutely  essential  in  all  cases  ;  because,  as  all  men  and  all  infants  are 
"  born  of  the  flesh,"  and  are,  therefore,  carnal ;  so  all  must  be  born  of  the 
Spirit. 

Great  errors,  the  gendeman  seems  to  think,  grow  out  of  systems  of 
theology ;  and  he  would  have  you  believe,  that  he  is  quite  opposed  to 
system-making.  Do  you  see  that  book?  [Pointing  to  the  Christian 
Sv^STEM.]  Who  is  the  author  of  it?  My  friend.  If  he  is  not  a  system- 
maker,  he  has  not  told  the  truth  ;  for  he  calls  this  book  "  The  Christian 
System,"  and  he  says  those  who  make  systems,  are  system-makers.  I 
think  he  is  in  very  good  company ;  but  I  hope  he  does  not  claim  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  making  systems.  Certainly  he  should  allow  others 
to  make  systems,  at  least  occasionally.  "  Christianity  Restored"  was  his 
lirst  system,  and  the  "  Christian  System"  his  second.  If  he  can  make 
two  systems,  he  should,  at  least,  permit  us  to  make  one. 

Another  argument  urged  by  Mr.  C.  is,  that  God  never  made  any  thing 
tvithout  a  word ;  antl  he  tells  us  that  God  created  the  world  by  a  word. 
But  I  assert  that  he  never  created  any  thing  only  by  a  word.  If  we  were 
to  admit,  that  in  the  work  of  creation  he  did  literally  speak  words,  this 
would  only  prove,  that  when  he  spoke  he  exerted  Almighty  power  to 
produce  the  result.  So  the  word  of  God  is  used  ordinarily  in  conversion. 
But  there  is  also  a  divine  influence  exerted  on  the  heart,  in  addition  to 
the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it. 

But  what  is  the  truth  in  regard  to  creation  by  words  ?  The  inspired 
writers,  to  express  most  strikingly  the  infinite  ease  with  which  God  cre- 
ated all  things,  represented  him  as  speaking,  and  it  was  done — as  com- 
manding, and  it  stood  fast.  He  had  but  to  speak,  and  the  universe  sprang 
into  being  at  his  bidding!  But  will  the  gendeman  say,  that  he  created  all 
things  by  ivords  and  arguments  ?  Has  he  not  told  us  that  words  and  ar- 
guments could  only  exert  a  moral  power  ?  Did  God  create  the  soul  of 
man  by  arguments  ?  He  is  confounding  things  as  dissimilar  as  light  and 
darkness.  What  connection  is  there  between  creation  and  argument  ? 
If  he  will  prove  that  God  created  man  by  argument  and  motive,  I  will 
admit,  that  the  same  influence  may  renew  him  in  the  image  of  God. 
Christ  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead  by  words,  but  not  by  words  only. 
When  he  said  "  Lazarus,  come  forth,"  he  exerted  an  omnipotent  power. 

In  the  original  creation  of  man,  God  exerted  immediate  power.  He 
created  nothing  by  words.  So  in  creating  man  anew,  in  restoring 
his  divine  image  to  his  soul,  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  729 

to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  How  absurd,  then,  the  gentleman's 
argument  from  the  works  of  creation,  to  prove,  that  in  conversion  and 
sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  mind  simply  by  words  and  mo- 
tives !    Strange  logic,  indeed  ! 

My  friend  will  alarm  us,  if  he  cannot  convince  us.  He  says,  men  had 
better  take  care  how  they  trifle  with  the  word  of  God.  And  I  would 
say,  that  he  had  better  take  care  how  he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the 
Millenial  Harbinger,  (vol.  ii.  p.  211,)  he  uses  this  language  :  "  Some  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  soul  of  every  popular  sermon,  and  the  essential  point  in  every 
evangelical  creed."  I  must  confess  I  was  shocked  when  I  cast  my  eye 
on  this  sentence.  I  know  the  gentleman  does  not  admire  the  English  word 
Ghost,  but  he  is  perfectly  aware  that  these  words  are  used  as  the  name 
of  the  third  person  in  the  adorable  Trinity.  I  have  heard  similar  lan- 
guage from  men  less  intelligent,  but  I  could  not  have  supposed  that  he 
would  allow  himself  to  utter,  or  to  write,  such  an  expression.  Since  he 
has  done  so,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  warning  he  has  given,  does 
not  come  well  from  him.  I  have  never  heard  any  professor  of  religion 
speak  of  the  word  of  God  as  he  has  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  offer  some  additional  arguments  against  the  doc- 
trine taught  by  Mr.  Campbell.  The  first  that  I  will  offer  is  this :  his 
doctrine  makes  it  both  useless  and  improper  to  pray  for  the  conversion 
of  men.  I  know,  he  will  not  deny,  that  it  is  the  duty  and  the  privilege 
of  christians  to  pray,  that  God  would  convert  sinners ;  for  we  have  both 
precept  and  example  authorizing  and  requiring  it.  Paul  said  concerning 
himself — "  My  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  Israel  is,  that  they 
might  be  saved;"  Rom.  x.  1.  And  he  directed,  that  "supplications, 
prayers,  intercessions,  and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men;"  1 
Tim.  ii.  1.  But  whilst  the  duty  is  perfectly  clear,  if  we  regard  either 
precept  or  precedent,  or  both,  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  makes  it  wholly 
unnecessary,  if  not  improper.  This  objection  did  not  originate  with  me, 
or  perhaps  it  might  be  supposed  to  be  founded  in  a  misconception  of  his 
views.  It  has  occurred  to  his  own  friends  and  followers,  as  a  very  seri- 
ous ditficulty.  I  will  read  part  of  a  letter  written  to  him  by  a  gentleman 
who  is  a  .member  of  his  church,  and  published  in  the  Alillenial  Har- 
binger, (vol.  ii.  p.  469,)  in  which  the  objection  is  strongly  stated. 

"Without  any  further  preface  or  apology,  I  will  come  at  once  to  the 
object  I  had  in  addressing  you  at  this  time,  and  that  is,  to  ask  your  opinion 
whether  it  be  lawful,  according  to  the  will  of  God  as  revealed  to  us,  to  pray 
for  our  unconverted  friends — that  is,  to  ask  God  to  convert  them  to  the 
christian  religion  !  If  it  be  true,  as  you  affirm,  (and  which  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  controvert,)  that  the  righteousness  of  a  christian  is  a  righteousness 
by  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  ;  that  that  faith  comes  alone  by  hearing  or 
reading  the  testimony  concerning  Jesus  ;  and  that  we  have  no  right  to  ex- 
pect any  influence  superinducing  the  mind  to  faith,  or  even  causing  the  sin- 
ner to  examine  this  testimony,  or  place  himself  in  circumstances  for  the 
light  of  divine  truth  to  shine  upon  his  mind  ;  I  say,  upon  the  supposition 
that  these  things  are  so,  what  right  has  any  one  to  expect  that  God  will 
answer  his  prayers  in  the  behalf  of  his  unconverted  friends'!  Ever  since  I 
have  felt  the  importance  of  divine  things,  I  have  felt  the  most  anxious  soli- 
citude for  many  of  my  relatives  and  friends  who  on  their  part  manifested 
the  greatest  indifference  to  these  matters,  and  have  often  tried  to  pray  for 
them  too,  that  God  would  cause  them  to  submit  themselves  to  Jesus  as  the 
only  Savior  of  sinners  :  but  whether  these  prayers  were  in  accordance  to 
the  word  of  our  Divine  Master,  I  confess  I  am  somewhat  at  a  loss  to  say. 
When  we  pray,  we  are  told  to  pray  in  faith  ;  and  in  order  that  we  may  pray 


730  DEBATE  ON  THE 

in  faith,  as  I  understand,  we  should  pray  for  such  things  as  our  Heavenly 
Father  has  authorized  us  to  expect  at  his  hands,  and  no  other.  Now  if  the 
Divine  Being  exercises  no  other  influence  over  the  minds  of  men  than  that 
influence  which  is  derived  to  them  through  the  words  he  has  spoken  to  men, 
and  we  cannot  prevail  upon  wicked  men  to  give  attention  to  those  words, 
the  question  is,  are  we  authorized  to  expect  that  God  will  answer  our  re- 
quests in  the  behalf  of  such  an  one]  Here  is  my  difficulty,  and  it  has  long 
been  a  difficulty  with  me ;  and  I  find  it  is  no  less  so  with  many  of  my  friends 
and  your  friends.  If  you  have  opportunity  to  write  me  a  private  letter  on 
this  subject,  I  will  esteem  it  as  a  singular  favor:  or  if  you  consider  the  sub- 
ject of  enough  importance,  you  can,  if  you  please,  furnish  us  an  essay  upon 
it  through  the  Harbinger.     Very  affectionately,       Will.  Z.  Thomson." 

The  difficulty,  it  appears,  had  presented  itself,  not  to  the  mind  of  some 
one  individual  of  a  speculative  character,  but  to  many  of  Mr.  C.'s  friends, 
who  were  familiar  with  his  writings.  In  view  of  his  denial  of  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  they  ask,  whether  it  is  right  that  they  should 
pray  to  God  to  convert  their  unbelieving  friends,  and  whether  they  have 
any  right  to  expect  God  to  answer  such  prayers  ?  In  his  reply  to  this 
letter  Mr.  C.  gave  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  the  writer  had  miscon- 
ceived his  views  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit ;  and  yet  he  states  them 
precisely  as  I  have  stated  them. 

Now  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  I  ask  emphatically,  where  is  the  proprie- 
ty of  praying  for  the  unconverted  ?  Have  we  a  promise  from  God,  that 
he  will  answer  such  prayers  ?  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  we  have  not ;  for 
the  Spirit  has  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word  of  Truth,  and  no  influ- 
ence will  or  can  be  exerted,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  to  cause  the  wicked 
to  turn  to  God.  If,  then,  no  special  divine  influence  is  promised,  or  can 
be  exerted  to  cause  men  to  repent  and  believe,  why  should  we  pray  for 
it?     And  how  can  we  pray  in  faith  ? 

This  I  regard  as  a  most  important  matter;  for  it  is  as  truly  a  part  of 
the  plan  of  Infinite  Wisdom  to  convert  men  in  answer  to  prayer,  as  by 
the  instrumentality  of  the  preached  gospel.  It  is,  moreover,  one  of  the 
consolations  of  many  an  afllicted  father  and  mother,  that  they  can  pray 
in  faith  for  the  conversion  of  their  children,  when  far  away,  exposed  to 
the  temptations  and  unhallowed  influences  of  a  wicked  world.  Could 
you  approach  their  closet,  where  they  have  retired  to  commune  with 
God,  and  to  pour  the  desires  and  the  sorrows  of  their  hearts  into  his  ear; 
you  might  hear  them  plead  with  an  irresistible  eloquence,  that  by  his 
Holy  Spirit  he  would  convince  their  children  of  sin,  of  righteousness  and 
of  judgment;  that  he  would  turn  their  feet  from  the  paths  of  folly  and  sin 
unto  his  testimonies.  How  many  ten  thousand  such  prayers  are  inces- 
santly ascending  from  the  hearts  of  God's  faithful  children  for  those  who 
are  dear  to  them,  and  for  a  sin-ruined  world  !  But  if  this  doctrine  be  true, 
those  prayers  are  all  in  vain.  Not  one  of  them  ever  was,  or  ever  can  be 
heard.  We  must  bid  the  Aveeping  father  and  mother,  and  the  heart-broken 
wife,  to  pray  no  more  for  those  whose  salvation  is  almost  as  dear  to  them 
as  their  own.  Then  let  all  prayers  for  the  unconverted  cease.  Let  it  be 
known,  that  God  has  done  for  them  all  he  will  do,  or  can  do ;  and  if  they 
are  not  converted  by  reading  or  hearing  the  Word,  they  must  perish !  If 
this  doctrine  be  true,  why  did  the  apostles  give  themselves  to  prayer  and 
the  preaching  of  the  Word?  Why  did  Paul  pray,  that  Israel  might  be 
saved  ?  Why  should  we  pray  for  the  success  of  the  gospel  ?  Shall  we 
bow  down  and  implore  God  to  do  what  we  believe  he  never  will  do  ? 

The  difficulty  stops  not  here.     It  makes  prayer  for  believers  equally 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  73 1 

vain — at  least  so  far  as  regards  their  sanctification.  For  although  the 
gentleman  says,  the  Spirit  is  poured  out  on  those  who  are  immersed ;  it 
does  not  exert  a  sanctifying  influence.  In  the  proposition  under  discus- 
sion the  ground  is  taken,  that  in  sanctification,  as  well  as  in  conversion, 
the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth.  Why,  then,  should  christians 
pray  for  themselves  and  for  each  other,  that  they  may  be  sanctified  ? 
Paul  prayed  for  the  Philippian  christians,  because  he  was  confident,  that 
he  who  had  begun  a  good  work  in  them,  would  perform  it  until  the  day 
of  Jesus  Clirist ;  Philip,  i.  6.  He  prayed  for  the  Ephesians,  that  they 
might  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man.  The 
apostles  once  prayed  to  the  Savior,  "  Lord,  increase  our  faith."  Did  they 
desire  an  additional  revelation  or  other  miracles  ?  Or  did  they  desire, 
that  he  would  take  away  the  cause  of  their  unbelief — their  depravity?  A 
certain  man  came  and  desired  the  Savior  to  heal  his  son.  He  asked  him, 
Believest  thou  that  I  can  do  this  ?  He  answered,  with  tears,  "  Lord,  I 
believe  ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief."  He  also  said  to  Peter,  on  a  certain 
occasion — "  Simon,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  thee,  that  he  may  sift  thee 
as  wheat ;  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not."  Here  we 
have  examples  of  prayers  oftered,  for  a  divine  influence  to  strengthen 
faith  and  to  sanctify  the  heart. 

I  turn  your  attention  to  one  more  example  of  this  kind.  David,  under 
a  deep  sense  of  the  corruption  of  his  heart,  prayed — "  Create  in  me  a 
clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me  ;"  Ps.  li.  10. 
Now,  I  ask,  would  not  every  unprejudiced  mind  understand  the  Psalmist 
to  pray,  that  God  would  exert  a  purifying  influence  on  his  heart  ?  Did 
he  believe,  tliat  all  the  converting  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  Spirit  is 
in  the  Word  ?  Multitudes  of  similar  passages  are  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. I  have  brought  forward  several  wJiere  prayer  was  oflered  and  an- 
swered for  a  supernatural  influence  to  be  exerted  on  the  hearts  of  the 
•wicked.  Li  a  word,  the  Scriptures  teach  with  perfect  clearness,  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  can,  and  does  exert  a  con- 
troling,  converting,  enlightening,  and  sanctifying  influence  on  the  hearts 
of  men,  not  by  words  and  arguments  simply,  but  more  powerful  and  effi- 
cacious.— [Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  29 — 12  o'clock,  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  tenth  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  am  now  so  well  acquainted  wifli  my  friend,  Mr.  R., 
as  to  know  when  he  feels  himself  grievously  pressed  and  oppressed.  He 
has  not  responded  to  any  of  those  all-important  questions  and  difficulties, 
propounded  to  him  as  growing  out  of  his  assumptions.  What  light  has 
been  thrown  upon  the  subject  of  that  power,  abstract  and  superadded,  of 
which  he  speaks  so  much  ?  Has  he  not  passed  the  matter  in  perfect  si- 
lence ?  May  I  not,  with  propriety,  say,  it  is  an  indescribable  power — 
wlioUy  unintelligible — since  the  gendeman  himself  can  give  no  account  of 
it?  I  repeat  once  more,  that  whenever  the  gendeman  describes  his  meta- 
physical abstract  power,  superadded  to  the  Word,  I  will  affirm,  or  deny, 
in  the  most  definite  manner.  I  believe  in  a  substantive  influence  of  tlie 
Spirit  of  God  through  the  truth,  upon  the  conscience,  the  understandiog 
and  the  aff'ections. 

He  appears  to  approve  of  the  figure  of  the  wood-chopper  and  his  axe. 
But  in  his  remarks-,  he  seems  to  have  forgotten,  that  on  his  theory,  the 
wood-chopper  has  to  cut  the  tree  down  without  the  axe.  Or,  if  he  should 
use  the  axe  in  any  case  at  all,  he  must  superadd  some  power  without  the 


732  DEBATE  ON  THE 

axe,  beyond  the  axe,  and  wholly  extra  its  instrumentality !  !  Figures  are 
not  to  be  used  for  any  other  purpose  than  they  are  proposed.  I  do  not 
make  this  one  represent  the  Word  of  God  in  any  other  particular,  than  its 
mere  instrumentality.  He  had  no  time  to  explain  how  his  infant  is  cut 
off  the  stock  of  depravity,  without  one  stroke  of  the  axe.  But  he  had  time 
to  hold  up  this  book  [The  Christian  System,]  as  my  confession  of  faith. 
He  ought,  in  these  precious  moments,  to  avoid  things  extraneous,  and  refer 
that  subject  to  the  creed-question.  I  shall  then  show  who  makes  creeds, 
and  binds  them,  as  heavy  burdens,  upon  men's  shoulders. 

His  dissertation  upon  power  is  inapplicable  to  the  subject  before  us.  I 
might,  on  his  own  principles,  ask  him  why  he  prays  for  the  salvation  of 
any  person,  seeing  he  believes  and  teaches,  that  the  number  of  the  elect  is 
so  definite  and  fixed,  that  it  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  one 
single  individual ! !  Is  that  not,  by  his  own  showing,  labor  in  vain  ?  The 
means  and  the  end  are  both  so  foreordained,  that  without  the  one,  the  other 
cannot  be,  either  in  salvation  or  condemnation.  Hence,  all  the  powers  of 
the  universe  cannot  add  one  to  either  the  saved,  or  the  condemned. 

Fellow-citizens,  from  all  the  premises  before  my  mind,  I  conclude,  that 
the  Spirit  of  Truth — that  omnipresent,  animating  Spirit  of  our  God — 
whose  sword  or  instrument  this  book  is,  is  always  present  in  the  work  of 
conversion,  and  through  this  truth  changes  the  sinner's  affections,  and 
draws  out  his  soul  to  God.  It  is,  therefore,  doingr  us  an  act  of  the  jrreatest 
injustice,  to  represent  us  as  comparing  the  Bible  to  the  writings  of  any 
dead  or  absent  man,  in  this  point  of  comparison.  In  some  points  of  view, 
all  books  are  alike  ;  but  in  other  points  of  view,  they  are  exceedingly  dis- 
similar. In  comparison  of  all  other  books,  the  Bible  is  superlatively  a 
book  sui  generis.  Its  author  not  only  ever  lives,  but  is  ever  present  in  it, 
and  with  it,  operating  through  it,  by  if,  and  tci'h  it,  upon  saints  and  sin- 
ners. The  gendeman  talks  upon  themes  he  does  not  comprehend.  Ab- 
stract spiritual  operations  in  nature,  and  in  redemption,  are  wholly  beyond 
his  ken.  Were  he  to  speak  to  the  day  of  eternity,  he  cannot  communi- 
cate one  distinct  idea  on  the  subject. 

The  singular  course  of  my  opponent  has  constrained  me  to  quote,  and 
comment  on  numerous  passages  of  Scripture,  no  way  connected  with  our 
topics  of  discussion.  But  he  will  have  it  so;  and,  therefore,  we  must  oc- 
casionally launch  into  matters  somewhat  remote  and  recondite.  He  re- 
lies much  upon  such  passages  as — "The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth  ; 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  or 
whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  He  seems 
to  elory  in  the  mystery  of  his  regeneration,  because  he  cannot  explain  it. 
His  main  argument  is — it  is  a  mystery,  and  we  cannot  understand  it; 
therefore,  my  doctrine  is  true !  I  asked  him  to  explain  the  predicate  of 
the  last  proposition.  The  words  were — "  So  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit."  But  has  he  done  it?  No.  He  cannot,  I  predict,  explain 
the  word  so.  The  subject  of  the  proposition  is, — Every  one  that  is 
born  of  the  Spirit — is  compared  to  what?  So  ivhat?  That  is  the 
question  he  cannot  answer! !  He  has  mistaken  the  point  of  comparison. 
To  him,  indeed,  it  is  a  mystery.  I  call  for  the  predicate  of  the  propo- 
sition ;  and  then  we  shall  canvass  the  whole  matter. 

When  I  sat  down,  I  was  expatiating  on  some  other  of  my  respondent's 
proof-texts — the  passages  concerning  the  grant  of  repentance  to  Jews  and 
gentiles,  by  him  that  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Savior.  I  shall  illustrate 
the  view,  which  I  partially  expressed  at  the  close  of  my  last  address. 


INFLUENCE  OP  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  733 

Suppose  the  people  of  any  country  had  all  been  destitute  of  the  right  of 
suffrage — living  under  an  absolute  despotism,  in  consequence  of  some 
great  political  disaster.  Meantime,  some  great  prince  interposes  in  their 
behalf,  invades  the  country,  overcomes  the  tyrant,  and,  when  in  authority 
over  the  people,  grants  to  the  whole  state  the  right  of  suffrage — would  it 
be  just  to  say,  that  he  had,  by  some  special,  personal,  direct  approach  to 
every  man,  constrained,  or  specially  induced  him  to  go  to  the  polls  and 
vote  ?  That,  indeed,  he  might  do.  But  the  question  is,  not  whether  he 
might,  or  might  not  do  so,  but  whether  the  language  imports  that  he  does 
so  !  True,  Jesus  Christ  has  been  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Savior,  to  grant 
to  Israel,  and  afterwards  to  the  gentiles,  repentance  unto  life  and  remission 
of  sins.  Does  that  mean  he  makes  a  personal  appeal  to  every  one,  or 
to  any  one  in  particular  ? — or,  that  he  has  opened  a  way  in  which  all,  if 
they  please,  may  obtain  the  benefits  of  repentance,  and  remission  of  sins  ? 
I  do  not  say,  that  other  scriptures  may  teach  this  doctrine.  But  the  ques- 
tion is — do  the  passages  Mr.  Rice  has  quoted,  prove  that  point  at  all?  I 
affirm  the  clear  conviction  they  do  not.  But  let  every  man  judge  for  him- 
self. It  is  one  thing  indeed  to  confer  a  right  upon  a  people ;  but  whether 
they  shall  use  it,  is  quite  another  question.  An  opponent  may  so  oppose 
the  truth,  as  to  make  it  questionable  whether,  on  repentance,  God  would 
forgive  him — whether  God  would  grant  him  the  benefits  of  repentance. 
Thus  says  Paul,  in  meekness  instructing  them  that  oppose  themselves,  if 
God  peradventure  might  grant  them  repentance  (the  advantages  of  repent- 
ance,) to  eternal  life.  I  am  not  controverting  the  fact,  but  I  am  controver- 
ting the  appositeness  of  the  gentleman's  quotations,  and  that  extreme  lati- 
tudinarianism,  in  which  he  indulges.  To  grant  a  right,  and  to  compel  to 
use  it,  are  very  different  ideas.  God  confers  the  rights,  and  thus  opens  the 
way  for  our  voluntary  acceptance  of  tliem.  We  rejoice  in  the  glorious 
fact,  that  God  has  granted  repentance  unto  life  to  the  whole  gentile  world. 
Philology  peremptorily  forbids  any  other  interpretation  of  this  passage.  It 
is  not  to  believing  gentiles,  or  to  a  few  gentiles,  but  in  contrast  with  the 
Jews.  They  said,  "  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  gentiles  granted  repent- 
ance unto  life."  Repentance  unto  life  is,  then,  bestowed  on  all  the  nations 
to  which  the  gospel  is  preached ;  and  whosoever  will,  may  come  and  pos- 
ess  its  advantages.  To  interpret  this  according  to  my  opponent's  scheme 
— that  is,  to  make  it  respect  a  few  individuals,  specially  called  and  con- 
strained to  come  in,  is  to  rob  the  gentile  world  of  one  of  the  richest  char- 
ters ever  expressed  in  human  speech.  I  thank  my  God,  that  Jesus  Christ 
has  been  exalted  a  "  Prinxe  and  a  Savior,"  to  grant  repentance  unto  life, 
not  unto  Israel  only,  but  to  the  gentiles  also.  Mr.  Rice's  freedom 
with  this  Statute,  robs  us  of  our  rights,  for  the  sake  of  a  speculative  as- 
sumption. 

As  great  injustice  is  done  me  by  Mr.  Rice,  in  sometimes  changing  this 
position  of  only  in  the  proposition,  I  do  not  maintain  that  a  person  is 
converted  by  the  Word  only.  I  say  that,  "  In  conversion,  &c.,  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  the  Word  ;"  not  that  a  person  is  converted  by  the 
Word  only.  The  latter  excludes  the  Spirit  altogether,  which  is  directly 
in  contradiction  of  the  ground  assumed  in  my  opening  speech.  We  are 
only  converted  through  the  Word ;  only  we  are  converted  through  the 
Word  ;  and  we  are  converted  through  the  Word  only,  are  three  very 
different  propositions.  The  gentleman  ought  to  place  the  word  only 
where  it  stands  in  the  proposition. 

The  gentleman  has  again  introduced  the  subject  of  infant  damnation. 

3Q 


734  DEBATE  ON  THE 

I  am  sorry  to  spend  time  on  such  an  un^acious  theme ;  but  as  my  repu- 
tation is  somewhat  involved  in  what  was  said  yesterday,  I  must  show 
that  I  have  not  misconstrued  the  doctrines  preached,  and  interpretations 
of  Scripture  given  on  this  subject,  by  the  good  Old  Scotch  Presbyterians. 
I  am  indeed  pleased  to  see  that  Mr.  Rice  is  ashamed  of  it,  and  has  taxed 
his  ingenuity  to  find  a  new  way  of  expounding  the  elect  infants  of  the 
creed.  His  interpretation  is  ingenious — apparently  so,  however,  because 
it  does  not  read  elect  persons,  but  elect  infants. 

All  infants  that  die  are  elect  infants  !  A  happy  conception  truly !  But 
a  fair  construction  of  the  confession  will  not  authorize  it.  I  first  heard 
the  gloss  last  year.  But  neither  the  founders  of  Calvinism  on  the  conti- 
nent, nor  the  Westminster  divines,  so  imderstood  this  matter,  as  my 
reading  and  recollection  fully  justify.  I  shall  read  a  few  passages  on  this 
subject ;  and  first,  one  from  Calvin's  Institutes.  I  have  both  the  Latin 
original  and  Calvin's  own  French  translation  of  the  passage.  I  wonder 
not  that  Calvin,  to  quote  his  own  words,  calls  it,  Decretum  quidem  hor- 
ribile,  fateor;  which  professor  Norton  renders  as  follows:  "  I  ask  again, 
how  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  involved  so  many  na- 
tions Avith  their  infant  children  in  eternal  death,  and  this  without  remedy, 
but  because  such  was  the  will  of  God  ?  It  is  a  dreadful  decree,  I  con- 
fess." Knowing  that  Allen  has  translated  it,  softening  it  down,  I  give 
the  following  from  other  authorities  : 

[Translated  from  the  Latin.] — "I  ask,  again,  whence  has  it  happened, 
that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  involved  so  many  nations  together  with  their  in- 
fant children  in  eternal  death  without  remedy,  unless  that  it  has  so  pleased 
God  I — A  horrible  decree  indeed,  I  confess." 

[From  the  French.] — "  I  ask  them  sgain,  whence  it  has  come  to  pass, 
that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  involved  with  him  so  many  nations  with  their 
infants,  unless  that  it  has  thus  pleased  God  ] — I  confess,  that  this  decree 
ought  to  shock  us." 

But  Calvin,  besides  this  passage  quoted  from  his  Institutes,  (lib.  3, 
c.  23,  §  7,)  in  speaking  of  the  errors  of  Servetus,  says  :  "  In  the  mean- 
time, certain  salvation  is  said  [by  Servetus]  to  await  all  at  the  final  judg- 
ment, exept  those  who  have  brought  upon  themselves  the  punishment  of 
eternal  death,  by  their  personal  sins  ;  (propriis  scelerihus  ;)  from  which 
it  is  also  inferred  that  all  who  are  taken  from  life  while  infants  and 
youNG  CHILDREN,  are  exempt  from  eternal  death,  although  they  are  else- 
where called  accursed,"  Tract.  Theo.  Refut.  Error  Mich.  ServetL 
This  was  one  of  Servelus's  errors,  according  to  Calvin.  Servetus 
would  have  all  infants  saved  that  died;  but  Calvin  thought  this  a  great 
error,  because  there  were  of  these  same  infants  called  accursed.  Augustine, 
in  condemning  the  doctrine  of  Pelagius,  says,  "  We  affirm  that  they 
(infants)  will  not  be  saved  and  have  eternal  life,  except  they  be  baptized 
in  Christ ;"  and  much  more  to  the  same  effect. 

Turretin,  the  chief  of  Calvinistic  writers,  teaches  the  same  doctrine  in 
the  clearest  manner.  He  is  of  high  authority  at  Princeton,  and  has  stood 
on  my  shelf  for  thirty  years.     He  says  : 

"  The  ancient  Pelagians,  who  having  followed  as  their  master  Pelagius 
the  Briton,  denied  original  sin  in  all  its  parts,  contending  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  hurt  nobody  but  himself,  or  if  it  should  be  said  to  have  injured  any 
body  else,  that  it  was  through  example  or  imitation,  not  by  propagation. 
Not  unlike  them  are  the  Remonstrants,  who  in  their  apology  pronounced 
certain,  whatever  Augustine  and  others  may  have  determined  to  the  contra- 
ry, that  God  will  appoint,  and  that  he,  on  account  of  original  sin,  so  called, 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  735 

with  justice  can  appoint  no  eternal  torments  to  infants,  of  whatever  lot 
or  descent,  dying  without  actual  and  personal  sins;  holding  that  their  opin- 
ion, viz.  that  any  infants  will  be  appointed  to  eternal  torments  is  opposed  to 
the  divine  goodness  and  right  reason  ;  nay,  that  it  is  uncertain  whether 
the  preponderance  is  in  favor  of  the  absurdity  or  its  cruelty." 

Here,  then,  is  an  explicit  declaration  from  a  Calvinist  of  the  highest 
authority,  that  God  can,  in  justice,  appoint  infants  to  eternal  torments. 
Indeed  I  can  quote  distinguished  Calvinists  in  considerable  numbers,  in 
proof  that  infant  damnation  on  account  of  original  sin,  was  the  doctrine 
of  a  portion  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly.  But  I  am  sorry  to  have  been  compelled  to 
bring  up  a  doctrine  of  this  sort  on  this  occasion ;  and  certainly  would  not, 
had  Mr.  Rice  not  compelled  me  to  it.  But  when  I  undertake  to  prove 
any  thing,  I  do  prove  it,  and  can  prove  it. 

One  man  may  be  said  to  convert  another,  as  Paul  begat  the  Corinth- 
ians, through  the  gospel,  and  was  spiritually  their  father.  But  Mr.  Rice 
says,  then  they  may  be  said  to  do  all  other  things  akin  to  conversion — 
quicken,  save,  &c.  That  is  not  a  fair  inference.  It  is  so  far  fetched  and 
so  gross  as  not  to  entangle  any  one — no  one  can  believe  it.  But  it  seems 
I  committed  a  great  sin  in  his  eyes,  in  speaking  of  the  Holy  Ghosts  of 
several  systems — the  alledged  chimeras  of  modern  theories.  Be  it  un- 
derstood, then,  that  I  never  use  the  word,  "  Holy  Ghost,"  with  disres- 
pect ;  although  I  think  the  term  ought  to  be  changed  into  "  Holy  Spirit.'''' 
Time  was,  when  it  was  a  very  proper  term.  I  have  shown,  somewhere 
within  the  last  seven  years,  that  our  Saxon  forefathers  used  the  word  ghost 
as  equivalent  to  our  word  guest,  and  properly  enough  called  our  spirits 
guests,  while  in  our  bodies — regarding  the  body  as  a  house  or  tabernacle, 
and  the  spirit  as  a  guest  or  ghost.  I  was,  some  years  since,  much  struck 
with  the  fact,  that  we  have  not  in  the  common  English  Bible,  the  word 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  Old  Testament  at  all,  but  Holy  Spirit :  and,  in  the 
same  version,  we  have  Holy  Ghost  most  frequently,  though  not  exclus- 
ively, ill  the  New.  Tyndale,  I  presume,  was  the  cause  of  this,  in  the 
New  Testament ;  for  in  many  points,  nay.  in  most  points,  Tyndale  was 
followed  by  James'  translators.  The  question  arose  in  my  mind,  why 
Tyndale  did  so,  and  the  answer  occurred  in  this  way  :  the  Spirit  of  God 
was  promised  in  the  Old  Testavnsnt  to  be  the  guest  of  the  christian 
church — that,  as  in  a  temple,  it  was  to  reside  in  it ;  hence,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Old  Testament  having  become  the  guest  of  the  New,  Tyndale  introduced 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  previous  age.  With  us,  however, 
ghost  has  degenerated  into  the  representative  of  a  disembodied  spirit, 
the  spirit  of  a  dead  man.  Hence,  I  thhik  it  is  bad  taste  to  call  the  living 
Spirit  of  the  living  God,  a  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  our  modern  usage. 

While,  then,  the  new  theories  of  modern  times  about  spiritual  influence 
is,  indeed,  more  ghostly  than  spiritual,  they  may,  with  more  propriety 
than  we,  use  the  term  Holy  Ghost ;  and  as  all  parties  have  not  one  the- 
ory, more  than  one  faith,  I  see  no  more  impropriety  in  speaking  o{  Holy 
Ghosts,  more  than  of  two  faiths,  two  Lords,  two  Spirits,  two  baptisms, 
which  I  believe  are  universally  tolerated.  Still  if  I  am,  by  so  doing, 
chargeable  with  disrespect  for  either  the  name  or  the  persons  that  use  it, 
I  should  not  patronize  it  at  all.  For  my  own  part  I  prefer,  and  almost 
universally  use,  the  name  Holy  Spirit. 

The  theories  of  spiritual  influence  are  as  variable  as  the  winds,  and 
fires,  and  floods  of  the  earth.     With  some  it  is  the  baptism  of  fire,  with 


736  DEBATE  ON  THE 

othera  it  is  a  mighty  rushing-  wind,  and  with  some  it  is  water.  Some 
read  "  born  of  the  Spirit,  even  born  of  the  water" — thereby  making  water 
and  Spirit  identical.  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  explained  by  our 
Savior,  consists  in  speaking  against  the  works  of  the  Spirit,  ascribing 
his  miracles  to  satanic  influence — a  sm  which  cannot,  in  this  his  view,  be 
committed  now.  It  was  not  a  sin  of  thought,  a  general  action;  but  a  sin 
of  the  tongue,  accompanied  with  a  cordial  malice. 

Mr.  R.  would  make  me  almost,  if  not  altogether,  guilty  of  the  sin  and 
error  of  Manicheism,  because  of  my  remarks  upon  the  law  of  sin  in  the 
fleshly  members.  I  must  now,  according  to  him,  have  translated  all  sin 
from  the  mind  into  the  flesh.  Hence  he  quotes  envy,  and  hatred,  and 
pride,  &c.  as  antagonizing  with  my  views.  And  yet,  while  I  give  to  the 
raind  sinful  views  and  desires,  may  I  not  ask  him  whence  come  envy, 
and  pride,  and  hatred  ?  Do  they  not  generally  come  from  the  flesh  ?  Do 
ihey  not  spring  from  our  worldly  and  fleshly  associations,  from  our  carnal 
and  temporal  interests  ?  The  mind  is  enslaved  to  the  body.  Our  intellec- 
tual powers  are  all  placed  under  tribute  to  some  fleshly  and  earthly  objects. 
Hence  hatred,  variance,  strife,  emulation,  fraud,  &c.  come  almost  ex- 
clusively from  our  competitions  about  securing  so  much  of  earth's  and 
time's  favors,  as  gratify  our  fleshly  lusts  and  pleasures.  Whence,  then, 
come  these  sinful  desires  but  from  the  flesh  ?  Still  I  am  very  far  from  say- 
ing that  sin  is  wholly  and  exclusively  confined  to  the  flesh.  But  all  the 
elements  of  sin  are  there.  Through  "  this  body  of  sin  and  death,"  as 
Paul  calls  it,  sin  "  works  in  our  members  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death." 
The  mind  is,  indeed,  made  to  participate  in  all  these  fleshly  lusts  that  war 
against  our  souls;  "for  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh,  so  that  we  cannot  do  the  things  that  we  would." 

We  must  also  revert  to  the  word  holy.  I  objected  merely  to  his  use  of  the 
word,  and  not  to  the  word,  nor  the  thing.  He  represented  the  heart  as  being 
made  holij  by  an  immediate  feat.  God  made  man  holy,  as  he  created 
him.  To-day  he  has  added  "  not  by  the  word  only."  Did  I  say,  in  my 
speech,  by  the  ivord  only?  That  is  a  wrong  issue.  His  argument  was, 
that  God  made  man  without  a  word.  Mine  was,  that  he  did  not.  He 
has  changed  his  position,  and  got  up  a  new  issue.  I  argue  that  God  cre- 
ated nothing  without  a  w^ord.  But  it  was  so  inapplicable !  In  his  view,  I 
presume  it  was,  because  fatal  to  his  assumption.  No  one  can  form  a  single 
conception  of  naked  power.  It  is  bad  philosophy  to  descant  upon  it,  as 
well  as  bad  theology. 

Still,  holiness  is  not  of  the  nature  of  a  distinct,  separate,  and  substan- 
tive attribute,  as  wisdom,  power,  goodness.  And  yet  it  is  not  an  attribute 
of  God,  as  eternity,  infinity,  immutability  ;  because  it  is  relative  to  im- 
purity. It  is  an  attribute,  or  perfection,  in  contrast  w  ith  sin  and  impu- 
rity. In  classifying  the  Divine  perfections,  I  usually  distribute  them  into 
four  classes  ;  three  which  nature  developes — wisdom,  power,  and  good- 
ness ;  three  which  the  law  developes — justice,  truth,  and  holiness;  three 
which  the  gospel  developes — mercy,  condescension,  and  love  ;  and  three 
attributes  of  all  these,  viz.  eternity,  immutability,  and  infinity.  These 
apply  to  all  the  others.  Hence  God  our  Father  is  eternally,  immutably, 
and  infinitely  just,  wise,  good,  powerful,  &c.  These  three  last  are  per- 
fections of  perfections  Purity  has  been  preferred  to  holiness  by  some 
writers,  because  a  more  clear  and  distinct  conception  to  most  minds  than 
the  term  holiness.  It  is  indeed,  as  before  observed,  the  supreme  excel- 
lence and  majesty  of  God ;  and  in  the  esteem  of  the  higher  order  of  intel- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  737 

ligence,  it  is  a  generic  exponent  of  all  his  adorable  perfections.  Hence, 
in  their  most  sublime  anthems  and  ecstacies,  this  word  is  the  consecrated 
symbol  of  their  highest  admiration. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  argument  proposed  at  the  close  of  my  last  speech. 
It  is  to  be  deduced  from  that  inestimable  document  called  the  "Acts  of 
the  Apostles; "  a  document  of  the  highest  value  to  the  church.  It  is 
worth  all  the  ecclesiastic  histories  of  all  nations  and  languages,  because 
it  is  authentic  and  authoritative;  and  because  it  gives  just  such  a  deve- 
lopment of  things,  as  reveals  Christianity  to  us  in  all  its  practical  details. 
We  see  the  apostles  in  the  field  of  labor,  carrying  out  their  commission  ; 
ani  also  the  particular  lessons  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  taught  them  ! 
I  have  much  use  for  the  Scriptures  of  truth  in  this  argument,  and  will 
use  them  very  freely. 

The  argument  I  now  propose  is  simply  this :  I  will  show  that  all  the 
reported  conversions,  detailed  in  that  book  as  occurring  for  some  thirty 
years  after  the  ascension,  are  represented  as  having  been  throtigh  what 
the  persons  saw  performed,  and  heard  said,  fro-m  the  original  witnesses 
and  heralds  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Messiah.  I  wish  to  adduce  every 
case  on  record,  and  show  from  them  all,  that  these  conversions  were  in 
accordance  with  our  proposition.  And  certainly,  if  Mr.  Rice  cannot 
produce  a  single  case  in  which  conversion  was  accomplished  without  the 
Word,  or  Gospel  testimony  being  presented  and  heard,  he  will  have  most 
signally  failed  in  sustaining  his  negation  of  this  proposition. — [^Tiine 
expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  20—12^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.   rice's  tenth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  shall  be  prepared  to  pay  due  attention  to  my  friend, 
when  he  comes  to  speak  of  making  systems  and  binding  them  upon  the 
consciences  of  men  ;  and  I  expect  to  prove,  that  he  is  quite  as  liable  to  the 
charge,  as  are  those  whom  he  denounces.  I  am  truly  anxious  to  reach 
that  subject. 

The  gentleman  has  failed  to  make  any  answer  whatever  to  my  argu- 
ment against  his  doctrine,  that  it  makes  prayer,  especially  for  unbelievers, 
unnecessary  and  improper.  Does  he  deny  it,  or  attempt  to  prove,  that 
the  objection  is  not  valid?  Not  a  word  of  it.  He  makes  no  attempt  to 
prove,  that  his  doctrine  is  at  all  consistent  with  prayer.  But  he  says,  I 
am  in  the  same  predicament,  because  I  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  election. 
Suppose  this  were  true ;  would  he  be  the  better  for  having  me  in  company 
with  him  in  his  errors  1  If  the  doctrine  of  election  were  the  subject  un- 
der discussion,  I  would  promptly  meet  and  refute  his  charge,  not  by 
showing,  that  he  is  involved  in  the  same  difficulty,  but  by  proving  the 
objection  not  to  be  well  founded.  1  should  have  no  fears  in  meeting  the 
gentleman  on  that  subject.  If  we  were  discussing  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, I  would  turn  to  his  "  Christian  System,"  and  prove,  that  he  himself 
teaches,  that  the  purposes  of  God  are  eternal,  and  that  "  the  whole  affair 
of  man's  redemption,  even  to  the  preparation  of  the  eternal  abodes  of  the 
righteous,  was  arranged  ere  time  was  born."  This  might  pass  for  tolera- 
ble Calvinism. 

He  tells  us,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  always  present  with  his  Word.  I 
have  asked,  and  now  ask  again,  what  does  he  mean  by  this  language?  It 
is  easy,  and  not  uncommon  for  men  to  use  expressions  which  convey  no 
definite  idea  either  to  their  own  minds,  or  to  those  of  their  hearers.  In 
his  writings  he  has  so  clearly  stated  and  illustrated  his  views,  as  to  leave 
47  3q3 


738  DEBATE  ON  THE 

no  room  to  doubt  what  he  really  believes.  He  has  said  distinctly,  that 
no  power  but  moral  power  can  be  exerted  on  minds  ;  and  that  moral 
power  can  be  exerted  only  by  words  and  arguments.  He  has  declared 
his  belief,  that  when  the  Spirit  of  God  had  dictated  and  confirmed  the 
Scriptures,  all  his  converting  and  sanctifying  power  was  spent.  Perhaps 
I  can  explain  in  what  sense  he  supposes  the  Spirit  to  be  present  and  to 
operate  with  the  Word.  As  Mr.  Campbell's  spirit  is  present  with  the 
ideas  he  has  published  in  his  Harbinger,  operating  on  the  minds  of  his 
readers  ;  so,  in  the  same  sense  the  Spirit  of  God  is  present  with  the  Scrip 
tures.  I  use  his  own  illustration.  Such  being  his  meaning,  does  he  be- 
lieve in  any  other  agency  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  than  that  of  the 
Word  dictated  and  confirmed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

It  is  not  necessary  for  me  now  to  enter  into  any  discussion  of  the  pas- 
sage in  John  iii.,  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,"  &c.  I  quoted  it 
while  we  were  discussing  the  design  of  baptism,  and  since  simply  to 
prove,  that  the  new  birth  is,  in  some  sense,  mysterious.  I  was  proving 
the  erroneousness  of  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine,  by  showing,  that,  according  to  the 
Bible,  there  is  a  mystery  connected  with  the  new  birth ;  but  according  to 
his  views,  there  was  no  mystery  about  it. 

How  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  heart  in  conversion  and  sanctification  I 
profess  not  to  understand.  And  since  Mr.  C.  cannot  explain  how  Satan 
exerts  an  influence  on  the  human  mind ;  I  am  certainly  not  bound  to  ex- 
plain how  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion.  Indeed  we  cannot  explain 
the  how  of  any  one  fact  in  nature.  No  wonder,  then,  if  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit  is  mysterious. 

The  gentleman  has  made  an  attempt  to  answer  some  of  ray  arguments. 
I  am  gratified  that  he  made  the  eflibrt.  I  wish  to  see  him  march  up  to 
the  question  boldly,  and  expose  my  arguments,  if  he  can,  I  proved  the 
doctrine  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  by  the  fact,  that  God  is  said 
to  give  repentance.  Paul  directs  Timothy  in  meekness  to  "  instruct  those 
that  oppose  themselves  ;  if  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance  to 
the  acknowledging  of  the  truth,"  2  Tim.  ii.  25.  This  argument  the  gen- 
tleman attempts  to  answer  by  an  illustration.  Suppose,  says  he,  certain 
persons  for  a  lime  deprived  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  again  having  this 
right  restored  ;  he  who  restored  the  right,  would  be  said  to  give  them  the 
right  of  suffrage,  but  would  not  force  them  to  exercise  it.  This  is  indeed 
a  most  singular  illustration.  Did  Paul  say,  instruct  those  who  oppose 
themselves,  if  peradventure  God  will  give  them  the  right,  the  privilege 
to  repent?  Does  Luke  say,  Christ  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Savior  to 
give  men  the  right  to  repent?  Really  I  was  not  aware,  that  any  human 
being  had  ever  been  deprived  of  the  right  to  repent !  Nor  did  I  know, 
that  God  had  ever  refused  to  look  with  compassion  on  the  broken  heart 
and  contrite  spirit.  Men  have  always  had  the  right,  and  it  has  always 
been  their  duty  to  repent.  Consequently  we  find  nothing  in  the  Scrip- 
tures about  granting  men  the  right,  the  privilege !  This  is  one  of  the 
many  absurdities  into  which  the  gentleman's  erroneous  doctrines  forces 
him.  The  language  of  inspiration  is — "  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  gen- 
tiles granted  repentance  [not  the  right  to  repent]  unto  life,"  Acts  xi.  18. 
Instruct  them  "  if  peradventure  God  will  grant  them  repentance  to  the 
acknowledging  of  the  truth."  But  to  make  these  passages  accord  with 
Mr.  C.'s  theology,  we  must  allow  him  to  introduce  the  word  right  or 
privilege,  before  repentance  !  If  I  may  be  permitted  thus  to  interpolate 
or  expunge  words  from  the  Bible,  I  can  make  it  teach  any  thing,  even  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  739 

greatest  absurdity.  But  the  Scriptures  declare,  that  God  does  grant  unto 
men  repentance  to  the  acknowledtjing  of  the  truth,  repentance  unto  life — 
that  he  does  exert  upon  their  minds  a  divine  influence,  leading  them  to 
repent  and  turn  from  sin  to  God. 

I  proved  the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  influence  also  by  Luke  xxiv. 
45 — "  Then  opened  he  their  understandings,  that  they  might  understand 
the  Scriptures."  The  gentleman  replied,  that  this  passage  is  irrelevant, 
because  Christ,  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  opened  their  understandings.  Strange 
reply  !  Christ  is  represented  as  working  many  miracles,  and  he  is  said 
to  have  wrought  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  Matt.  xii.  28.  The  Spirit  is 
said  to  be  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ,  Tit.  iii.  5.  It  is 
by  virtue  of  his  atoning  sacrifice  and  intercession,  that  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit is  poured  out  upon  the  hearts  of  men.  By  his  blessed  Spirit,  therefore, 
he  opened  the  understandings  of  his  disciples,  that  they  might  understand 
the  Scriptures. 

The  gentleman  makes  a  criticism  on  the  difference  between  the  phrases 
— through  the  Word  only,  and  only  through  the  Word.  I  am  not  concerned 
to  answer  it.  I  was  not  pleased,  as  he  knows,  with  the  proposition  as  it 
is  worded,  because  I  believed  it  left  room  for  quibbling ;  and  I  would  not 
have  consented  to  debate  it,  but  with  the  distinct  and  express  understand- 
ing that  I  should  interpret  it  by  his  publications  on  the  subject.  I  have 
proved  that  in  his  Christianity  Restored,  he  says,  there  are  only  two  kinds 
of  power,  moral  and  physical ;  that  only  moral  power  can  operate  on  the 
the  human  mind ;  and  that  all  moral  power  is  in  words  and  arguments. 
Let  the  gentleman  either  come  out  candidly  and  say,  that  he  was  in  error 
when  he  wrote  the  books  from  which  I  have  quoted ;  or  come  up  to  the 
defence  of  his  published  doctrines.  It  does  not  look  well  for  a  man  to 
attempt  to  conceal  the  truth  in  this  way. 

He  seems  to  regret  the  necessity  that  is  laid  upon  him  to  speak  of  the 
doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  as  held  by  Presbyterians  !  I  am  truly  glad 
that  the  subject  has  been  brought  up  on  this  occasion ;  for  Mr.  C.  is  the 
very  man  to  prove  upon  us  this  stale  charge,  if  it  can  be  proved.  On 
yesterday  he  professed  to  find  it  in  our  confession  of  faith.  He  now 
acknowledges  that  it  is  not  there ;  but  he  says  Calvin  taught  it.  I  deny 
that  Calvin  ever  taught  it.  If  he  did,  I  have  failed  to  find  it  in  his 
writings. 

Now  what  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Calvin  in  the  passage  quoted  ? 
Does  he  teach  that  infants  are  actually  lost  ?  He  does  not.  He  contends 
that  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  all  his  posterity,  infants  and 
adults,  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  are  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
God;  and  that,  had  no  remedy  been  provided,  all  must  haA^e  perished. 
He  does  not  say  that  any  infant  actually  perishes,  but  that  all  are  exposed 
to  ruin  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  and  must  have  perished  had  no  reme- 
dy been  provided.  The  gentleman  might  have  proved,  with  equal  con- 
clusiveness, that  according  to  Calvin,  all  nations,  adults  as  well  as  infants, 
do  actually  perish  forever;  for  he  speaks  not  of  infants  only,  but  of  both 
adults  and  infants — of  the  whole  race. 

Is  it  true  that  the  gentleman's  reformation  cannot  sustain  itself  without 
such  caricatures  and  gross  misrepresentations  of  the  doctrines  of  others  ? 
No  man  has  more  frequently  complained  of  being  misrepresented  than  Mr. 
C,  and  no  man  living  has  done  greater  injustice  to  others,  living  and  dead. 

Calvin  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  he  has  charged  upon  him.  But  he 
quotes  Augustine  as  teaching  it.     Was  Augustine  a  Presbyterian  ?     The 


740  DEBATE  ON  THE 

gentleman  is  attempting  to  prove  that  the  Presbyterian  church  holds  the 
doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  and,  to  establish  the  charge,  he  quotes  Au- 
gustine ! !  !  But  he  quotes  Turretin  too.  Was  Turretin  a  member  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  ?  But  I  will  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  Turretin. 
He  opposes  the  sentiments  of  those  who  say,  that  it  would  be  unjust  in 
God  to  exclude  infants  from  heaven — that  he  is  bound  in  justice  to  save 
them.  He  liolds,  not  that  infants  are  actually  lost,  but  that  their  salva- 
tion is  of  grace,  not  o{  justice.  Zanchius  was  also  quoted.  Was  he  a 
Presbyterian  ?  This  author,  in  speaking  of  infants,  uses  the  Latin  word 
damno  ;  but  Mr,  C.  certainly  knows  that  this  word  means  simply  to  con- 
demn. The  doctrine  of  Zanchius,  as  that  of  Calvin  and  Turretin,  seems 
clearly  to  be,  that  all  the  human  race,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
are  involved  in  a  common  condemnation,  from  which  they  can  be  saved 
only  by  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ. 

But  this  doctrine,  as  Mr.  C.  ought  to  know,  is  not  peculiar  to  those 
who  are  called  Calvinists.  It  is  taught  with  great  clearness  and  force  by 
Rev.  Richard  Watson,  in  his  Theological  Institutes ;  which,  if  I  mistake 
not,  is  regarded  as  a  kind  of  text  book  by  our  Methodist  brethren.  He, 
as  well  as  Presbyterians,  teaches,  that  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
the  human  race  are  all,  old  and  young,  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
God ;  and  that  all  who  are  saved,  are  saved  by  grace.  The  gentleman 
has  repeatedly  boasted  of  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  Presbyterianism. 
I  will  not  charge  him  with  willful  misrepresentation  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Presbyterian  church ;  but  I  will  say,  that  you  can  scarcely  find  an  old 
Presbyterian  lady,  who  does  not  knov/  that  our  church  never  did  teach  or 
hold  the  doctrine  he  has  charged  upon  her.  Charity,  then,  requires  us  to 
suppose  that  his  knowledge  of  Presbyterianism  is  very  limited.  He  cer- 
tainly is  not  half  so  well  informed  concerning  these  matters,  as  he  pro- 
fesses to  be. 

He  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  and  sanc- 
tification  only  througli  the  truth,  by  the  fact,  that  whatever  the  Spirit  is 
represented  as  doing,  the  Word  is  also  said  to  do — that  if  the  Spirit  con- 
verts men,  the  Word  converts  them.  I  replied,  that  by  the  same  logic,  I 
could  prove,  that  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  human  instrumentality ; 
because  Paul  was  sent  to  convert  the  gentiles,  and  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel are  said  to  convert  men.  The  argument,  therefore,  would  prove  as  con- 
clusively, that  the  Spirit  never  converted  a  person  without  human  instru- 
mentality— that  he  operates  only  through  the  living  minister,  as  that  he 
never  converts  and  sanctifies  witliout  the  truth,  or  that  he  operates  only 
through  the  truth.  But  the  gentleman  seeks  to  escape  from  the  difiiculty 
by  saying,  Paul  was  not  sent  to  quicken  men.  Paul  was  to  open  their 
eyes  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Sa- 
tan to  God.  Could  this  be  done  without  their  being  quickened,  or  made 
spiritually  alive  ?  Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians — "  In  Christ  Jesus  I  have 
begotten  you  through  the  gospel;"  1  Cor.  iv.  15.  Can  a  person  be  be- 
gotten, and  not  quickened  1  Tliere  is  no  way  in  which  he  can  escape. 
His  argument  proves  as  conclusively,  that  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  human  instrumentality,  as  that  he  operates  only  through  the 
truth. 

I  think  it  unnecessaiy  to  press  the  gendeman  much  further  with  the 
absurdity  of  locating  all  depravity  in  man's  animal  nature.  It  is  perfect- 
ly certain,  without  argument,  that  anger,  wrath,  malice,  hatred,  are  pas- 
sions which  belong  to  the  mind ;  that  have  no  necessary  connection  with  the 


INFLUEIS'OE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  741 

body.  The  mind  can  hate  as  malignantly  out  of  the  body  as  in  it.  There 
is  no  truth  in  his  philosopliy.  It  is  profoundly  absurd.  Nor  is  there 
one  word  in  the  Bible  to  countenance  it. 

I  see  neither  pertinency  nor  meaning  in  all  the  gentleman  has  said 
about  the  word  holy.  On  yesterday,  he  told  us,  strangely  enough,  that 
it  did  not  express  moral  quality.  I  did  not  choose,  because  it  was 
wholly  unnecessary,  to  spend  time  disputing  about  a  word.  I,  therefore, 
quoted  the  passage — *'  God  made  man  upright.''^  The  word  upright 
is  admitted  to  express  moral  quality.  If,  then,  God  originally  made  man 
upright,  not  by  words  and  arguments,  it  follows,  that  he  can  do  it  again — 
that  his  power  over  the  human  mind  is  not  confined  to  mere  motives. 
But,  says  Mr.  C.,  God  did  not  make  man  upright  without  a  ivord ;  hwX 
he  said,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  &c.  Were  these  words'  addressed  to  man? 
Did  they  create  him  in  whole  or  in  part  ?  Did  they  exert  even  the  slight- 
est influence  ?  No — man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  by  an  imme- 
diate exertion  of  his  omnipotent  power.  A  word  never  created  anything. 
If,  then,  God  did  originally  exert  on  man  such  a  power,  as  made  him 
holy  or  upright,  not  by  words  ;  who  shall  dare  say,  he  cannot  restore  his 
image  to  the  soul,  either  through  the  Word  or  without  it?  The  Word  of 
God  is  not  able,  of  itself,  to  overcome  the  enmity  of  the  human  heart,  and 
to  inspire  it  with  supreme  love  to  God. 

I  wish  now  to  present  the  remaining  arguments  which  I  had  purposed 
to  offer,  and  then  to  give  a  brief  and  condensed  view  of  the  ground  over 
which  we  have  passed.  I  have  said,  that  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  prescribes  to 
the  power  of  God  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  limitation ;  and  this 
I  have  proved  by  the  facts — that  originally  God  created  man  holy,  and 
that  he  does  exert  a  controling  influence  over  his  moral  conduct,  not 
merely  or  chiefly  by  words  and  arguments.  I  will  now  prove,  that  God 
can,  and  that  he  does  exert  on  the  human  mind  a  converting  and  saiuttify- 
ing  power,  distinct  from  the  Word,  by  the  inspired  accounts  of  the  first 
revivals.  In  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Aposfles,  we  learn, 
that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  three  thousand  souls  were  converted.  Men 
M'ho  went  to  the  temple  in  all  their  pride,  unbelief,  love  of  sin,  and  hatred 
of  the  truth,  were  on  that  day  converted,  became  penitent  believers,  were 
filled  with  hatred  of  sin  and  love  to  God,  and  were  added  to  the  church. 
This  was  a  most  remarkable  event.  The  change  wrought  in  their  minds 
was  sudden.  They  went  to  the  temple  loving  sin  and  hating  the  truth. 
They  left  it  hating  sin  and  rejoicing  in  Christ.  The  change  was  radical 
and  thorough.  The  things  they  hated  one  hour  before,  they  now  su- 
premely loved.  They  beheld  in  the  Savior  a  beauty  and  a  glory  they 
had  never  before  discovered  ;  and  in  the  plan  of  salvation  they  saw  an 
adaptation  to  their  real  condition  and  necessities  which  they  had  never 
discovered.  They  trusted,  loved,  praised,  and  worshiped  the  Redeemer 
of  men.  The  change  was  permanent.  From  that  hour  to  the  hour  of 
tlieir  death  they  proved  by  their  lives,  that  they  were  neiv  creatures. 
Through  reproach  and  persecutions,  even  unto  death,  they  held  out  faith- 
fully. They  counted  not  their  lives  dear.  They  suffered  joyfully  the 
spoiling  of  their  goods,  knowing  that  through  Christ  they  had  the  assur- 
ance of  a  heavenly  inheritance. 

Now  let  me  ask  any  reflecting  man,  how  do  you  account  for  this  sud- 
den, radical,  permanent  change  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  those  persons  1 
Was  it  effected  by  the  miracles  they  witnessed?  Miracles,  Mr.  C.  ad- 
mits, cannot  convert  men.     They  can  only  arrest  their  attention,  and  con- 


742  DEBATE  ON  THE 

vince  them  of  the  truth ;  but  they  cannot  change  the  heart.  The  ques- 
tion is,  what  caused  these  wicked  men  so  suddenly  and  so  ardently  to 
love  the  truth  which  they  had  hated  ?  What  caused  them  to  see  in  sin 
an  odiousness  they  had  not  before  seen,  and  in  holiness  a  beauty  they 
had  never  before  perceived  ?  Why  did  they  now  find  their  highest  hap- 
piness in  that  service  from  which  hitherto  they  had  turned  with  aversion 
and  disgust?  Was  this  astonishing  revolution  in  their  dispositions, 
views  and  feelings,  effected  by  Peter's  arguments  ?  Many  of  them  had 
doubtless  heard  the  preaching  of  Him  who  spake  as  never  man  spake ; 
and  they  were  not  thus  affected.  Thousands  had  heard  the  gracious 
words  which  constantly  fell  from  his  lips ;  but  no  discourse  of  his  ever 
produced  effects  such  as  we  are  now  contemplating.  Besides,  it  is  a  fact, 
proved  by  universal  observation,  that  if  the  characters  of  bad  men  are 
clianged  by  arguments  and  motives,  the  change  is  very  gradual.  They 
do  not  readily  subdue  passions  long  indulged,  and  attain  to  the  possession 
of  opposite  virtues.  Such  changes,  even  if  ever  effected  merely  by  mo- 
tives, are  the  work  of  months,  if  not  of  years.  But  the  work  we  are 
now  contemplating,  was  effected  in  a  day,  even  in  an  hour  ;  for  when 
the  Lord  works,  a  moment  is  as  good  as  a  year.  Suddenly  the  three 
thousand  had  new  hearts,  new  views,  new  feelings,  new  sorrows,  new 
joys.  They  were  new  creatures.  Old  things  had  passed  away,  and, 
behold,  all  things  were  new  ! 

Here  we  learn  why  it  was,  that  the  apostle's  preaching  was  attended 
with  so  much  greater  success  than  that  of  the  Savior.  He  wrought 
stupendous  miracles,  and  spake  with  an  eloquence  which  no  human  orator 
could  ever  rival;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  so  abundantly  poured  out 
before  his  ascension  to  heaven,  as  after.  Can  any  one,  not  blinded  by  a 
false  theory,  doubt,  that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  the  Holy  Spirit  exerted 
on  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  three  thousand  a  power  distinct  from  the 
Word,  and  more  efficacious  ? 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  a  special  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  an  argument  which,  as  it  appears  to  me,  has  great  weight,  is  this : 
The  contrary  doctrine  leaves  man  in  a  hopeless  condition.  Heaven  is  a 
holy  place.  An  infinitely  holy  God  reigns  there;  and  holy  angels  bow 
around  his  throne.  God  has  taught  us  that  nothing  impure  can  enter  into 
the  holy  city;  that  none  from  earth  but  "the  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect "  can  approach  his  presence.  Men  are  deeply  depraved.  Even 
tlie  most  godly  groan  under  indwelling  corruption.  Tell  them,  that  they 
must,  by  their  own  exertions,  in  view  of  the  motives  of  the  gospel,  pre- 
pare themselves  to  see  God ;  and  they  will  be  down  and  weep  in  despair. 
A  man  is  suddenly  called  to  die,  and  to  appear  before  his  Judge.  He 
may  be  a  pious  man ;  but  he  is  conscious  of  being  very  imperfect. 
What  assurance  can  he  have,  that  he  is  pure  enough  to  be  admitted  to 
stand  in  the  presence  of  God?  What  distressing  apprehensions  must 
fill  his  mind.  How  gloomy  must  be  his  future  prospects.  But  let  him 
hear  the  language  of  Paul:  "Being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he 
which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Je- 
sus Christ,"  Phil.  i.  6.  Cheered  by  such  a  promise,  the  humble  be- 
liever, though  conscious  of  great  imperfection,  feels  his  fears  subside,  and 
his  hopes  rise.  If  God  has  undertaken  the  work,  it  will  be  well  done. 
He  is  assured,  that  Christ  will  present  his  liappy  spirit  before  his  Father, 
"  without  spot  or  wrinkle."  He  knows,  he  will  soon  behold  his  face  in 
righteousness.     Never  will  I  give   up  this  soul-cheering  doctrine,  and 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  743 

those  great  and  precious  promises  founded  upon  it.     Living  and  dying 
I  hope  to  experience  their  fulfillment. 

This  doctrine  is  the  hope  of  our  guilty  and  polluted  race.  God  will 
pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all  flesh.  In  answer  to  the  prayers  of  the  faithful, 
it  shall  descend  as  showers  on  the  thirsty  earth,  and  shall  cause  the  wil- 
derness and  the  solitary  place  to  be  glad,  and  the  desert  to  blossom  as  the 
rose. 

I  must  present  one  more  argument.  It  is  this :  the  great  mass — the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  readers  of  the  Bible,  in  all  ages,  have 
understood  it  to  teach  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending.  This 
fact  cannot  be  denied.  Now  Mr.  C.  agrees  with  me,  that  on  all  impor- 
tant points  of  faith  and  duty  the  Bible  is  a  plain  book,  easily  understood. 
It  was  designed  to  be  read  and  understood  by  the  unlearned  as  well  as 
the  wise.  Ask  all  who  have  made  that  blessed  book  their  study,  how 
they  understand  it  on  this  subject;  and  with  wonderful  unanimity  they 
declare  their  firm  belief,  that  it  teaches,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  there  is  a  divine  and  efficacious  influence  of  the  Spirit,  distinct  from 
the  Word.  This  influence,  in  connection  with  the  cross  of  Christ,  is  the 
ground  of  their  hope.  For  it  they  pray,  day  and  night ;  and  in  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit,  that  they  are  the  children  of  God  they  rejoice. 

If  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  is  indeed  true,  the  fact  I  have  just  stated,  is 
most  unaccountable.  How  shall  we  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  whole 
christian  world  have  misunderstood  the  Bible  on  this  vital  point  ?  Is  its 
teaching  plain  ?  and  yet  almost  all  have  misunderstood  it !  If  Mr.  C.  so 
thinks,  he  of  all  men  should,  in  consistency,  believe  most  firmly  in  the 
doctrine  of  total  depravity.  How  else  can  he  account  for  the  amazing 
blindness  of  almost  all  the  readers  of  the  Bible  1  Indeed  I  know  not 
whether  we  should  more  wonder  at  the  blindness  and  stupidity  of  all 
Christendom,  or  at  the  superior  illumination  of  Mr.  C.  and  those  who 
agree  with  him  !  How  it  has  happened  that  they,  whilst  denying  all  su- 
pernatural illumination,  have  gained  so  much  greater  light  than  all  others, 
I  cannot  comprehend, 

I  trust  the  time  will  never  come,  when  I  shall  feel  myself  constrained  to 
differ  in  regard  to  any  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity,  from  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  wise  and  the  good.  Were  I  to  entertain  such 
views,  I  should  greatly  suspect  myself  of  being  under  some  blinding  in- 
fluence. We  need  not,  however,  appeal  to  the  views  of  even  the  wisest 
and  best.  On  this  vital  subject,  the  language  of  inspiration  is  clear  and 
full.  It  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  that  God  has  promised  to  save  us,  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Gliost,  shed  upon 
us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ. 

I  have  now  offered  as  many  arguments  as  I  designed  to  present  on 
this  topic — not  all  that  I  could  offer.  It  is  not  my  plan  to  confuse  your 
minds  by  a  great  multiplicity  of  arguments,  but  to  present  a  few  that  are 
clear,  striking,  and  conclusive. 

I  will  now  commence  a  brief  review  of  the  ground  over  which  I  have 
traveled.  What  have  been  the  precise  points  in  debate  ?  I  have  said, 
that  my  opponent  and  myself  agree,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated  and 
confirmed  the  Scriptures.  We  agree,  also,  that  ordinarily  the  Spirit 
operates,  in  some  sense,  through  the  Word. 

Mr.  C.  contends,  that  the  Spirit  never  operates  without  the  truth.  I 
contend,  that  in  the  case  of  infants  and  idiots,  he  does.  Mr.  C.  believes, 
that  in  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  adults,  the  Spirit  operates  only 


744  DEBATE  ON  THE 

through  the  truth — that  he  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  converts  and  sanctifies.  I  maintain,  that,  in  addition  to  the  Word, 
and  distinct  from  it,  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  with- 
out which  the  AVord  would  never  convert  and  sanctify  any  human  being. 

Let  me  repeat  a  few  explanations,  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood. 
I  do  not  hold,  that  in  regeneration,  there  is  a  change  of  the  physical  na- 
ture of  the  mind,  but  a  change  of  the  dispositions  and  affections  of  the 
heart.  Nor  do  I  hold  that  in  regeneration  any  new  revelation  is  made — 
any  new  ideas  given  which  are  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures  ;  but  such  a 
change  of  heart  as  enables  the  renewed  soul  to  see  the  beauty  and  excel- 
lency of  the  things  there  revealed.  "  Open  mine  eyes,"  prayed  David, 
"  that  I  may  read  wonderful  things  out  of  thy  law." 

Again.  The  modus  operandi,  the  manner  in  which  the  Spirit  operates 
on  the  heart,  I  do  not  profess  to  understand.  The  fact  that  he  does  oper- 
ate, is  clear ;  the  mode  is  mysterious.  That  God  created  man,  is  cer- 
tain; how  he  created  him  is  mysterious.  How  spirits  communicate  their 
thoughts  to  each  other,  or  to  the  mind  of  man,  I  do  not  comprehend. 
We  pry  not  into  things  beyond  our  comprehension. 

The  necessity  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  1  have  said,  does 
not  arise  from  any  lack  of  evidence  that  the  Scriptures  are  true ;  for 
the  evidence  is  convincing  and  overwhelming.  Nor  does  it  arise  from 
any  obscurity  in  the  manner  of  presenting  the  truths  taught  in  the  Bible; 
for  they  are  presented  with  remarkable  simplicity  and  clearness.  Nor 
does  it  arise  from  the  fact  that  men  are  not  perfectly  free  agents ;  for  they 
are.  The  necessity  of  the  divine  influence  arises  from  the  deep,  the  total 
depravity  of  human  nature ;  the  aversion  of  the  unsanctified  heart  to  the 
holy  character  of  God,  to  his  pure  law,  and  his  soul-humbling  gospel. 
"  This  is  the  condemnation,"  said  our  Savior,  "  that  light  is  come  into 
tlie  world ;  and  men  loved  darkness  more  than  light,  because  their  deeds 
were  evil."  The  Word  of  God  alone  cannot  change  their  hearts,  so  that 
tliey  will  hate  darkness  and  love  light — turn  from  sin  and  follow  holiness. 

The  effects  of  this  depravity  are,  that  the  affections  of  men  are  placed 
on  forbidden  objects  ;  their  minds  are  pre-occupied  with  worldly  plans 
and  desires ;  and  they  refuse  to  hear  the  Word  ;  or,  hearing,  they  reject  or 
pervert  its  divine  teachings  and  become  infidels  or  heretics ;  or,  being 
speculative  believers,  they  live  without  Christ  and  without  God  in  the 
world. — [ Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  29 — 1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  closing  address.^ 

Mr.  President — I  have  but  thirty  minutes  to  close  the  argument,  un- 
less I  should  be  indulged  with  a  few  more.  I  am  sorry  to  see  Mr.  Rice 
so  positive  in  his  assertions  and  contradictions  respecting  the  readings  and 
comments  on  Calvin.  He  has  not  given  a  correct  translation  of  Calvin's 
Latin,  according  to  the  copy  now  before  me.  I  have  read  other  trans- 
lations of  it,  besides  my  own,  and  I  have  also  read  Calvin's  own  French 
translation  of  the  passage  in  dispute.  I  will  read  an  interpretation  of  it 
by  Jeremiah  Taylor : — 

"  If  we  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  by  the  decree  of  God,  by  his  choice  and 
constitution  that  it  should  be  so,  as  Mr.  Calvin  and  Dr.  Twiss  (that  I  may 
name  no  more  for  that  side)  do  expressly  teach,  it  follows  that  God  is  the 
author  of  our  sin,  so  that  I  may  use  Mr.  Calvin's  words — 'How  is  it  that 
80  many  nations  with  their  cliildren  should  be  involved  in  the  fall  without 
remedy,  but  because  God  would  have  it  so ;  and  if  that  be  the  matter,  then 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  745 

to  God,  as  the  cause,  must  that  sin  and  that  condemnation  be  ascribed.' '" — 
Jere.  Taylor's  Works,  Heb.  ed.  voL  ix.  p.  322 ;  quoted  by  the  Christ.  Ex- 
aminer, Boston,  1828. 

Now  if  the  gentleman  desires  to  contest  the  matter  farther,  I  now  in- 
form him  that  1  shall  be  forthcoming  under  the  next  question  on  creeds. 
At  present  we  must  close  this  present  argument,  and  reserve  what  we  have 
farther  to  say  on  the  "horrible  decree,"  till  the  next  question,  under 
which  it  will  be  quite  as  suitable  as  here.  I  will  sustain  the  ground 
which  I  occupy  by  ample  authority. 

His  allusions  to  repentance  unto  life  and  remission,  are  more  for  ap- 
pearance than  from  any  new  ideas  or  new  arguments.  I  have  shewn 
it  to  be  not  individual  and  personal,  but  commensurate  with  the  Gentile 
world — a  rich  and  glorious  tender  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  A 
matter  alike  unexpected  by  Jew  or  Gentile.  The  question  stands  as  I  left 
it  in  my  last  address. 

The  letter  from  brother  Thomson  on  the  subject  of  prayer,  read  from 
die  Millenial  Harbinger  by  Mr.  Rice,  was  introduced  for  effect,  and  es- 
pecially to  hide  his  own  retreat  from  the  difficulty  propounded  to  him  on 
that  very  same  subject.  Why  did  he  not  read  my  answer  to  it?  That 
would  have  set  the  matter  in  its  proper  attitude  before  you.  My  time 
wdl  not  allow  me  to  read  such  disquisitions  and  comment  on  them. 
They  are  not  called  for.  There  are  few  who  can  comprehend  the  reasons 
of  things.  The  best  philosophy  of  prayer  is,  that  God  has  granted  the 
privilege,  enjoined  the  duty,  and  given  a  promise.  We,  therefore,  vio- 
late no  decree,  and  sin  against  no  revelation  in  praying  for  all  men.  I 
believe,  practice,  and  preach  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  praying  for 
the  salvation  of  our  children,  families,  friends,  &c.  as  much  as  I  believe, 
preach,  or  practice  any  point  of  domestic  and  social  duties  and  privileges. 
If  I  were  to  follow  Mr.  Rice  into  all  these  digressions  into  my  writings, 
we  should  have  scores  of  questions  in  discussion. 

He  says  there  is  a  certain  power  displayed  in  conversion,  and  so  say  I. 
And  does  it  not  come  with  as  good  a  grace  from  me  as  from  him  ?  But 
he  says  he  goes  for  a  power  beyond  the  naked  Word,  and  that,  too,  an 
accompanying  power.  Well,  the  word  accompanying  explains  not  the 
nature  of  that  power,  and  for  that  I  have  asked  more  than  once,  but  I  have 
asked  in  vain.  He  can  neither  expound  what  the  '^  accompanying  pow- 
er ^^  is,  or  can  be,  nor  how  it  operates  ;  and,  therefore,  whether  or  not  we 
agree,  I  could  not  say.  I  believe  the  Spirit  accompanies  the  Word,  is  al- 
ways present  with  the  Word,  and  actually  and  personally  works  through 
it  upon  the  moral  nature  of  man,  but  not  without  it.  1  presume  not  to 
speculate  upon  the  nature  of  this  power,  nor  the  mode  of  operation.  I 
believe  the  Holy  Spirit  sheds  abroad  in  our  hearts  the  love  of  God,  and 
dwells  in  all  the  faithful;  that  it  sanctities  them  through  the  truth;  that 
"it  works  in  them  to  will  and  do,"  and  that  it  comforts  them  in  all  their 
afflictions. 

But  the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  thus  enter  into  the  wicked.  When  it 
fell  from  heaven  on  Pentecost,  it  fell  only  on  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty,  and  not  upon  the  promiscuous  assembly.  For  the  multitude,  af- 
ter the  Spirit's  descent,  did  still  upbraid  the  disciples  with  drunkenness. 
Those  who  first  received  it  that  day,  preached  by  it  to  the  audience.  The 
thousands  who  heard,  were  pierced  to  the  heart,  and  yet  had  not  received 
the  Spirit.  They  believed,  and  were  in  an  agony  of  fear  and  terror,  but  yet 
had  not  received  the  Spirit.     They  asked  what  they  should  do,  and  yet 

3R 


746  DEBATE  ON  THE 

had  not  received  it.  Peter  commanded  them  to  "  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Of  course,  then,  they  had  not  yet  received  that  gift. 
They,  however,  gladly  received  his  word,  and  ivere  baptized.  We  have, 
then,  the  first  tliree  thousand  converts  regenerated  by  gladly  receiving  the 
Word  and  baptism.  This  is  a  strong  fact  for  the  first  one  in  my  four- 
teenth argument. 

The  second  fact  of  conversion  is  found.  Acts  iv.,  and  the  question  is, 
how  were  they  regenerated  1  We  shall  read  the  passage.  "  Now  that 
many  of  them  which  heard  the  Word  believed,  and  the  number  of  the 
men  was  about  Jive  thousand.''''  We  are  now  morally  certain  that  these 
five  thousand  were  converted  by  the  Spirit  only  through  the  Word.  We 
have  already  eight  thousand  examples  of  our  allegation,  and  not  one  in- 
stance of  one  converted  without  the  Word. 

Our  ^/tinZ  exemplification  is  found.  Acts  v.  14:  "And  believers  were 
the  more  added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  of  both  men  and  women."  Wo- 
men are  here  mentioned  as  well  as  men.  We  have,  then,  got  multitudes 
of  both  sexes  to  add,  in  proof  that  the  Spirit  converted  these,  not  without 
the  Word,  but  by  what  they  saw  and  heard. 

We  shall  find  <i  fourth  example.  Acts  viii.  5,  6,  12.  Philip  went  to 
Samaria  and  preached  Christ  to  them.  "And  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of 
llie  Lord  Jesus,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."  So  the  Sa- 
maritans were  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  faith  in  the  Word, 
which  Philip  preached. 

A  fifth  example  is  found  in  the  eunuch.  "  If  thou  believest  with  all 
thy  heart,  thou  mayest."  He  said  :  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God."  Then  he,  too,  was  born  of  the  water,  and  converted,  not 
without  the  Word. 

Paul  furnishes  a  sixth  case.  When  he  had  fallen  to  the  ground,  he 
heard  "  a  voice  saying  to  him,  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecuteth  thou  me — 
I  am  Jesus  whom  thou  persecutest."  His  case  is  certainly  one  of  in- 
disputable certainty.  He  both  saw,  heard,  and  believed,  and  was  bap- 
tized. 

Eneas  furnishes  a  seventh  case.  And  Peter  said  to  him,  "Eneas,  Je- 
sus Christ  maketh  thee  whole — arise  and  make  thy  bed." 

The  citizens  of  Lydda  and  Saron  furnish  the  eigth  case.  Of  them  we 
read — "All  that  dwelt  in  Lydda  and  Saron  saw  Eneas"  made  whole  by 
Peter,  and  they  "  turned  to  the  LordJ"  The  people  of  Lydda  and  Sa- 
ron were  converted  by  what  they  saw  and  heard.  Conversion  here,  too, 
was  not  by  the  Spirit  alone. 

The  inhabitants  of  Joppa  furnish  the  ninth  case.  On  Peter's  visit,  and 
the  revival  of  Dorcas,  through  his  preaching,  many  believed  in  the  Lord. 
So  that  Peter  tarried  there  many  days. 

Cornelius  and  his  friends,  furnish  the  tenth  case.  That  is  so  noto- 
rious, it  needs  only  to  be  named.  Peter  told  the  words  of  salvation,  and 
the  Spirit  miraculously  sustained  him.  So  that  he,  also,  and  his  friends, 
were  regenerated,  through  both  the  Word  and  the  Spirit. 

The  Antiochans  constitute  the  eleventh  case.  Common  preachers,  ex- 
iles from  Jerusalem,  came  to  Antioch,  Phenice  and  Cypress.  The  hand 
of  the  Lord  was  with  them.  They  spake  unto  the  Grecians,  preaching 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  a  great  number  believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord. 
See  also  Acts  xiii.  43 — 48. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  747 

Sergius  Paulus,  deputy  governor  of  Paphos,  gives  us  the  twelfth  case. 
When  he  saw  Paul  strike  Elymas,  the  sorcerer,  blind ;  and  heard  Paul 
preach,  he  believed,  being  astonished  at  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord. 

Lydia  constitutes  the  thirteenth  case.  Lydia,  a  pious  lady,  a  wor- 
shiper of  God,  whose  heart  the  Lord  had  formerly  touched,  attended  to 
Paul's  preaching,  believed,  and  was  baptized. 

The  Philippian  jailor  heard  Paul;  he  and  all  his  house  believed  in  God, 
and  were  filled  with  joy.     This  is  the  fourteenth  special  case. 

Dionysius,  the  Areopagite  of  Athens,  Lady  Damaris  and  others  with 
them,  heard  Paul,  believed,  and  clave  unto  him  and  the  Lord.  These 
noble  Athenians  constitute  the  fifteenth  case. 

Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  Corinthian  synagogue,  and  all  his  family, 
hearing  Paul,  believed  on  the  Lord.     This  is  the  sixteenth  case. 

The  Corinthians  constitute  the  seventeenth  example.  Many  of  the 
Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized.  The  whole  story  is 
here  beautifully  told  in  the  three  words,  "hearing,  believing,  and  being 
baptized." 

The  Ephesians  constitute  the  eighteenth  case.  Many  of  them  hearing 
Paul,  believed,  came  and  confessed  their  deeds,  burned  fifty  thousand 
pieces  of  silver  worth  of  books ;  "  so  mightily  grew  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  prevailed." 

To  these  I  may  add  the  cripple  at  Lystra,  as  a  nineteenth  case;  the  peo- 
ple of  Iconium  as  a  twentieth — "  To  whom  Paul  so  spake,  that  a  multi- 
tude believed  ;"  and  as  the  twenty-first  example,  the  noble  Bereans, 
"  who  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  therefore  many  of  them  believed." 
Here  are  twenty-one  clear  and  distinct  cases  recorded  in  one  book,  con- 
taining, in  all,  probably  not  less  than  from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand  per- 
sons ;  in  every  one  of  Avhich  they  heard,  believed,  and  were  baptized. 
So  that,  as  far  as  sacred  history  goes,  the  Spirit  of  God  never  did  operate 
in  conversion  without  the  Word. 

Now  I  ask  Mr.  Rice  to  bring  forward  one  single  case  of  any  one  be- 
ing converted  to  the  Lord  without  the  Word  being  first  heard  and  believ- 
ed !  If  the  salvation  of  the  world  depended  on  it,  he  could  not  give  it. 
It  is,  then,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  deposeth,  idle,  and  worse  than 
idle,  to  talk  about  sanctification  or  conversion,  without  the  Word  and 
Spirit  of  God.  They  are  always  united  in  the  great  work.  No  one  is 
converted  by  the  Word  alone,  nor  by  the  Spirit  alone. 

Having  then  surveyed  the  premises,  and  heard  the  arguments  and  ob- 
jections from  the  other  side,  I  proceed,  with  great  haste,  to  place  in  a 
miniature  view  the  whole  argument  before  you.  I.  The  first  of  this 
series  of  thirteen  arguments  was  drawn  from  the  constitution  of  the  hu- 
man mind,  intellectual  and  moral.  It  was  shown  that  the  human  mind, 
like  the  human  body,  has  a  specific  constitution,  which  is  never  to  be 
violated.  In  no  instance  does  God,  in  the  government  of  the  universe, 
violate  the  laws  and  constitution  which  he  has  given,  in  effecting  the  or- 
dinary objects  of  his  providence,  moral  government,  or  in  the  scheme  of 
redemption.  He  always  addresses  himself  to  man  in  harmony  with  his 
constitution:  first  addessing  his  understanding,  then  his  conscience,  then 
his  afl^ections.  Miracles  only  excepted,  he  has  never  violated  the  powers 
given  to  man.  He  gives  no  new  powers,  annihilates  no  old  powers,  but 
takes  the  human  constitution  as  he  made  it;  and  by  enlightening  the  under- 
standing, and  renewing  the  heart  by  the  gospel,  effects,  through  his  Holy 
Spirit,  that  grand  moral  change  which  constitutes  a  new  moral  creation. 


748  DEBATE  ON  THE 

II.  Our  second  arg-urnent  was  deduced  from  the  fact,  that  from  the 
earliest  antiquity  till  now,  there  never  has  been  found  a  human  being  in 
any  country  or  age,  possessed  of  one  spiritual  idea,  impression,  or  feel- 
ing, where  some  portion  of  tlie  Word  or  revelation  of  God  had  not  been 
spoken  to  him,  or  read  by  him.  So  that  it  appears,  in  fact,  indisputable, 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  rather  follows,  and  in  no  case  precedes,  the  pro- 
gress or  arrival  of  his  Word.  We  have  the  history  of  man,  in  the  four 
quarters  of  the  world,  in  attestation  of  this  most  significant  and  momen- 
tous fact. 

ni.  By  an  induction  of  many  cases  of  personal  experience,  from  ob- 
servation, and,  I  may  add,  by  a  general  concession,  it  appears,  that 
amongst  christians  the  most  gifted  and  enlightened,  not  one  idea  can  be 
suggested  from  the  most  gifted,  the  most  eminently  illuminated  with  spi- 
ritual light  and  intelligence — not  one  idea  can  be  expressed,  not  taken  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  Not  one  thought,  idea,  or  impression,  truly  spiri- 
tual, can  be  heard  from  any  man  in  Christendom,  not  borrowed  from  that 
Holy  Book,  direcdy  or  indirectly.  These  two  matter-of-fact  arguments, 
on  almost  any  other  subject,  would  be  deemed  all-sufficient. 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  consisted  in  the  avowal  and  development  of 
that  great  law  of  mind,  and  of  all  organic  existences,  animal  or  vegetable, 
viz.  that  whatever  is  essential  to  the  production  of  any  specific  result,  is 
necessary  in  all  cases.  Whatever  is  essential  to  the  production  of  any 
one  eflect,  or  oflspring,  vegetable  or  animal ;  any  one  result,  intellectual 
or  moral,  is  always  and  invariably  necessary  to  the  consummation  of  the 
same  results.  Therefore  whatever  is  essential  to  the  conversion  of  one 
individual,  is  essential  to  the  conversion  of  every  other  individual.  It 
need  not  be  urged  that  the  same  order  and  arrangement  of  things  is  neces- 
sary, because  that  is  not  implied  as  always  essential ;  but  so  much  of  or- 
der, arrangement,  and  circumstances,  as  are  essential  to  the  production 
of  one  ear  of  corn,  are  uniformly  and  invariably  necessary.  Just  so  in 
the  new  birth.  When  called  to  assert  and  maintain  any  fact,  we  are  not 
obliged  to  explain  the  whole  nature,  reasons,  and  contingencies  thereof — 
I  am  only  obliged  to  establish  the  fact  itself.  Natural  birth  is  always  the 
same  thing.  So  is  the  spiritual.  Baptism  is  always  the  same  thing. 
Mr.  Rice,  without  knowing  it  or  designing  it,  was  constrained  to  come  to 
this  result.  While,  in  fact,  seeking  to  oppose  it,  he  came  to  the  very 
same  conclusion.  He  first  argued  for  infant  regeneration  without  faith  ; 
he  then  sought  to  have  believers  regenerated  in  some  way  different,  but 
ultimately  he  asserted  that  regeneration  was  also  before  faith  in  adults, 
and  thus,  by  the  force  of  the  universal  law,  he  came  to  my  grand  conclu- 
sion, that  whatever  is  necessary  to  theneio  birth,  or  regeneration,  in  one 
case,  is  necessary  in  all  other  cases.     And  so  that  point  is  decided, 

V.  My  fifth  argument  is  deduced  from  the  name.  Advocate,  given  to 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Messiah,  as  his  official  designation,  in  conduct- 
ing the  work  of  conversion,  convincing  the  world  of  sin,  righteousness, 
and  judgment.  He  was,  then,  to  use  words  in  pleading  this  cause; 
hence  it  is  a  moral  argument,  and  a  change  effected  by  motives. 

VI.  My  sixth  argument  is  drawn  from  the  commission  given  to  this 
Advocate  in  pleading  his  cause.  He  was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin, 
righteousness,  and  judgment,  by  certain  means.  The  Messiah  prescribes 
the  topics.  He  furnishes  the  arguments,  and  states  them  to  the  disciples 
in  advance.  The  first  topic  is — ^^ because  they  believe  not  in  me;"  the 
second — "  because  I  go  to  my  Father,  and  you  see  me  no  more;"  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7<4y 

third  is — "  because  the  Prince  of  the  world  is  cast  out.''''  In  this  way, 
then,  the  work  was  to  be  conducted,  and  it  has  been  conducted.  And  so 
proceeded  the  apostles  through  their  whole  ministry.  All  useful  and  suc- 
cessful pleaders,  in  all  ages,  have  been  obliged  to  adopt  this  course.  And 
while  the  human  constitution  remains  as  it  now  is,  the  same  course  must 
be  essentially  and  substantially  pursued. 

VII.  My  seventh  argument  is  founded  on  that  most  significant  and 
sublime  fact,  that  the  first  gift  the  Spirit  of  God  bestowed  on  the  apostles 
was  the  gift  of  tongues.  What  could  have  been  more  apposite  to  teach, 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  was  to  operate  through  the  Word,  than,  as  prefatory 
to  the  work,  first  of  all  giving  to  its  pleaders  the  gift  of  tongues?  that  by 
the  machinery  of  words,  he  might  accomplish  his  glorious  work  of  regen- 
erating the  world.  These  seven  arguments  I  disiincdy  stated  in  my  first 
address  on  this  subject.  To  some  of  these  there  was  no  reply  whatever 
made.  To  none  of  them  was  a  direct  and  formal  refutation  attempted. 
I  regard  them  as  I  did  at  first,  not  only  as  unassailed  but  unassailable. 

VIII.  My  eighth  argument  was  composed  of  the  direct  and  explicit  testi- 
mony of  the  apostles,  afiirming  regeneration  and  conversion  through  the 
Word  of  God,  as  the  seed  or  principle  of  the  new  life.  The  instrumen- 
tality of  the  Word  was  asserted  by  James  as  the  will  or  ordinance  of  God. 
We  had  the  united  testimony  of  two  apostles  directly  and  positively 
affirming  the  very  issue  in  our  proposition.  .Tames  affirming,  that  of  his 
own  will  begat  he  us  by,  not  without,  the  Word  of  Truth.  And  Peter 
saying,  "  We  are  born  again,"  or  according  to  McKnight,  "  We  are  re- 
generated, or  having  regenerated  us,  not  by  corruptible,  but  through," 
not  without,  "  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  Word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  forever."  Here  is  as  clear  an  indication  of  the  instrumental- 
ity of  the  Word  as  can  be  expressed  in  human  language.  To  explain 
these  passages  away  is  impossible,  and  you  see  how  my  opponent  has 
evaded  them.  Paul,  also,  in  various  forms  of  speech,  gives  us  similar 
views  of  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word.  He  told  the  Corinthians  that 
he  himself  had  "  begotten  them  through  the  gospel."  Thus  making  the 
gospel  the  indispensable  instrument  of  regeneration.  Peter,  indeed,  assert- 
ed before  all  the  apostles  in  the  convention  at  Jerusalem,  that  God  purifies 
the  heart  by  faith.  But  it  was  reserved  to  these  latter  times  to  assume 
and  teach,  that  God  purifies  the  heart  without  faith,  before  faith,  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  Word  of  God. 

IX.  I  elicited  a  ninth  argument  from  the  commission  given  to  the  Mes- 
siah, as  reported  in  Isaiah,  and  from  the  commission  given  to  Paul  from 
the  Messiah  in  person,  with  respect  to  the  conversion  of  the  gentiles. 
This  commission  is  reported  by  Paul  himself  in  his  speech  before  king 
Agrippa,  Acts  xxvi.  These  commissions  show  the  arrangement  of  means 
in  reference  to  conversion,  remission  and  sanctificatiori,  in  the  Divine 
mind,  purpose  and  plan.  Illumination  through  the  gospel  is  always  first. 
The  apostle  was  sent  to  "open  the  eyes"  of  the  nations.  He  was  "  to 
turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God, 
in  order  to  their  forgiveness  and  participation  of  an  inheritance  amongst 
those  sanctified  through  faith. '^ 

X.  My  tenth  argument  consisted  of  those  scriptures  which  show  that 
whatever  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  salvation,  is  also 
ascribed  to  the  TJ'ord;  and  that  what  is  ascribed  to  the  Word,  is  also 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  The  gentleman  has  not  found  a  single  exception 
to  it.  Are  persons  said  to  be  enlightened,  quickened,  converted,  sanctified, 

'*  3r2 


750  DEBATE  ON  THE 

regenerated,  comforted,  (fee,  by  the  Word?  they  are  also  in  some  other 
scriptures  said  to  be  so  by  the  Spirit ;  and  vice  versa.  This  agent  and 
instrument  were  so  inseparably  connected  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  that  they  could  not  conceive  of  the  one  without  the  other, 
in  any  operation  or  efl'ect  connected  with  the  salvation  of  man. 

XI.  My  eleventh  argument  was  deduced  from  the  fact,  that  those  who 
resisted  the  Word  of  God,  or  the  persons  that  spoke  it,  are  said  to  resist 
the  Spirit  of  God.  By  not  giving  ear  to  the  prophets  that  spoke  by  the 
Spirit,  they  resisted  the  Spirit.  The  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  who  re- 
sisted the  words  spoken  by  Stephen  and  by  the  twelve  apostles,  are  rep- 
resented by  him  as  resisting  the  Holy  Spirit.  His  words  are — "  As  your 
fathers  did,  so  do  you  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit.  Which  of  the  pro- 
phets have  not  your  fathers  persecuted  ?  and  they  have  slain  them  that 
showed  before  the  coming  of  the  just  one,  of  whom  you  have  now  been 
the  betrayers  and  murderers." 

Xn.  A  twelfth  argument  was  deduced  from  another  important  fact : 
that  the  strivings  of  the  prophets  by  their  words,  are  represented  as  the 
strivings  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  spoke  Nehemiah,  "  thou  sendest  thy 
good  Spirit  to  instruct  them,"  through  Moses,  "and  thou  testifiedst 
against  them  by  thy  Spirit,  in  thy  prophets,  yet  would  they  not  give 
ear."  Thus,  in  the  Divine  Word,  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God,  and 
those  who  spoke  it  by  the  immediate  authority  of  God,  are  so  perfectly 
identified,  that  every  thing  that  is  said  to  be  done  by,  to,  for,  or  against 
the  one  is  said  to  be  done  to,  by,  for,  or  against  the  other.  So  that  we 
may  still  say,  that  those  who  hear  not  Moses  nor  the  prophets,  would  not 
be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead !  God  still  strives  with 
men  by  his  Spirit,  and  they  still  resist  his  Spirit,  in  and  through  the 
Word  spoken  by  prophets  and  apostles.  "  Let  every  one  hear  what 
the  Spirit  saith  to  the  churches^ 

Xni.  My  thirteenth  argument  consists  in  that  most  sublime  and  im- 
pressive fact,  that  God  no  where  has  operated  without  his  Word,  either 
in  the  old  creation  or  in  the  new.  In  nature  and  in  grace,  God  operates 
not  without  his  Word.  He  never  has  ivrought  ivithout  means.  He 
has,  so  far  as  earth's  annals  reach,  and  as  the  rolls  of  eternity  have  been 
opened  to  our  view,  never  done  any  thing  without  an  instrumentality. 
The  naked  Spirit  of  God  never  has  operated  upon  the  naked  spirit  of 
man,  so  far  as  all  science,  all  revelation  teach.  Abstract  spiritual  opera- 
tions is  a  pure  metaphysical  dream.  There  is  nothing  to  favor  such  a 
conceit  in  nature,  providence  or  grace.  God  broke  the  awful  stillness  of 
eternity  with  his  own  creative  voice.  He  spoke,  before  any  thing  was 
done.  Speech,  or  language,  or  a  word,  is  the  original  and  sublime  in- 
strumentality of  all  divine  operations.  God  said,  Let  there  be  light, 
and  light  was  botn.  Does  not  the  Bible  say,  "  By  faith  we  understand 
that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  Word  of  God,''''  so  that  the  things 
that  were  made,  were  not  made  of  things  that  did  formerly  exist.  They 
were  made  out  of  the  Word  of  God.  All  things  having  been  created  by 
the  Word  of  God.  Most  evident  it  is,  that  his  Word  is  the  all  creative 
instrument.  Without  it  was  not  any  thing  made  that  now  exists.  Of 
course,  then,  if  persons  were  to  be  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,  without 
the  Word  of  God,  it  would  be  a  perfect  anomaly,  something  wholly  new 
in  the  history  of  the  universe.  If  God  operated  upon  absolute  nonentity, 
and  then  upon  inert  matter,  by  his  Word,  and  if  his  Spirit  thus  brooded 
on  old  chaos,  what  tongue  of  man  can  prove  that  in  the  new  creation,  he 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  751 

regenerates,  renews,  re-creates  and  sanctifies  man  without  his  Word  ! !  It 
never  can  be  done,  Mr.  President.  It  is  not  only  out  of  the  power  of 
Mr.  Rice,  but  every  other  living  man  to  show,  that  God  moves  at  all  in 
the  affairs  of  redemption,  but  through  his  Word.  God's  Spirit  and  Word 
operated  conjointly  on  ancient  chaos,  and  they  still  operate  together  on 
the  chaos  of  the  human  heart  in  its  sins.  Read  Psalm  xxix.  3 — 9  ; 
Psalm  xxxiii.  6 — 9.     So  my  fourteenth  argument  details. 

I  am  sorry  that  my  time  is  always  too  short  for  the  full  development 
of  the  great  elements  of  things,  and  mighty  evidences  of  truth  found  in 
these  propositions.  I  have  arranged,  however,  such  amount  of  facts  and 
evidences  as,  I  humbly  think,  never  can  be  set  aside  by  the  ingenuity  of 
mortal  man.  I  am  willing  to  commit  these  fourteen  arguments  to  the 
world,  fearless  of  the  consequences.  I  think  the  case  is  a  clear  one,  and 
one  upon  which  we  may  say  we  have  line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon 
precept.     We  have  certainly  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

In  conclusion,  then,  I  must  say,  that  we  have  been  much  reproached 
and  slandered  on  this  theme.  It  is  not  from  any  aversion  to  preaching 
the  Holy  Spirit,  (for  we  do  efficaciously  preach  it,)  that  I  have  been  con- 
strained to  take  this  gi-ound,  so  off'ensive  to  some,  and  which  has  been 
made,  in  many  instances,  to  retard  the  great  and  growing  cause  of  reform- 
ation which  we  plead.  I  believe  and  teach  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit, 
the  influences  and  eff"ects  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  all  chris- 
tians, men  and  women.  The  man  who  represents  me  as  opposed  to  a 
spiritual  religion  and  to  the  operations,  converting  and  sanctifying,  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  does  me  the  highest  injustice,  and  blasphemes  my  good 
name  in  a  way  he  must  answer  for  to  a  higher  tribunal.  I  have  been 
long  endeavoring  to  draw  the  proper  lines  between  a  wild  enthusiasm  and 
the  true  Spirit  of  our  God — between  what  is  spiritual  and  animal  in  some 
of  the  present  forms  of  Christianity ;  and  to  save  my  contemporaries  from 
a  religion  of  blind  impulses,  animal  excitements,  and  new  revelations,  by 
which  I  most  sincerely  believe  vast  multitudes  are  deluded  to  everlasting 
ruin.  With  Paul,  and  Avith  me,  there  is  but  one  body  and  but  one  Spirit, 
as  there  is  but  one  hope  of  our  calling — as  there  is  but  one  God  and 
Father  of  us  all. — [Time  expired. 

Wednesday,  Nov.  29 — U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  closing  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  see  not  what  advantage  the  gentleman  expects  to 
gain  by  attempting  to  blacken  the  character  of  Calvin — a  man  who  was 
a  blessing  to  the  world,  and  who  has  long  since  gone  to  his  rest.  He 
says,  I  have  not  a  correct  translation  of  Calvin's  Institutes.  I  have  one 
of  the  very  best  that  has  been  made.  But  there  are  present  in  this  large 
audience  many  scholars,  who  understand  the  Latin  language.  I  was 
waiting  to  hear  him  read  to  us  the  original.  He  certainly  cannot  expect 
us  to  take  his  bare  assertion  in  matters  of  this  kind. 

He  emphasized  the  expression  horrible  decree.  Yet  I  presume,  he 
Knows  perfectly  well,  that  the  Latin  word  horribilis  is  not  precisely  sy- 
nonymous with  the  English  word  horrible,  derived  from  it.  Calvin  used 
it  in  the  sense  of  awful.  But,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  if  Mr.  C.'s 
interpretation  of  Calvin  were  correct,  it  would  prove,  not  that  he  held 
that  some  infants  are  lost,  but  that  all  nations,  infants  and  adults,  believers 
and  unbelievers,  perish  without  remedy  ;  for  he  includes  them  all !  Yet 
every  one  knows,  that  he  held  no  such  doctrine.    I  will  read  from  Calvin 


752  DEBATE  ON  THE 

one  passage  which  may  throw  some  light  on  this  subject.  It  is  m  the 
chapter  on  baptism. 

"  Tiie  mischievous  consequences  of  that  ill-stated  notion,  that  baptism  is 
necessary  to  salvation,  are  overlooked  by  persons  in  general,  and  therefore 
they  are  less  cautious ;  for  the  reception  of  an  opinion,  that  all  who  happen 
to  die  without  baptism  are  lost,  makes  our  condition  worse  than  that  of  the 
ancient  people,  as  tiiough  the  grace  of  God  were  more  restricted  now  than 
it  was  under  the  law;  it  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  Christ  came  not  to 
fulfill  the  promises,  but  to  abolish  them;  since  the  promise  which,  at  that 
time,  was  of  itself  sufficiently  efficacious  to  insure  salvation  before  the 
eighth  day,  would  have  no  validity  now  without  the  assistance  of  the  sign." 
— book  iv.  chap.  xv.  sec.  20. 

Calvin  here  contends,  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  lay-men  to  baptize  a 
child  that  is  likely  to  die  ;  because  its  salvation  is  secure  without  baptism. 
He  never  taught  the  doctrine  the  gentleman  has  charged  upon  him.  The 
charge  has  been  often  made,  but,  I  believe,  never  proved.  If  any  passage 
can  be  found  in  his  works  that  does  teach  the  doctrine,  I  wish  to  see  it 
produced. 

Mr.  C.  still  vainly  strives  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  for  a  spe- 
cial divine  influence,  founded  on  the  fact,  that  God  is  said  to  grant  or  give 
repentance.  He  says,  God  granted  repentance,  not  to  individuals,  but  to 
the  ivhole  gentile  world!  The  Bible  does  not  say  so.  Peter  had  related 
to  his  brethren  at  Jerusalem  the  conversion  of  the  family  of  Cornelius,  a 
single  gentile  family.  When  they  heard  the  history  of  this  interesting 
event,  "  they  glorified  God,  saying,  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  gentiles 
granted  repentance  unto  life;"  Acts  xi.  18.  Did  they  say,  God  hath 
granted  to  the  gentiles  the  privilege  of  repenting?  Had  they  not  always 
this  privilege?  Was  it  ever  refused  to  them  ?  Was  it  not  always  their 
duty  to  repent  ?  But  the  language  of  Paul  to  Timothy  places  the  matter 
beyond  cavil  or  objection — "  In  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose 
themselves;  if  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance  to  the  ac- 
knowledging of  the  truth;"  2  Tim.  ii.  25.  The  gentleman  says,  God 
had  given  repentance  to  the  whole  gentile  world ;  but  Paul  directs  Tim- 
othy in  meekness  to  instruct  a  certain  class  of  wicked  persons,  if  perad- 
venture God  ivill  grant  them  repentance  ;  so  that  they  will  acknowledge 
the  truth.  It  is  worse  than  vain  to  attempt  to  destroy  the  force  of  lan- 
guage so  perfectly  clear. 

One  of  my  most  conclusive  arguments  against  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine,  is — 
that  it  makes  prayer  for  unconverted  persons,  as  well  as  for  the  sanctiii- 
cation  of  believers,  both  unavailing  and  improper.  To  prove  that  this 
insurmountable  difficulty  had  occurred  to  his  own  friends,  as  well  as  to  me, 
I  read  a  letter  from  a  member  of  his  church,  published  in  the  Harbinger. 
How  does  he  answer  it?  Why,  he  says,  I  ought  to  have  read  his  an- 
swer to  the  letter.  It  would  have  required  rather  more  time  than  I  have 
to  spare  ;  for  of  all  men  he  excels  in  going  round  and  round  a  difficulty 
which  he  feels  himself  incapable  of  meeting.  Besides,  it  is  my  business 
to  present  arguments  against  his  doctrine,  and  his  to  answer  them.  But 
he  would  have  you  believe,  that  when  I  present  an  argument  against  his 
views,  I  am  bound,  if  he  have  written  anything  on  the  subject,  to  read 
his  answer  ! ! !     This  is  truly  a  singular  demand. 

I  repeat  the  argument.  If  his  doctrine  be  true,  there  is  absolutely  no 
propriety  in  praying.  Why  should  we,  and  how  can  we,  pray  for  bless- 
ings, which  we  verily  believe,  God  will  never  grant  ?  He  says,  he  prays 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners.     When  he  enters  the  pulpit,  he  stands  be- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  753 

fore  the  congregation,  and  prays  that  God  will  convert  the  unbelievinff 
portion  of  it;  and  then  he  opens  the  Bible,  and  tells  them,  that  God  wiu 
not  convert  them — that  the  Spirit  has  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word, 
and  they  must  be  converted  and  sanctified  by  it,  or  be  lost !  !  !  If  his 
doctrine  be  true,  what  are  his  prayers  worth  ?  But  he  says,  he  prays  for 
the  conversion  of  sinners.  It  is  a  happy  thing  when,  as  it  sometimes 
happens,  a  man's  heart  keeps  in  the  path  of  duty,  when  his  head  would 
lead  him  from  it.  The  better  feelings  of  the  heart  do  not  always  yield 
to  the  frigid  speculations  of  the  head.  I  am  happy  to  hear,  that  he  still 
prays  that  God  would  convert  sinners,  even  though  he  tells  them  he  will 
not  do  it ! 

I  wish  now  to  notice  the  list  of  some  eight  arguments,  on  which  the 
gentleman  has  principally  relied,  to  prove  that  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  truth. 

1.  The  first  was  from  the  nature  of  the  human  mind — an  argument 
purely  metaphysical.  But  that  God  can,  and  does,  exert  a  moral  influ- 
ence on  the  mind,  distinct  from  words  and  arguments,  was  proved  by  the 
facts,  that  he  created  man  upright,  and  that  in  protecting  his  church  and 
people,  the  Bible  teaches  us,  that  he  has  exerted  a  controling  influence 
over  the  moral  conduct  of  wicked  men,  not  by  words  and  arguments. 

2.  His  second  argument  was,  that  there  are  no  spiritual  ideas  where  the 
Word  of  God  is  not  possessed.  This  assertion  he  cannot  prove.  I  have 
no  objection,  however,  to  admitting  it;  for  the  design  of  regeneration  is 
not  to  make  a  new  revelation,  but  to  change  the  heart,  and  cause  the  sin- 
ner to  understand  and  embrace  the  truths  of  the  Bible.  This  argument, 
therefore,  is  worthless.  It  bears  not  upon  the  doctrine  for  which  I  con- 
tend. 

3.  Again,  he  argues,  that  whatever  is  necessary  to  regeneration  in  one 
case,  is  necessary  in  all  cases ;  and,  consequently,  if  the  Word  be  neces- 
sary at  all,  regeneration  cannot  occur  without  it,  in  any  case.  But  the 
Bible  says  no  such  thing.  God  has  never  said,  that  he  will  employ  the 
same  instrumentality  in  all  cases.  Sometimes,  as  I  have  proved,  the  liv- 
ing ministry  is  employed  in  converting  men  ;  and,  at  other  times,  it  is  not. 
This  bold  assertion,  therefore,  is  without  proof,  and  is  contrary  to  fact. 

4.  His  next  argument  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  an  .Advocate. 
But  does  this  name  prove,  that  the  Spirit,  in  converting  and  sanctifying 
men,  employs  no  other  influence,  than  that  of  words  and  arguments  ? 
Most  certainly  it  does  not. 

5.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  tells  us,  the  first  miraculous  gift  was 
that  of  tongues  or  languages  ;  and  the  Spirit  did  employ  words.  Does 
the  fact,  that  God  ordinarily  employs  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth  in 
converting  men,  prove  that  he  always  employs  it — or,  that  he  does  not 
exert  any  other  influence  on  their  minds?  Certainly  it  does  not.  These 
assertions,  founded  on  such  facts,  are  not  worth  a  straw.  The  premises 
and  the  conclusion  are  the  poles  apart. 

6.  His  next  argument  is,  that  believers  are  said  to  have  been  begotten 
by  the  Word.  But  God  is  said  to  beget  them.  So  then,  God  is  the  agent, 
and  the  Word  the  instrument.  Does  this  prove,  that  he  exerts  no  other 
influence  but  that  of  the  Word  ?  The  conclusion  follows  not  from  the  pre- 
mises. The  expression,  "  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith,"  it  would  not 
be  difficult  to  prove,  militates  not  against  the  doctrine  of  special  divine  in- 
fluence. 

7.  Naked  Spirit,  he  asserts,  never  operates  on  naked  spirit.     This  is 

48 


"^^  DEBATE  ON  THE 

mere  assertion.  How  can  the  gentleman  prove  it  true  ?  Does  he  know 
how  one  spirit  influences  another?  Can  he  inform  us  how  Satan  can 
tempt  men  ?  Does  he  understand  it  ?  What  are  such  unproved  assertions 
worth  ? 

But  he  says,  he  does  not  pretend  to  know  how  the  Spirit  operates.  He 
has  tried  to  tell  us  both  how  he  can,  and  how  he  cannot  operate.  1  will 
not  misrepresent  him.  I  will,  therefore,  keep  his  language  before  your 
minds.    Let  me  once  more  read  from  his  Christianity  Restored,  (p.  350) : 

"  But  to  return.  As  the  spirit  of  man  puts  forth  all  its  moral  povser,  in 
the  words  which  it  Jills  with  its  ideas ;  so  the  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its 
converting  and  sanctifying  power,  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with  its  ideas. 
Miracles  cannot  convert.  They  can  only  obtain  a  favorable  hearing  of  the 
converting  arguments.  If  they  fail  to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing,  the  argu- 
ments which  they  prove  are  impotent  as  an  unknown  tongue.  If  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  spoken  all  its  arguments ;  pr,  if  the  New  and  Old  Testament 
contain  all  the  arguments  which  can  be  offered  to  reconcile  man  to  God, 
and  to  purify  them  who  are  reconciled  ;  then  all  the  poiver  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  can  operate,  upon  the  human  mind  is  spent,  and  he  that  is  not  sanc- 
tified and  saved  by  these,  cannot  be  saved  by  angels  or  spirits,  human  or 
divine." 

The  gentleman  could  not  have  employed  language  more  clear  and  defi- 
nite. He  puts  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  regard  to  conversion  and  sanctification, 
on  a  perfect  equality  with  man,  except  so  far  as  he  may  present  more 
powerful  motives  than  man.  In  the  most  definite  terms,  he  denies  any 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  other  than  that  of  his  words  and  arguments.  I 
hold,  that  the  Word  is  ordinarily  used,  but  not  always  ;  and  that  Avhen  it 
is  used,  there  is  also  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  it,  renewing 
the  heart,  and  inclining  the  sinner  to  receive  the  truth  in  the  love  of  it. 

In  reply  to  my  argument  from  the  conversions  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
Mr.  C.  says,  those  persons  were  converted,  not  without  the  Word.  But 
did  he  prove  that  the  three  thousand  were  converted  simply  by  the  Word  ? 
He  did  not,  and  he  cannot.  The  apostles  gave  themselves  not  only  to 
preaching,  but  to  prayer,  Acts  vi.  4.  Why  did  they  pray?  Because 
they  knew  that  the  Word  alone  could  not  convert  men.  They  therefore 
prayed  for  the  efficacious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  very  fact, 
that  they  connected  prayer  with  preaching,  proves  conclusively  that  they 
believed  the  special  and  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit  necessary.  The 
argument  is  conclusive. 

But  suppose  I  should  admit,  that  the  Spirit  operates  on  adults,  only 
through  the  truth ;  would  it  I'bllow,  that  the  same  is  true  of  infants  ?  I 
can  easily  prove,  that  adults  are  saved  by  faith,  never  without  it ;  but  does 
it  follow  that  infants  must  believe,  or  be  damned  ?  According  to  the  gen- 
tleman's logic  it  would  ;  for  he  contends,  that  whatever  is  essential  in  one 
case,  is  essential  in  all  cases.  Neither  reason  nor  Scripture  will  permit 
us  to  assume  the  principle,  that  Avhat  is  said  of  adults  is  applicable  to  in- 
fants. Mr.  C.  denies  that  infants  are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit.  So  he 
leaves  them  to  die  in  sin  and  be  lost. 

I  will  now  resume  the  recapitulation  of  my  argument.  The  necessity 
of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  on  the  hearts  of  men,  I  have  said,  arises  sim- 
ply from  their  deep  depravity.  I  have  proved  by  a  large  number  of  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  that  man  by  nature  is  destitute  of  holiness,  and  in- 
clined only  to  sin  ;  that  he  is  born  of  the  flesh  and  is  carnal ;  that  his 
thoughts  are  evil  from  his  youth ;  that  he  is  conceived  in  sin,  and  goes 
astray  from  his  very  birth ;  that  his  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  755 

desperately  wicked,  &c.  &;c.  I  have  also  stated  and  proved  the  fact,  that 
whatever  is  truly  good  in  any  man,  is  in  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  a 
radical  change  wrought  in  his  heart  by  God.  This  most  important  fact, 
Mr.  C.  has  not  denied.  Man  being  thus  totally  depraved,  estranged  from 
God,  I  have  proved,  that  he  never  will,  and  never  can  love  God,  until  he 
shall  have  experienced  a  radical  moral  renovation — a  change  which  can- 
not be  effected  simply  by  the  Word  of  God. 

I  have  offered  several  arguments  against  the  doctrine  taught  by  Mr.  C, 
and  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  influence  in  conversion 
and  sanctification. 

I.  My  first  argument  against  his  doctrine  was — that  it  prescribes  to  the 
power  of  God  over  the  human  mind,  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural 
limitation.  This  I  proved  by  two  plain  facts,  viz:  1st.  God  made  man 
holy,  upright,  without  words  or  arguments.  In  what  manner  he  did  it, 
we  know  not ;  but  most  certainly  the  fact  that  such  a  power  was  exerted, 
proves  that  God  can  sanctify  the  soul  either  through  the  truth,  or  without 
it.  2d.  I  proved  by  several  passages  of  Scripture,  that  he  claims  and 
has  exercised  a  controling  influence  over  the  moral  conduct  of  men  by  an 
influence  more  powerful  than  mere  motives.  And  if  he  can  consistently 
control  their  moral  feelings  and  conduct  at  all,  without  argument  and  mo- 
tive ;  can  he  not  exert  such  an  influence  asw  ill  lead  them  to  Christ  ?  To 
this  argument  Mr.  C,  has  attempted  no  reply. 

II.  My  second  argument  was — that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  necessarily 
involves  the  damnation  of  infants  and  idiots.  He  admits  that  they  are 
depraved,  that  they  "  inherit  a  sinful  nature,"  that  they  are  "  greatly 
fallen  and  depraved  in  their  whole  moral  constitution."  This  being  true, 
one  of  three  consequences  must  follow,  viz  :  1st.  they  go  to  hell ;  or,  2d, 
they  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity  ;  or,  3rd.  thej^  are  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit,  without  the  Word.  He  will  not  say,  they  go  to  hell ;  nor  will  he 
pretend  that  they  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity.  The  conclusion  is, 
therefore,  inevitable,  that  they  are  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  without  the 
Word.  This  is  our  doctrine  ;  and  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Our 
Savior  taught  that  all  must  be  born  again,  because  "  that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh" — is  carnal;  and  therefore  it  must  be  born  of  the 
Spirit.  You  have  seen  how  the  gentleman  writhed  under  this  argument, 
and  to  what  absurdities  and  contradictions  he  has  been  driven  to  evade  its 
force.  I  leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine  whether  it  is  more  accord- 
ant with  reason  and  Scripture,  that  infants  should  be  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  without  the  truth,  or  that  they  should  be  for  ever  lost. 

III.  My  third  argument  was — that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  contradicts  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  concerning  the  depravity  of  man.  They  teach 
that  men  sin  knowingly,  willfully  and  deliberately  ;  that  their  hearts  are 
fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil.  According  to  his  doctrine,  they  sin  only 
through  mistake  or  error ;  and  all  that  is  necessary  to  convert  them,  is  to 
give  them  correct  information.  To  this  argument  he  has  not  even  at- 
tempted to  reply.     He  has  said  not  one  word  concerning  it — not  a  word. 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  was,  that  a  large  number  of  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture directly  and  most  clearly  teach,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification, 
the  Spirit  of  God  exerts  an  influence  powerful  and  efficacious,  in  addition 
to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  "  I  will  give  them  one  heart  and  one 
way,  that  they  may  fear  me  forever,  for  the  good  of  them  and  their  child- 
ren after  them,"  Jer.  xxxii.  39.  Does  this  language  mean  that  God  would 
reason  with  them  ?    No.    The  time  was  coming,  when  he  would  take  the 


75&  DEBATE  ON  THE 

work  into  his  own  hands ;  and  then  his  people  would  have  one  heart  and 
one  way.  Again,  "  I  will  pour  out  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and 
floods  upon  the  dry  ground  :  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my 
blessing  upon  thine  offspring ;  and  they  shall  spring  up  as  among  the 
grass,  as  willows  by  the  water-courses,"  Isaiah  xliv.  3.  Such  are  the 
blessed  results,  when  the  Spirit  of  God  moves  upon  the  hearts  of  men. 
Again,  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I 
will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,"  &c. 
Ezekiel  xxxvi.  26.  I  need  not  repeat  other  passages,  quoted  from  the 
Old  Testament.  To  the  most  of  them,  the  gentleman  has  attempted  no 
reply. 

In  the  New  Testament,  we  find  declarations  equally  strong  in  proof  of 
our  doctrine.  Thus  in  Eph.  ii.  10,  Paul  says,  "  We  are  his  workmanship, 
created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained, 
that  we  should  walk  in  them."  I  endeavored  to  prevail  on  the  gentleman 
to  notice  this  text,  but  could  not  succeed.  The  word  create  is  the  strong- 
est word  in  any  language ;  and  the  apostle  uses  it  without  qualification,  to 
express  that  change  which  is  wrought  in  man  by  the  Spirit,  and  which  re- 
sults in  his  doing  good  works. 

Again,  in  the  same  chapter,  the  apostle  represents  man  as  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  in  sins,  and  as  being  quickened  by  the  power  of  God.  Was 
a  dead  man  ever  made  alive  by  words  or  arguments  ?  Jesus  stood  at  the 
grave  of  Lazarus  and  said,  "  Lazarus,  come  forth ;"  but  at  that  moment 
he  exerted  an  almighty  power  to  quicken  him.  So  when  God  speaks  to 
tlie  sinner,  who  is  spiritually  dead,  his  Spirit  breathes  into  his  soul  spir- 
itual life — exerts  an  influence  which  causes  him  to  embrace  Christ  as  his 
Savior,  and  rejoice  in  his  service. 

In  the  epistle  to  Titus,  the  aposUe  says,  God  saves  us  "  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ,"  chap.  iii.  5.  And  I  have  proved,  that 
in  every  instance  where  the  expressions  "  poured  out,"  "  shed  upon,"  &c. 
occur,  an  immediate  divine  influence,  distinct  from  the  Word,  is  intended. 
When  the  Spirit /c//  upon  Cornelius  and  his  family,  Mr.  C.  admits  there 
was  an  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit,  entirely  distinct  from  the  Word ; 
but  when  the  same  kind  of  expression  is  used  concerning  conversion  and 
sanctification,  he  denies  that  any  special  and  distinct  agency  is  intended  ! 

These  and  a  number  of  other  passages  I  have  read,  to  most  of  which 
no  answer  has  been  attempted,  prove  conclusively,  that  in  conversion  and 
sanctification  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit,  distinct  from  the  Word,  re- 
newing the  heart  and  inclining  it  to  the  service  of  God.  Most  certainly 
such  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  these  scriptures ;  and  they  will  bear  no 
other  interpretation. 

V.  My  fifth  argument  was,  that  God  is  represented  as  giving  repentance 
unto  life — as  granting  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth. 
Faith,  too,  is  declared  to  be  the  effect  of  regeneration.  "  Whosoever  be- 
lieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God:"  1  John  v.  1.  So  in 
1  Cor.  iii.  5,  Paul  says,  "  Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but 
ministers  by  whom  ye  believe,  even  as  God  gave  to  every  man,'"  This 
passage  I  could  not  possibly  induce  Mr.  Campbell  to  see  !  There  are  ma- 
ny others  that  teach  most  clearly,  that  repentance,  faith,  and  every  grace, 
are  the  result  of  a  change  of  heart,  of  which  God  is  the  author — all  of 
which  establish  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  757 

VI.  My  sixth  argument  was,  that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  makes  prayer 
for  the  unconverted,  and  even  for  the  sanctification  of  believers,  wholly 
useless  and  improper.  Why  should  we  ask  God  to  convert  men,  and  then 
preach  to  them,  that  he  never  purposed  to  convert  any  man,  woman  or 
child,  by  any  other  influence  than  that  of  arguments,  presented  before  their 
minds  ?  Some  of  the  followers  of  the  gentleman  are  quite  consistent.  I 
have  observed,  that  in  their  public  prayers,  they  rarely  ever  ask  God  to 
convert  sinners.  If  I  believed  as  they  do,  I  might  reason  with  men  ;  but 
1  should  never  think  of  praying  to  God,  to  cause  them  to  turn  and  live. 
And  why  pray  at  all  ? — for  Mr.  C.  teaches,  that  both  conversion  and  sanc- 
tification are  to  be  obtained  by  reading  or  hearing  the  Word,  and  by  this 
only.  If  Paul  believed  this  doctrine,  why  did  he  pray  for  the  Ephesian 
christians,  that  they  might  be  "  strengthened  with  might  in  the  inner  man 
by  his  Spirit  ?"  Paul  believed  in  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit,  and 
therefore  prayed.  This  doctrine  has  been,  and  still  is,  the  consolation  of 
thousands  of  the  followers  of  Christ,  who  regard  it  as  one  of  their  highest 
privileges,  to  pray  for  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  dear  friends,  who 
are  far  away,  or  whose  hearts  are  callous  to  the  appeals  of  divine  truth. 

VII.  My  seventh  argument  was — that  the  conversions  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  and  afterwards,  prove  a  divine  influence  distinct  from  the 
Word.  On  that  memorable  day  three  thousand  souls  were  suddenly  con- 
verted to  God.  With  repentance  for  their  sins  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
they  entered  his  church,  and,  to  the  day  of  their  death,  delighted  in  his 
service.  Arguments  and  motives  never  produced  in  the  minds  of  men  such 
a  revolution  in  an  hour.  "  It  was  the  Lord's  work,  and  marvellous  in  our 
eyes."  Thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  have  since  experienced  the 
same  happy  change.  And  even  in  these  last  days  we  are  permitted  to 
witness  the  fulfillment  of  God's  promise  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all  flesh. 
We  often  see  a  general  religious  interest  gradually  pervading  a  town  or 
neighborhood,  where  no  extraordinary  eff'orts  have  been  made  to  arrest 
the  attention  of  the  people.  Christians  become  more  prayerful.  The 
unconverted  pause  and  consider.  They  go  to  the  house  of  God  which 
they  had  seldom  entered,  and  hear  with  fixed  attention  the  melting  ap- 
peals of  divine  truth.  The  solemnity  increases.  The  most  careless  be- 
come thoughtful.  The  proud  are  humbled.  The  most  hopeless  are 
reclaimed.  They  come  "  as  clouds  and  as  doves  to  their  windows." 
Many  are  added  to  the  church  of  God,  and  continue  to  adorn  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  by  a  godly  life.  Who  can  believe,  that  results  like  these 
are  the  effect  of  mere  argument  and  motive  ?  No — it  is  the  Lord's  work. 
His  Spirit  is  poured  out  as  showers  on  the  thirsty  ground. 

VIII.  My  last  argument  is — that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  all  the 
readers  of  the  Bible,  in  all  ages,  have  understood  it  to  teach  the  doctrine 
for  which  I  contend.  From  Methodists,  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  and 
others,  we  diff'er  in  some  things  ;  but  we  meet  at  the  cross  of  Christ.  We 
hold  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  order  to  effect  the  conversion  and 
sanctification  of  men.  We  can  bow  together  around  the  mercy-seat,  and 
unitedly  pray  to  God,  that  his  Word  may  run  and  be  glorified — that 
men  may  be  convinced  and  converted,  and  that  believers  may  be  sanc- 
tified. 

Indeed  so  clearly  is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  that  few 
have  been  found  to  deny  it.  Is  the  Bible  a  plain  book?  My  friend  ad- 
mits that  it  is ;  and  if  it  is,  he  is  certainly  in  error ;  for  the  overwhelming 

3S 


758         DEBATE  ON  THE  INFLUENCE,  ETC. 

mass  of  the  wise  and  the  good  are  against  him.  If  his  doctrine  be  true, 
we  must  conchide,  that  the  Bible  is  one  of  the  most  obscure  books  ever 
written;  for  few  indeed  have  been  able  to  understand  it  on  this  vital 
point. 

But  I  must  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close.  I  do  rejoice  and  bless  God, 
that  in  the  defence  of  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity,  I  am  sus- 
tained by  so  large  a  portion  of  those  who  profess  to  take  the  Bible  as  their 
only  infallible  guide.  On  this  hallowed  ground  we  meet,  sensible  of  our 
need  of  divine  aid  in  our  preparation  for  heaven,  and  confident  that  in 
answer  to  our  united  prayers,  he  who  began  the  good  work  in  us, 
will  perform  it  unto  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Here,  too,  we  find  our  encouragement  to  go  forth  and  preach  the 
gospel  which  is  "not  after  man."  If  I  believed  that  no  other  influence 
but  that  of  words  and  arguments  would  be  exerted  on  the  minds  of 
men,  I  should  have  no  heart  to  preach  another  sermon.  I  possess  no 
eloquence  that  can  melt  the  hardened  hearts  of  men  ;  no  power  to  open 
their  eyes  and  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of 
Satan  to  God.  My  encouragement  to  preach  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ  is  found  in  the  promise — that  God  will  pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all 
flesh,  and  will  cause  the  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  to  be  glad,  and 
the  desert  to  bud  and  blossom  as  the  rose. 

Convince  me,  that  no  such  agency  is  promised,  and  I  will  weep  for  my- 
self and  for  my  race.  There  is  no  hope  for  man  if  this  doctrine  be  not 
true.  He  is  not,  and  never  will  be,  pure  enough  to  see  God.  Let  me  ex- 
hort those  who  have  been  induced  to  reject  it,  to  a  careful  re-examination 
of  the  whole  subject.  If  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  pious  readers  of 
tho  Bible  were  against  me  on  a  point  so  vital,  I  would  examine  again  and 
again.  I  should  greatly  fear,  that  I  had  fatally  erred,  and  that,  depending 
on  my  own  efforts  with  only  motives  before  me,  I  should  fail  of  prepara- 
tion for  heaven. 

May  God,  in  his  infinite  mercy,  guide  you  and  me  into  the  knowledge 
of  all  truth ;  and  may  we  be  sanctified  and  fitted  for  the  enjoyments  of 
heaven  by  his  Holy  Spirit. — [_Ti7ne  expired. 


Qend  of  the  fifth  proposition.]) 


PROPOSITION   SIXTH. 

Human  Creeds,  as  Bonds  of  Union  and  Communion,  are 
necessarily  Heretical  and  Schismatical.  Mr.  Campbell  af- 
firms.    Mr.  Rice  denies. 

Thursday,  Nov.  30—10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
j^MR.  Campbell's  opening  address.] 

Mr.  President — Modern  Christianity,  like  astronomy,  geology,  or 
geography,  has  its  technical  terms  and  definitions.  So  had  ancient,  and 
so  had  primitive  Christianity ;  for  between  primitive  and  ancient  and  mod- 
ern Christianity  there  are  as  well  defined  lines  and  bounderies  as  between 
Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio.  The  primitive  christians  had  one,  and  but 
one  faith,  written  out  for  them  by  apostles  and  prophets :  we  have  it  in 
one  volume,  usually  called  the  New  Testament.  The  ancients,  in  some 
three  or  four  centuries,  set  on  foot  several  creed  manufactories,  called 
synods  and  councils,  ecumenical  and  particular. 

Three  of  their  choicest  productions  have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time, 
and  are  still  extant  under  the  names  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene, 
and  the  Athanasian.  The  first  and  the  last  of  these,  all  the  world  now 
admits  are  not  the  works  of  the  names  they  bear.  They  are  religious 
impositions  practiced  upon  the  credulity  of  less  favored  ages  than  the 
present.  Still  they  indicate  fewer  aberrations  from  the  Scriptures  of 
truth,  than  those  modern  affairs,  excogitated  and  fashioned  at  Trent,  at 
Augsburgh,  at  Dort,  and  at  Westminster. 

Between  those  last  mentioned  and  the  first,  there  is  as  great  a  differ- 
ence as  there  is  between  the  artificial  grandeur  of  imperial  Rome,  at  the 
zenith  of  her  glory,  and  that  Rome  that  Romulus  built.  And  between 
the  Nicene  formula  of  faith  and  the  gospel  according  to  Matthew  or  John, 
there  is  such  a  diflierence  as  usually  appears  between  a  young  man,  in  the 
very  prime  and  vigor  of  youth,  and  one  of  our  finest  Parisian  anatomical 
preparations. 

Creeds  bear  the  impress  and  character  of  their  natal  age,  as  does  the 
human  face  bear  upon  its  lines  and  shades  the  years  it  has  seen  and  felt. 
They  are  exponents  of  the  christian  improvement  and  civilization  of 
their  respective  eras.  The  Apostles'  creed,  or  that  of  Nice,  or  that  attri- 
buted to  Athanasius,  would  be  as  much  in  good  keeping  with  this  our 
day,  as  a  continental  almanac,  published  by  Ben  Franklin  in  the  days  of 
Peter  Porcupine,  would  suit  the  present  year  of  grace,  at  the  meridian 
of  Lexington. 

In  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  was  something  called  "  the  faith,'''' 
♦•  the  form  of  sound  words,"  "  the  truth,"  "  the  gospel,"  which  was  to  them 
something  more  than  our  summaries,  called  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith. 

These  summaries  were  first  called  symbols,  and  afterwards  creeds. 
The  former  term  is  of  Grecian,  the  latter  of  Roman  origin  and  authority. 
The  Greek,  sumbolon,  properly  signifies  a  mark,  note,  or  sign.  It  was 
used  by  some  Greeks  to  denote  a  military  sign.     So  Herodian  uses  it. 

759 


760  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

St.  Cyprian  is  the  first  that  used  the  term  to  indicate  an  epitome  or 
abridgment  of  the  christian  faith — and  was  sometimes  understood  to 
mean,  the  distinguishing  mark  and  character  of  a  christian.  The  confes- 
sion made  at  baptism  was  called  the  symbol  of  the  candidate.  This, 
probably,  was  the  origin  of  the  ecclesiastic  use  of  the  word.  They 
were,  according  to  some,  called  symbols  because  the  makers  of  them  acted 
in  councils  and  synods,  and  each  one  threw  in  some  article  or  articles,  and 
the  whole  collection  of  these  several  offerings  was  called,  etymologically, 
a  symbol.  So  our  most  learned  ecclesiastics  understand  the  matter.  Du- 
pin,  vol.  i.  p.  37,  Dublin  Ed.  A.  D.  1723. 

In  the  third  century,  it  is  said,  there  were  as  many  symbols  as  authors. 
I  find  them  in  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian,  &c.,  confined,  indeed, 
to  about  the  same  number  of  articles,  and  generally  to  some  of  the  same 
topics  found  in  the  apostles'  creed :  none  of  them,  however,  propounded 
as  a  term  of  communion  ;  none  of  them  made  either  the  covenant  or  con- 
stitution of  any  particular  church,  much  less  of  the  churches  in  particular 
districts.  On  the  whole,  then,  we  remark  that  synods  and  symbols  are 
Greek,  councils  and  creeds  are  Roman.  The  antiquity  of  the  oldest 
creed  now  extant  is  no  more  than  Papal ;  and  its  catholicity  lies  between 
tlie  Vandals  and  the  Sicilians,  between  the  Euxine  and  the  western 
ocean.  A  Grecian  symbol  had  some  truth  and  some  philosophy  on  its 
side  ;  but  a  Roman  creed  had  neither.  The  reasons  are,  the  Greek  sym- 
bol was  a  compound  of  christian  truths,  a  summary  or  synopsis  of 
prominent  facts,  of  Avhich  the  document  called  the  apostles'  creed  is  a 
fair  specimen.  But  the  Roman  creeds,  like  those  of  Trent,  Augsburgh, 
and  Westminster,  are  not  portraitures  of  ancient  truths  or  facts,  so  much 
as  records  of  modern  opinions  and  inferences  concerning  them.  There 
was  some  use  for  a  heart,  as  well  as  a  head,  on  the  part  of  those  who  ap- 
proved the  symbols :  but  the  moderns  have  no  use  for  the  heart,  having 
imposed  all  the  labor  upon  the  brains,  in  acknowledging  their  tests  of  or- 
thodoxy. As  a  matter  of  curiosity  and  for  future  reference,  I  shall  here 
read  the  apostles'  creed. 

"  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth :  and 
in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son  our  Lord ;  who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  sutfered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  cruci- 
fied, dead  and  buried ;  he  descended  into  hell ;  the  third  day  he  rose  trora 
the  dead  ;  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father  Almighty ;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead.  I  believe  in  the  holy  Ghost ;  the  holy  catholic  church  ;  the  commu- 
nion of  saints  ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and 
the  life  everlasting.     Amen." 

And  the  Nicene  creed : 

'<  I  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible:  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
only-begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before  all  worlds;  God  of 
God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  being  of 
one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made  ;  who  for  us 
men,  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  of  tlie  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man,  and  was  crucified 
also  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate.  He  suffered  and  was  buried,  and  the  third 
day  he  rose  again,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  ascended  into  heaven, 
aiid  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father ;  and  he  shall  come  again,  with 
glory,  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead  ;  whose  kingdom  shall  have  no 
end.  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  giver  of  life,  who  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  761 

together  is  worshiped  and  glorified,  who  spake  by  the  prophets.  And  I 
believe  one  catholic  and  apostolic  church.  I  acknowledge  one  baptism  for 
the  remission  of  sins  :  and  1  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
life  of  the  world  to  come.     Amen." 

We  shall  next  present  the  creed  usually  called  the  creed  of  St.  Atha- 
nasius : 

"  Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that  he  hold 
the  catholic  faith  ;  which  faith  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  unde- 
filed,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly.  And  the  catholic  faith  is 
this :  That  we  worship  One  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity  ;  neither 
confounding  the  persons,  nor  dividing  the  substance.  For  there  is  one 
Person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and  another  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
but  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  all 
one  ;  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty  co-eternal.  Such  as  the  Father  is,  such 
is  the  Son,  and  such  is  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Father  uncreate,  the  Son 
uncreate,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreate  ;  the  Father  incomprehensible,  the 
Son  incomprehensible,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible  ;  the  Father 
eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  eternal :  and  yet  they  are  not 
three  eternals,  but  one  eternal ;  as  also  there  are  not  three  incomprehensi- 
bles,  nor  three  uncreated,  but  one  uncreated,  and  one  incomprehe'nsible. 
So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Almighty,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
Almighty :  and  yet  they  are  not  three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty.  So 
the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God:  and  yet 
there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Lord, 
the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  Lord :  and  yet  not  three  Lords,  but  one 
Lord.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  christian  verity  to  acknowledge 
every  Person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord,  so  are  we  forbidden  by  the 
catholic  religion  to  say,  there  be  three  Gods,  or  three  Lords. 

The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created,  nor  begotten.  The  Son  is 
of  the  Father  alone,  not  made,  nor  created,  but  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten, 
but  proceeding.  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers  ;  one  Son,  not 
three  Sons  ;  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  tliree  Holy  Ghosts.  And  in  this  Trinity 
none  is  afore  or  after  the  other,  none  is  greater  or  less  than  the  other  ;  but 
the  whole  three  Persons  are  co-eternal  together,  and  co-equal.  So  that  in 
all  things,  as  is  aforesaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity  and  the  Trinity  in  Unity  ia 
to  be  worshiped.  He  therefore  that  will  be  saved,  must  thus  think  of  the 
Trinity. 

Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation,  that  he  also  believe 
rightly  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  the  right  faith  is, 
that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is 
God  and  man  ;  God  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  begotten  before  the 
worlds,  and  man  of  the  substance  of  his  mother,  born  in  the  world  ;  perfect 
God,  and  perfect  man  ;  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  human  flesh  subsisting ; 
equal  to  the  Father  as  touching  his  Godhead,  and  inferior  to  the  Father  aa 
touching  his  manhood.  Who,  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not 
two,  but  one  Christ ;  one,  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but 
by  taking  of  the  manhood  into  God ;  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of 
substance,  but  by  unity  of  person :  for  as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is 
one  man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ.  Who  sufiered  for  our  salvation, 
descended  into  hell,  rose  again  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  he  ascended 
into  heaven,  he  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  God  Almighty:  from 
whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  At  whose  coming 
all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies,  and  shall  give  account  of  their 
own  works ;  and  they  that  have  done  good  shall  go  into  life  everlasting,  and 
they  that  have  done  evil  into  everlasting  fire. 

This  is  the  catholic  faith  ;  which  except  a  man  believe  faithfully,  he  can- 
uot  be  saved.    Glory  be  to  the  Father,"  &lc. 

3s2 


762  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

Concerning  the  Athanasian  creed,  Waddington,  fellow  of  Trinity  col- 
lege, Cambridge,  says: 

"  The  sublime  truths  which  it  contains  are  not  expressed  in  the  language 
of  Holy  Scripture ;  nor  could  they  possibly  have  been  so  expressed,  since 
the  inspired  writers  were  not  studious  minutely  to  expound  inscrutable 
mysteries.  Neither  can  it  plead  any  sanctity  from  high  antiquity,  or  even 
traditional  authority  ;  since  it  was  composed  many  centuries  after  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  in  a  very  corrupt  age  of  a  corrupt  church,  and  composed  in 
so  much  obscurity,  that  the  very  pen  from  which  it  proceeded  is  not  cer- 
tainly known  to  us.  The  inventions  of  men,  when  they  have  been  associa- 
ted for  ages  with  the  exercise  of  religion,  should  indeed  be  touched  with  re- 
spect and  discretion ;  but  it  is  a  dangerous  error  to  treat  them  as  inviolable, 
and  it  is  something  wcrse  than  error  to  confound  them  in  holiness  and  reve- 
rence with  the  words  and  things  of  God." — p.  193. 

Ecclesiastic  creeds  and  the  faith  apostolic  are  just  as  diverse  as  inference 
and  premise,  as  fallibility  and  infallibility,  as  human  reason  and  divine 
wisdom.  When,  then,  we  use  the  word  creed  in  this  discussion,  we  do 
not  mean  the  truth  nor  the  faith,  the  law^  nor  the  gospel,  the  apostles' 
writings,  or  those  of  the  prophets.  Nor  do  we  mean  our  simple  belief 
of  the  testimony  of  God.  We  all  have  a  belief  and  a  knowledge  of 
christian  doctrine  ;  but  this  belief  or  knowledge  is  not  what  is  indicated 
by  a  creed.  A  creed  or  confession  of  faith  is  an  ecclesiastic  document — 
the  mind  and  will  of  some  synod  or  council  possessing  authority — as  a 
term  of  communion,  by  which  persons  and  opinions  are  to  be  tested, 
approbated,  or  reprobated. 

The  documents,  therefore,  which  constitute  the  subject  of  our  proposi- 
tion, are  such  as  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  ;  the  Westminster  Creed,  with  all 
its  numerous  and  various  emendations,  to  that  of  the  present  year  ;  the 
Baptist  Confession  of  Faith  in  all  its  varieties  ;  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  and 
the  Council  of  Trent,  or  the  Methodistic  Discipline,  amended  and  im- 
proved some  two  and  twenty  times. 

All  creeds  and  confessions  become  the  constitution  of  churches.  The 
persons  called  a  church  or  community  are  said  to  be  builded  upon  them. 
They  generally,  indeed,  assume  that  the  creed  itself  is  builded  on  the 
Bible,  and  the  church  on  both.  The  Bible  is,  then,  the  subterraneous 
basis,  or  that  portion  of  the  foundation  buried  under  ground.  The  creed 
is  that  visible,  above-ground  part  of  the  basis,  and  on  which  the  church 
immediately  rests,  and  from  which  it  receives  its  name.  This  assump- 
tion of  a  Bible  sub-basis,  is,  however,  but  a  mere  illusion.  Take,  for 
illustration,  the  high-church  and  low-church  Episcopal,  the  Presbyterian, 
tPie  Methodist  and  the  Baptist,  to  go  no  farther.  These  all  are  said  to 
be  builded  on  the  Bible ;  but  between  them  and  the  Bible  is  interposed 
the  creed  from  which  they  receive  their  name.  The  Bible,  then,  is  to 
all  the  sects  in  Christendom  what  the  earth  is  to  London,  the  basis  on 
which  the  several  palaces,  castles,  and  dwellings  rest.  The  earth,  how- 
ever, is  the  foundation  of  none  of  them,  in  correct  language.  No  one 
would  think  of  calling  the  earth  the  foundation  of  Westminster  Abbey, 
Windsor  Palace,  or  the  old  Parliament  House.  No  more  can  I  call 
the  Bible  the  foundation  of  the  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  and 
Baptist  churches,  or  any  one  of  the  scores  of  communities  that  pretend  to 
build  on  it.  Contemplated  as  buildings,  creeds  are  their  proper  founda- 
tions.    Contemplated  as  bodies,  they  are  their  constitutions. 

They  are.  therefore,  the  basis  of  the  parties.  As  many  creeds,  so  many 
parties;   Caesar's  maxim  fitly  illustrates  their  history.     ''Money,"  said 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  7C3 

he,  "  will  raise  soldiers,  and  soldiers  will  raise  money."  Thus  creeds  will 
make  parties,  and  parties  will  make  creeds ;  so  the  matter  has  operated  from 
the  day  of  their  birth  till  now.  From  these  general  definitions  and  remarks 
introductory,  we  shall  therefore  proceed  to  the  proof  of  our  proposition. 

Argument  I.  That  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical,  is  argued,  first, 
from  the  fact  that  they  are  human  and  fallible  productions. 

They  are  called  human,  not  merely  because  they  are  the  production  of 
human  effort,  but  because  they  are  also  the  offspring  of  human  authority. 
No  one  can,  in  reason  and  truth,  assign  to  them  a  divine  authority ;  be- 
cause no  man  can  produce  any  precept  or  divine  warrant  for  their  manu- 
facture. No  apostle,  prophet,  or  evangelist  gave  any  authority  to  any 
church,  community,  or  council,  to  furnish  such  a  document. 

Now,  in  order  to  give  them  any  other  than  human  authority,  four  things 
are  necessary.  1st.  A  divine  precept  commanding  the  thing  to  be  done. 
2d»  A  selection  of  persons  by  whom  it  must  be  executed.  3d.  A  time 
fixed  or  extended,  during  which  the  work  is  to  be  accomplished ;  and, 
4th.  A  command  to  the  christian  communities  to  receive  and  use  them  for 
the  ends  and  uses  for  which  they  were  created.  In  the  absence  of  this 
divine  arrangement  and  enactment,  they  must  be  contemplated  as  a  pre- 
sumptuous interference  with  the  legislative  prerogative  of  Zion's  Law- 
giver and  King — as  a  daring  attempt  to  intrude  into  his  peculiar  office, 
who  has  all  authority  in  heaven  and  earth  committed  to  him  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  his  church.  It  is  offering  strange  fire  on  God's  altar,  and 
burning  incense  uncommanded  by  him  whose  right  it  is  to  ordain  his 
own  worship.  It  is  in  fact  a  reproach,  an  indignity,  offered  to  his  living 
oracles,  and  to  the  competenc}'^  and  fidelity  of  his  ambassadors  and  pleni- 
potentiaries, to  the  world  and  to  the  church. 

Who,  in  a  controversy  with  an  apostle  or  a  saint,  could  answer  the 
following  interrogations?  Did  not  the  Messiah  see  the  end  from  the  be- 
ginning ?  Did  not  he  anticipate  all  that  has  happened  on  earth  since  his 
ascension  into  heaven?  Did  not  his  servant  Paul  forewarn  us  of  a  most 
important  and  widely  extended  apostasy  ?  Did  he  not  say  that  the  time 
would  come  when  they  would  not  endure  sound  doctrine,  but  should  ac- 
cumulate teachers  for  themselves,  having  itching  ears?  that  they  should 
turn  away  their  ears  from  the  truth,  and  be  turned  unto  fables  ?  Did  he 
not  know  the  devices  of  Satan  to  annoy  his  heritage,  and  to  seduce  his 
servants  into  the  paths  of  schism  and  alienation,  and  thus  set  them  at  va- 
riance with  one  another  ?  And  had  he,  in  his  wisdom  and  benevolence, 
thought  that  to  prevent  all  tliis,  a  symbol  or  brief  summary  of  true  faith 
or  true  doctrine,  clearly  and  strongly  set  forth,  was  necessary  or  expedi- 
ent; had  he  not  the  residue  of  the  Spirit,  and  agents  in  abundance  to  ac- 
complish his  wishes  ?  If,  then,  with  all  these  premises  in  his  eye,  and 
all  the  details  of  two  thousand  years  as  clearly  seen  in  the  future  as  they 
are  now  in  the  past,  he  provided  the  documents  which  we  have,  and  gave 
them  in  charge,  to  be  kept  without  addition  or  subtraction  till  he  return ; 
why  should  any  one  presume  to  obtrude  his  opinions  and  notions  upon 
him,  and  make  his  views  of  expediency  a  reason  why  he  should  set  forth 
on  his  own  responsibility,  or  in  conjunction  with  others,  his  equals  and 
co-ordinates,  a  synopsis  or  digest  of  God's  revelations,  selecting  for  it 
such  views  and  portions  of  God's  own  book  as,  in  his  finite,  feeble  and 
fallible  judgment,  partially  and  imperfectly  enhghtened,  he  might  judge 
expedient  to  form  a  system  of  belief — a  rule  of  practice  for  a  christian 
community? 


764  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

The  setting  up  of  calves  at  Bethel  and  Dan  by  Jeroboam,  the  son  of 
Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,  seems  to  me  to  be  only  a  mere  exaggera- 
tion of  the  principle  involved  in  such  a  device.  And  such,  too,  was  the 
golden  symbol  manufactured  by  Aaron  out  of  Egyptian  gold,  to  go  before 
Israel  in  the  absence  of  Moses.  Had  the  Lord  thought  a  miniature  of 
the  Bible,  an  image  of  the  whole  revelation,  a  proper  basis  for  church 
union  and  communion,  Paul  was  the  man,  or  Peter,  or  James,  or  John, 
or  all  of  tliem  together,  to  give  us  the  sum  of  the  matter,  and  command 
all  men  to  regard  it  as  the  covenant  or  constitution  of  Christ's  church  in 
general,  and  of  each  congregation  in  particular — and  then  we  would  have 
an  authoritative  creed,  a  divine  rule  of  faith,  by  which  to  receive  and  re- 
ject all  mankind. 

His  not  having  done  it  is  the  best  argument  in  the  world  why  it  should 
not  be  attempted  by  mortal  and  fallible  man ;  and  if  I  am  asked  for 
other  reasons  why,  so  far  as  I  can  apprehend  them  they  shall  be  fortlicom- 
ing  at  a  proper  time  and  place.  Meantime,  the  point  to  which  these  remarks 
and  reasonings  tend,  must  be  distinctly  stated.  Do  they  not,  then,  lead  to 
the  conclusion,  that  all  these  covenants  are  human,  wholly  human,  in 
conception,  design,  and  execution?  and,  consequently,  as  the  stream  can 
rise  no  higher  than  the  fountain,  they  are  fallible,  weak,  and  imperfect 
documents — not  of  such  dimensions,  texture,  and  solidity,  as  to  be  either 
the  foundation  or  constitution  of  Christ's  glorious  church,  redeemed  by 
his  blood  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit.  It  is  building  a  golden  palace  upon 
the  grass,  a  divine  temple  upon  reeds  and  rushes. 

But  where  the  necessary  schismatical  tendency  of  thes  documents? 
I  answer,  the  very  attempt  to  create  such  a  thing  immediately  divides 
into  parties  those  who  before  were  one.  A  affirms  his  conviction,  that 
the  attempt  is  impious.  B  argues,  that  it  is  expedient  to  keep  out  error 
and  secure  union  amongst  those  that  are  now  of  one  opinion.  But  A  re- 
sponds, we  are  not  required  to  be,  because  we  cannot  be,  of  one  opinion; 
and  so  far  from  the  project  creating  unity  of  opinion,  already  it  forms  two 
opinions — one  concerning  the  impiety,  and  the  other  touching  the  expe- 
diency of  the  affair.  The  proposition  to  create  and  to  adopt  is,  therefore, 
essentially  heretical  and  divisive ;  and,  when  the  proposition  is  adopted, 
two  parties,  before  in  embryo  by  the  proposition,  are  now  by  the  resolu- 
tion actually  and  formally  in  existence.  The  reason  of  all  this  is,  per- 
haps, not  yet  fully  developed.  It  lies,  indeed,  hid  in  the  fallibility  of  hu- 
man nature. 

We,  sooner  or  later,  all  discover,  that  between  the  fallible  and  the  infal- 
lible there  is  a  gulf,  into  which  the  universe  might  be  hurled  without  at 
all  reducing  the  chasm.  Finites  and  fallibles  are  weak  authorities  when 
heaven  and  immortality  are  at  stake.  And  the  moment  that  B  propounds 
his  synopsis  Avith  the  slightest  air  of  authority,  in  the  way  of  exacting 
obedience  or  acknowledgment,  that  moment  there  is  somethiag  m  human 
nature  that  whispers  in  A,  who  is  this  brother  B  ?  A  fallible  like  myself! 
A  great  man  he  may  be ;  but  he  is  fond  of  his  own  opinion,  and  prides 
himself  upon  his  supei'iority.  I  will  not  lay  a  victim  upon  his  altar  nor 
burn  incense  at  his  shrine ;  I,  too,  am  a  man,  and  will  yield  to  none  the 
right  to  dictate  to  me — God  alone  is  infallible.  His  word  is  the  only  un- 
erring rule  of  truth.  I  will  cut  myself  off  from  the  society  of  B,  or  any 
one  like  him,  who  claims  for  his  private  judgment  the  respect  and  homage 
due  only  to  the  well  authenticated  precepts  and  statutes  of  the  Eternal 
King. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  765 

We  all,  on  reflection,  feel  the  want  of  the  authority  of  certain  truths 
while  reading  our  creeds  and  confessions,  and  hence  that  perpetual  rest- 
lessness and  mutation  manifest  on  all  the  pages  of  their  history,  from  the 
days  of  Arius,  the  schismatic,  down  to  the  present  time.  A  document 
that  has  authority,  proper  authority  with  men,  must  be  superhuman,  su- 
per-angelic, supernatural — it  must  be  the  word  of  God  ;  where  that  fails 
to  awe  or  allure  into  a  holy  acquiescence,  there  is  a  manifest  Avant  of 
piety  and  all  the  essential  elements  of  christian  character ;  and  while  such 
persons  may  make  a  church  by  themselves,  Christ's  church  wants  them 
not,  and  has  made  no  arrangement  to  retain  them.  The  parson  may  de- 
sire to  retain  such  for  their  money ;  the  flock  may  wish  to  retain  them 
for  their  worldly  respectability ;  but  as  the  Messiah  would  not  receive 
them  into  heaven,  he  will  not  sanction  any  arrangement  made  to  retain 
them  in  his  church  on  earth. 

II.  Creeds,  then,  are  necessarily  heretical,  not  only  on  this  account ; 
but,  in  the  second  place — they  strain  out  the  nats  and  swallow  the 
camels  ;  nay,  worse,  they  rack  ofl"  the  pure  wine  of  the  church  and 
retain  the  lees.  It  is  a  striking  demonstration  of  man's  slowness  to 
learn,  that  a  fact  so  palpable  as  this,  that  creeds  have  always  been 
roots  of  bitterness,  apples  of  discord,  and  either  causes  or  occasions  of 
driving  out  the  good  and  retaining  the  bad,  should  have,  since  the  days 
of  the  council  of  Nice,  been  passing  before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  church 
militant,  and  yet  unobserved  and  unappreciate<l  by  the  great  majority  of 
professors ;  at  least  not  so  practically  observed  as  to  have  induced  them  to 
take  away  these  stumbling  blocks  out  of  the  way  of  the  people. 

And  what  more  natural,  even  a  priori,  than  that  the  hypocritical,  design- 
ing and  wicked  would  subscribe,  when  their  pride,  or  their  passions,  or 
their  temporal  interests  made  a  place  in  a  popular  community  an  advan- 
tage, or  an  honor  to  them?  Or,  that  the  conscientious,  upright,  and  scru- 
pulously virtuous,  would  hesitate,  demur  and  refuse  to  admit  a  tenet,  or  a 
rule  of  action  resting,  in  their  opinion,  upon  mere  human  authority ;  and 
not  only  that,  but  in  their  judgment,  impinging,  contravening,  or  making 
void  a  divine  precept  or  arrangement.  I  say,  what  truth  lies  more  upon 
the  surface  of  things  ?  What  law  of  human  nature  is  more  clearly  im- 
printed in  more  legible  characters  upon  the  very  face  of  society,  than  this 
one?  and  how  few,  comparatively,  seem  to  have  profitably  attended  to  it. 
For  what  do  all  the  pages  of  ecclesiastical  history  reveal  ?  What  do  the 
voluminous  records,  not  merely  of  the  dark  ages,  but  of  all  ages,  disclose 
on  these  premises?  That  human  creeds  have  made  more  heretics  than 
christians  ;  more  parties  than  reformations ;  more  martyrs  than  saints  ; 
more  wars  than  peace  ;  more  hatred  than  love  ;  more  death  than  life ;  that 
they  have  killed  or  driven  out  all  the  apostles,  prophets  and  reformers 
of  the  church  and  of  the  world.  The  Messiah  himself,  one  of  their  vic- 
tims, spoke  a  volume  in  one  sentence  against  creeds  and  church  cove- 
nants— and  the  most  severely  true  and  caustic  sentence  he  ever  uttered  ; 
it  is  superlatively  laconic  and  pithy  :  "  It  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish 
out  of  Jerusalem.'  O  Jerusalem!  O  Jerusalem!  that  stonest  the  pro- 
phets, and  killest  them  that  God  hath  sent  to  you  !"  Need  I  ask,  what 
means  Jerusalem  in  this  connection  ?  Stands  it  not  for  the  church  autho- 
rities, with  their  doctrinal  and  perceptive  traditions,  against  which  he  so 
jften  inveighed  ?  It  was  an  established  creed,  and  a  generation  of  vipers, 
in  the  form  of  devout  pharisees,  and  skillful  and  learned  rabbis  and  scribes, 
that  constituted  that  fearful  desolating  power  that  crucified  the  Messiah. 


766  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

Pontius  Pilate  only  obeyed  the  established  priesthood ;  he  only  executed 
the  sentence  of  the  church-courts.  They  said,  they  had  a  law  (a  creed— 
a  discipline,)  by  which  he  must  die.  That  law,  or  creed,  was  the  decision 
of  their  councils — precisely  in  the  form  of  our  creeds.  This  fact  itself, 
methinks,  is  enough.  It  is  a  monumental  fact,  on  which  is  inscribed  the 
melancholy  but  true  character  of  all  such  institutes. 

Need  we,  indeed,  any  other  proof  of  our  proposition,  than  the  stern,  in- 
controvertible fact,  that  all  the  world's  greatest  benefactors — apostles,  pro- 
phets and  reformers — have  been  declared  heretics  and  schismatics — repro- 
bated, and  cast  out  of  synagogues  and  churches,  through  the  native,  direct 
and  immediate  influence  and  operation  of  these  documents?  Can  any 
man  afford  one  instance  of  any  community  building  upon  the  Bible  alone, 
upon  the  apostles  and  prophets,  without  any  other  creed  or  directory 
than  the  written  Word  of  God — ever  so  doing,  ever  repudiating,  or  in- 
juring in  character,  in  person  or  property,  any  saint  or  distinguished  man, 
any  minister  of  mercy,  any  benefactor  of  our  race  ?  Let  him  name  the 
church  ;  let  him  name  the  man.  But  if  I  am  asked,  in  return,  to  name 
those  who  have  been  so  maltreated  by  creed-mongers,  creed-makers  and 
creed-advocates,  I  shall  begin  with  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  end  not  with 
the  WicklifFs,  the  Jeromes,  the  Husses,  the  Luthers,  the  Calvins,  the  Ro- 
gerses,  the  Bunyans — but  with  those  now  living,  whose  characters  have 
been  immolated  at  the  shrine  of  orthodoxy,  and  their  names  cast  out  as 
evil,  because  they  prefer  the  commandments  of  God  to  the  doctrines  and 
traditions  of  men. 

We  must,  however,  still  advert  to  the  fact  of  their  power  to  retain  the  lees, 
while  they  rack  off  into  new  vessels  the  good  wine  of  the  kingdom.  The 
case  of  Arius  himself,  is  both  a  full  illustration  and  proof  of  what  I  mean. 

The  Nicene  creed,  as  all  the  world  knows,  owed  its  origin  to  the  opin- 
ions of  Arius.  Even  the  first  great  council,  with  the  great  Constantino  at 
its  head,  had  probably  never  assembled  at  Nice,  or  any  where  else,  but  for 
this  bold  and  daring  genius.  Had  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  when 
he  failed  to  convince  his  presbyter,  Arius,  of  the  impropriety  of  his  specu- 
lations on  the  divine  nature  of  the  Messiah,  not  called  a  council  of  his 
clergy,  and  passed  certain  decrees  upon  the  speculation,  and  excommuni- 
cated Arius,  because  of  his  dissent  from  their  phraseology — Arius  would 
not  have  been  driven  to  Palestine,  and  there  made  a  party  to  his  views, 
which,  by  the  assistance  of  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Nicomedia,  soon  spread 
over  all  the  empire.  The  spread  of  this  greatly  agitated  the  church;  and 
the  great  Constantino  undertook  to  gather  the  bishops  of  the  world  io 
Nice,  and  legislate  the  Arians  into  the  church  or  out  of  the  empire.  Atha- 
nasius  and  the  Arians  finally  split  on  the  difference  between  an  i  and  an 
0/  between  homoousios  and  homohiosios.  The  homoousios  was  decreed 
orthodox,  and  the  homoiuosios  heterodox — and  the  line  of  the  two  great 
parties  were  drawn.  Arius  was  dubbed  heretic,  and  Athanasius  saint ; 
and  so  it  reads  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  Athanasius  became  bishop  of  the 
great  church  of  Alexandria,  and  Arius  wandered  a  heretic  through  lUyri- 
cum  for  some  three  or  four  years.  Recalled,  at  length,  by  the  same  fickle 
Constantino,  and  asked  to  subscribe  the  creed  of  Nice — made  to  repudiate 
his  heresy,  he,  for  the  sake  of  bread  and  board  in  the  church,  subscribed 
the  same  creed ;  and  had  he  not  died  one  day  too  soon,  he  had  doubtless 
been  received  into  full  communion  by  the  bishop  of  Constantinople — the 
emperor  having  so  commanded. 

After  the  death  of  Constantino,  his  son  Constantius,  and  his  court, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  757 

sided  with  the  Arians — different  emperors  took  different  sides.  Valenti- 
nian  supported  Athanasianism  in  the  west,  and  Valens,  his  own  brother, 
supported  Arianism  in  the  east  half  of  the  empire.  Hence  orthodoxy  at 
Rome  was  heterodoxy  at  Constantinople,  and  vice  versa.  The  bishop  of 
Rome  finally  became  infallible,  and  fixed  Athanasianism  at  Rome,  where 
it  has  continued  ever  since ;  while  the  other  half,  that  is,  the  African  and 
Eastern  churches,  supported  Arianism,  in  some  form  or  other,  down  to 
semi-demi-Arianism }  and  finally,  it  became  so  sublimated,  that  the  me- 
taphysical doctors,  through  the  finest  spectacles,  have  long  since  failed  to 
comprehend  or  appreciate  the  difference.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  fair  ex- 
position of  all  that  we  maintain  on  this  question.  This  being  a  sort  of 
prototype  of  all  heretical  creeds,  it  may  serve  as  a  standing  text — and  its 
history,  as  the  common  history  of  the  thousand  speculative  doctrines, 
creeds  and  parties  in  ancient  and  modern  Christendom. 

It  is  important  that  the  tendency  of  creeds  to  the  corruption  of  the 
church,  by  admitting  the  evil  and  rejecting  the  good,  should  be  kept 
prominently  before  the  mind  of  those  who  desire  correct  and  salutary 
conclusions  on  this  most  interesting  subject.  If  it  be  a  fact,  that  such  is 
their  tendency,  it  ought  to  be  distinctly  stated,  fully  proved  and  deeply 
impressed  on  the  public  mind.  Let  us,  then,  look  again  at  this  case  of 
the  celebrated  Arius,  so  early  occurring  and  so  famous  in  the  annals  of  the 
church,  and  compare  it  with  some  illustrious  cases  nearer  our  own  times. 
The  fact  that  Arius,  within  some  four  years,  subscribed  the  Nicene  creed, 
which  in  his  heart  he  despised — the  identical  creed  which  was  conceived 
and  consummated  in  order  to  his  exclusion  and  that  of  his  party — for  the 
sake  of  a  respite  from  persecution  and  a  place  in  the  church,  is  itself,  me- 
thinks,  a  full  exposition  of  their  inutility  and  evil  tendency.  Men  of  no 
principle  may  thus  be  expected  to  subscribe  at  the  dictation  of  those  in 
power,  or  at  the  demands  of  pride,  passion  or  interest ;  while  the  honora- 
ble, and  those  of  tender  conscience,  will  rather  be  excommunicated  than 
yield  to  the  temptation.  We  shall  moreover  allude  to  two  very  notorious 
and  well  authenticated  facts  in  the  history  of  Puritanism  and  Presbyteri- 
anism,  from  which  I  am  sorry  to  observe  our  Presbyterian  friends  have 
not  profited  more.  There  was  the  sacramental  test  act,  during  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  which  compelled  all  dissenters  to  take  the  sacrament  once  a 
year  in  the  established  church,  a  device  to  detect  the  Romanist  party  in 
England.  But  it  was  as  oppressive  to  puritans  as  to  papists.  The  infi- 
dels and  non-religionists,  together  with  many  Romanists,  to  secure  or 
retain  their  interests,  annually  partook.  But  the  pious  and  conscientious 
dissenters  left  the  country  or  suffered  political  disabilities,  rather  than  eat 
the  supper  to  show  that  they  were  not  papists  or  enemies  of  the  estab- 
lishment. Again,  under  the  act  of  conformity  to  certain  prayers,  rules 
and  ceremonies,  requiring  subscription  on  or  before  St.  Bartholomew's 
day,  August,  1662;  what  multitudes  suffered  in  a  similar  way!  while 
the  vascillating,  temporizing,  who  had  no  conscience,  turned  the  affair 
to  good  account.  No  less  than  two  thousand  pious  non-conformist  min- 
isters resigned  their  livings  rather  than  violate  their  consciences.  Thus  a 
mighty  host  of  the  very  best  ministers  in  the  realm  were  ejected  to  make 
room  for  more  pliant  tools.  Neale  says  more  than  1 500  men  of  loose 
morals,  together  with  a  troop  of  young  men  from  the  universities  and  di- 
vinity halls,  without  either  piety  or  experience,  filled  their  places ;  and  no 
doubt  by  their  time  serving  spirit  greatly  lowered  the  standard  of  piety  and 
virtue  all  over  the  kingdom.     These  acts  of  uniformity,  courts  of  high 


768  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

commission,  star-chamber  courts,  test  acts  and  creeds,  are  but  rarions 
modifications  of  the  same  principle.  Hence,  the  history  of  the  operation 
of  any  of  them,  under  circumstances  favorable  to  its  full  development,  is 
the  history  of  them  all. 

III.  While  this  view  of  the  subject  is  before  us,  we  must  more  formally 
advert  to  their  proscriptive  and  persecuting  bearings  and  tendencies.  It 
is  a  startling  fact,  that  all  ecclesiastic  persecutions,  ancient  and  modem, 
are  connected  with  the  introduction,  modification,  transformation,  or  ad- 
ministration of  creeds.  Think  not,  Mr.  President,  that  I  am  about  to 
relate  the  tales  of  woe,  to  invoke  the  ghosts  of  slain  legions  of  saints  and 
martyrs,  to  disclose  the  dark  and  horrible  massacres  of  inquisitorial  tribu- 
nals through  the  long  dark  night  of  papal  ascendency.  No,  sir,  far  be  it 
from  the  happy  scenes  which  now  surround  us  in  this  favored  land,  the 
blest  abode  of  rational  and  religious  freedom,  in  which  the  sword  has  not 
yet  learned  to  serve  at  the  altar — in  which  we  have  no  established  priest- 
hood, no  court  religion,  no  royal  creed,  no  lords  spiritual,  no  vicar  of 
Christ,  no  vicegerent  of  heaven's  eternal  King — no  auto  de  fes — no  te 
deums — no  holocausts — no  whole  burnt  offerings  of  slai'ghtered  heretics. 
No — thanks  to  the  God  of  all  justice,  of  all  mercy,  and  of  all  truth! 
that  we  sit  under  our  own  vines  and  fig-trees — that  we  worship  God  ac- 
cording to  the  Bible,  or  our  own  interpretation  of  it,  without  the  anathe- 
mas, the  inquisitions,  the  pains,  the  terrors  of  incarnate  demons,  in  the 
form  of  holy  fathers  and  apostolic  successors. 

But,  in  the  illustration  and  confirmation  of  our  position,  we  are  obliged 
to  glance  at  the  operation  of  creeds  and  tests  of  communion  amongst  our 
good  Protestant  dissenters — Puritans  of  the  Protestant  faith  who  swarm 
around  the  sacred  fires — the  sacerdotal  robes  and  vestment — the  reli- 
gious habits  of  the  famous  Hooper  of  refusal  memory,  consecratea  more 
by  his  glorious  martyrdom  under  Mary  of  bloody  memory,  than  by  his 
pro  tempore  refusal  of  the  sacerdotal  appendages  of  papal  robes  in  the 
form  of  Aaronic  habits.  This  great  man's  stern  and  unbending  integrity 
was  the  first  occasion,  rather  than  an  actual  cause,  of  our  own  glorious 
revolution.  He  was,  indeed,  the  grand  prototype  of  that  noble  race  of 
mighty  men,  the  patriarchs  of  civil  liberty — the  original  fathers  of  the  illus- 
trious sisterhood  of  American  republics.  Two  months  before  his  being 
burnt  at  Gloucester,  February  9th,  1555,  not  yet  three  centuries  ago,  he 
wrote  to  Bullinger:  "  We  resolutely  despise  fire  and  sword  for  the  cause 
of  Christ ;  we  know  in  whom  we  have  believed,  and  are  sure  we  have 
committed  our  souls  to  him  in  well  doing !  We  are  the  Lord's  ;  let  him 
do  with  us  as  seemeth  good  in  his  sight."  Such  was  the  man,  Mr. 
President,  who,  with  the  immortal  Rogers,  of  Smithfield  memory,  roasted 
in  the  fire  of  papal  cruelty,  gave  the  first  grand  impulse  to  the  cause  of 
liberty,  civil  and  religious.  At  their  smouldering  embers  was  lit  the 
torch  of  American  liberty.  From  their  altar  was  borne  across  the  seas 
the  sacred  fire  that  has  warmed  and  illuminated  the  new  world,  and  given 
to  us  our  free  and  liberal  institutions.  So  much  good — negative,  it  is  true, 
as  respects  this  cause — so  much  good,  however,  have  proscriptive  creeds 
and  acts  of  uniformity  done  to  our  happy  country,  and  to  the  human  race. 
But  that  I  may  not  be  supposed  to  give  any  false  coloring,  either  from  my 
views  or  my  feelings,  to  the  sayings  and  doings  of  my  Episcopal,  Puri- 
tanical, and  Presbyterian  friends,  in  adducing  them  as  examples  of  the 
schismatic  spirit  of  their  creeds,  I  shall  allow  the  candid,  impartial,  and 
justly  celebrated  Daniel  Neale,  who  died  a  little  more  than  one  century 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  769 

ago,  not  to  tell  the  whole  story,  but  to  give  a  mere  passing  notice  of 
the  operation  of  creeds,  even  in  the  more  generous  hands  of  Protestant 
dissenters. 

"  That  UNIFORMITY  of  scntimeiiis  in  religion  is  not  to  be  attained  avwng 
christians;  ?ior  wiZZ  a  comprehension  icithin  «h.  establishment  be  of  service 
to  the  caiise  of  truth  and  liherty  without  a  toleration  of  all  onr  dutiful 
subjects.  Wise  and  good  men,  after  their  most  diligent  searches  after  truth, 
have  seen  things  in  a  different  light;  which  is  not  to  be  avoided  as  long  as 
they  have  liberty  to  judge  tor  themselves.  If  Christ  had  appointed  an  in- 
fallible judge  upon  earth,  or  men  were  to  be  determined  by  an  implicit  faith 
iu  their  superiors,  there  would  be  an  end  of  such  ditferences  ;  but  all  the 
engines  of  human  policy  that  have  been  set  at  work  to  obtain  it  have  hith- 
erto failed  of  success.  Subscriptions,  and  a  variety  of  oaths  and  other  teste, 
having  occasioned  great  mischiefs  to  the  church  ;  by  these  means  men  of 
weak  morals  and  ambitious  views  have  been  raised  to  the  highest  prefer- 
ments, while  others  of  stricter  virtue  and  superior  talents  have  been  neg- 
lected and  laid  aside  ;  and  poioer  has  been  lodged  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  used  it  in  an  unchristian  manner,  to  force  men  to  an  agreement  in 
sounds  and  outward  appearances,  contrary  to  the  true  conviction  and  sense 
of  their  minds;  and  thus  a  lasting  reproach  has  been  brought  on  the  chris- 
tian name,  and  on  the  genuine  principles  of  a  protestant  church. 

All  parties  of  christians  when  in  power  have  been  guilty  of  persecution 
for  conscience^  sake.  The  annals  of  the  church  are  a  most  melancholy  dem- 
onstration of  this  truth.  Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  the  bloody  proceedings 
of  the  popish  bishops  in  queen  Mary's  reign,  and  the  account  that  has  been 
given  of  the  Star  Chamber  and  High  Commission  Court  in  later  times  ;  what 
number  of  useful  ministers  have  been  sequestered,  imprisoned,  and  their 
families  reduced  to  poverty  and  disgrace,  for  refusing  to  wear  a  white  sur- 
plice, or  to  comply  with  a.  few  indifferent  ceremonies !  What  havoc  did  the 
Presbyterians  make  with  their  covenant  uniformity,  their  jure  divino  dis- 
cipline, and  their  rigid  prohibition  of  reading  tlie  old  service  book  !  And 
though  the  Independents  had  a  better  notion  of  the  rights  of  conscience, 
how  defective  was  their  instrument  of  government  under  Cromwell.'  how 
arbitrary  the  proceedings  of  their  triers!  how  narrow  their  list  of  funda- 
mentals !  and  how  severe  their  restraints  of  the  press  !  And  though  the 
rigorous  proceedings  of  the  Puritans  of  this  age  did  by  no  means  rival  those 
of  the  prelates  before  and  after  the  civil  wars,  yet  they  are  so  many  species 
of  persecution,  and  not  to  be  justified  even  by  the  confusion  of  the  times  in 
which  they  were  acted. 

It  is  unsafe  and  dangerous  to  entrust  any  sort  of  clergy  with  the  power 
of  the  sword;  for  our  Savior's  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world, — '  If  it  were, ^ 
says  he,  '  then  would  my  servants  fght,  but  note  is  my  kingdom  not  from 
hence.''  The  church  and  state  should  stand  on  a  distinct  basis,  and  their 
jurisdiction  be  agreeable  to  the  nature  of  their  crimes  ;  those  of  the  church 
purely  spiritual,  and  those  of  the  state  purely  civil. 

Reformation  of  religion,  or  a  redress  of  grievances  in  the  church,  has  not 
in  fact  arisen  from  the  clergy.  I  would  not  be  thought  to  reflect  upon  that 
venerable  order,  which  is  of  great  usefulness  and  deserved  honor  when  the 
ends  of  its  institution  are  pursued.  But  so  strange  has  been  the  infatua- 
tion, so  enchanting  the  lust  of  dominion  and  the  charms  of  riches  and  honor, 
that  the  propagation  of  piety  and  virtue  has  been  very  much  neglected,  and 
little  else  thought  of  but  how  they  might  rise  higher  in  the  authority  and 
grandeur  of  this  world,  and  fortify  their  strong  holds  against  all  that  should 
attack  them.  In  the  dawn  of  the  reformation,  the  clergy  maintained  the 
papers  supremacy  against  the  king  till  they  were  cast  in  prcemunire.  In 
the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth,  there  was  but  one  of  the  whole  bench  who 
would  join  in  the  consecration  or  a  protestant  bishop.  And  when  the  reform- 
ation was  established,  how  cruelly  did  those  protestant  bishops,  who  them- 
selves had  suffered  for  religion,  vex  the  Puritans  because  they  could  not 
49  3T 


770  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

come  up  to  their  standard  !  How  unfriendly  did  they  behave  at  the  Hamp- 
ton-court conference !  at  the  restoration  of  king  Charles  II,  and  at  the  late 
revolution  of  king  William  and  quesn  Mary !  when  the  most  solemn  prom- 
ises were  broken,  and  the  most  hopeful  opportunity  of  accommodating  dif- 
ferences among  protestants  lost  by  the  perverseness  of  the  clergy  towards 
those  very  men  who  had  saved  them  from  ruin.  So  little  ground  is  there 
to  hope  for  an  union  among  christians,  or  the  propagation  of  truth,  peace 
and  charity  from  councils,  synods,  general  assemblies,  or  convocations  of  the 
clergy  of  any  sort  whatsoever!" — \_Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  30 — 11  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.   rice's  first  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  agree  with  my  friend,  Mr,  C,  that  the  union  of  all 
the  disciples  of  Christ  is  an  object  greatly  to  be  desired.  I  go  for  chris- 
tian union  on  scriptural  principles,  as  zealously  as  he;  and  so  do  evangel- 
ical denominations  generally,  so  far  as  I  know.  We  differ  not  concerning 
the  importance  of  the  object,  but  concerning  the  proper  method  of  secur- 
ing it.  He  has  adopted  a  plan  which  he  supposes  will  prove  successful. 
We  regard  it  as  unscriptural  and  dangerous  to  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness.  We  think  there  is  a  better  plan,  by  which  ultimately  the 
object  will  be  attained. 

I  do  not  purpose  to  answer  every  thing  contained  in  his  labored  essay ; 
for  much  the  larger  part  of  it  did  not  bear  upon  the  question,  whether 
human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessarily  hereti- 
cal and  schismatical.  Those  remarks  which  relate  to  the  proposition  be- 
fore us,  will  be  noticed. 

With  those  churches  that  use  creeds,  the  Bible,  he  tells  us,  is  the  suh- 
terranean  foundation,  while  their  creed  is  the  foundation  above  ground ; 
so  that  "  the  sects,"  as  he  calls  all  churches  but  his  own,  have  two  foun- 
dations. Well,  there  is  comfort  in  the  fact,  that  the  Bible  is  really  under 
us.  No  church  will  sink,  that  has  the  Bible  as  its  foundation,  even 
though  it  be  subterranean.  In  building,  it  is  important  to  dig  deep  and  lay 
under  ground  a  solid  foundation.  I  was  pleased  to  hear  the  gentleman 
admit,  that  we  have  the  Bible  under  us ;  for  if  it  is,  we  cannot  sink — our 
foundation  stands  firm.  But  is  he  not  in  the  same  predicament  in  which 
he  would  place  us  ?  His  Christian  Baptist,  Christianity  Restored,  Chris- 
tian System  and  other  writings,  contain  his  creed — the  foundation  above 
ground.  Unfortunately,  I  think,  the  Bible  is  not  quite  under  him.  The 
difference  between  his  church  and  "  the  sects,"  is  this :  The  notions  and 
opinions  of  each  individual  in  his  church,  form  their  foundation,  and 
therefore  there  is  no  unity  of  faith ;  whilst  each  of  "  the  sects  "  have 
a  common  faith,  a  common  bond  of  union.  This  being  the  case,  I  am 
unable  to  see  wherein  he  has  ground  of  boasting,  unless  it  be,  that  his 
church  has  a  greater  number  of  foundations  than  any  other. 

One  of  his  arguments  to  prove  human  creeds  necessarily  heretical  and 
schismatical,  is — that  there  is  in  the  Bible  no  command  to  make  a  creed. 
But  there  is  no  command  to  make  a  "  Christian  System,"  as  he  has  done, 
and  to  write  and  publish  any  thing  on  religious  subjects.  Are  we  to  con- 
clude, that  every  thing  is  unlawful,  that  is  not  in  the  Scriptures  directly 
commanded  ?  If  so,  the  gentleman  has  seriously  erred  in  making  his  vari- 
ous publications.  But  I  contend,  that  "  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no 
transgression."  Let  him  prove,  then,  that  we  are  forbidden  to  have  a  creed. 

Another  argument  urged  is — that  creeds  are  fallible.  But  his  writings 
are  also  fallible  ;  and  yet  they  are  sent  forth  to  exert  an  influence  on  multi- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  77 1 

tudes  of  immortal  minds.  If  we  are  forbidden  to  have  a  fallible  creed, 
how  can  he  venture  to  induce  his  fellow-creatures,  whose  salvation  de- 
pends on  their  receiving  the  truth,  to  believe  his  fallible  teachings? 

But,  he  says,  creeds  make  more  heretics  than  christians;  that  the  at- 
tempt to  impose  our  opinions  on  others  creates  schisms.  Yet  strange  as 
it  may  seem,  he  is  doing  the  very  thing  which  he  has  so  strongly  con- 
demned !  No  man  living  has  excommunicated  so  many  christians  as  he. 
This  charge  I  will  prove,  not  by  his  enemies,  but  by  his  friends.  Barton 
W.  Stone,  now  a  minister  in  Mr.  C.'s  church,  speaking  of  the  reformers, 
says  :  "  Should  they  make  their  own  peculiar  views  of  immersion  a  term 
of  fellowship,  it  will  be  impossible  for  them  to  repel,  successfully,  the  impu- 
tation of  being  sectarians,  and  of  having  an  authoritative  creed  (though  not 
written)  of  one  article  at  least,  which  is  formed  of  their  opinions  of  truth; 
and  this  short  creed  would  exclude  more  christians  from  union,  than  any 
creed  with  which  I  am  acquainted."  To  this  Mr.  Campbell  replied — "  I 
agree  with  the  Christian  Messenger,  [Stone's  paper]  that  there  will  be 
more  christians  (calling  all  Christendom  christians)  excluded  by  insisting 
on  this  command — 'Be  immersed,'  &c.  than  by  any  creed  in  Christen- 
dom." Millen.  Harb.  v,  i.  pp.  370,  372.  Now,  let  me  ask,  do  those 
christians  who  refuse  to  be  immersed,  reject  the  Bible  as  their  only  infal- 
lible guide  ?  Or  do  they  only  refuse  to  be  bound  by  Mr.  Campbell's 
opinion  of  what  it  teaches?  They  do  not  understand  the  Savior  to  have 
commanded  immersion.  Yet  for  the  crime  of  refusing  to  adopt  his  opin- 
ion concerning  the  mode  of  administering  an  external  ordinance,  he  ex- 
cludes more  christians,  so  far  as  he  can  exclude  them,  than  any  creed  in 
Christendom ! !  ! 

I  will  read  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  another  of  Mr.  Campbell's  breth- 
ren—  one  who  is  engaged  with  him  in  this  discussion.  I  allude  to  Dr. 
Fishback.  With  regard  to  the  design  of  baptism  he  states  Jive  different 
opinions,  entertained  by  different  persons  and  denominations.  The  fourth 
is,  that  sins  are  remitted  only  in  the  act  of  immersion,  and  that  all  are  in 
their  sins,  notwithstanding  their  repentance  and  faith,  until  they  are  ac- 
tuall)'  baptized  for  the  remission  of  their  sins.  This  he  gives  as  Mr. 
Campbell's  doctrine,  and  remarks — 

"  But  of  all  the  five  opinions  stated,  the  fourth  one  is  the  most  exclusive, 
sectarian,  and  uncharitable;  and,  if  fostered,  cannot  fail  to  drive  from  the 
affections  and  fellowship  of  those  who  entertain  it  all  who  differ  from  them, 
as  being  in  their  sins,  however  otherwise  pious  and  godly. — Millen.  Harb 
vol.  ii.  p.  509. 

Thus  it  is  evident,  that  whilst  the  gendeman  declaims  so  eloquently 
against  the  schismatical  tendency  of  creeds,  and  in  favor  of  christian 
union,  he  is  himself  denouncing  and  excommunicating  the  whole  of 
Christendom,  as  being  in  Babylon,  as  using  the  language  of  Ashdod,  be- 
cause they  will  not  adopt  his  opinion  on  some  one  or  two  points.  It  is 
true,  his  own  brethren  being  witnesses,  that  he  has  a  creed,  though  not 
written,  more  exclusive  and  sectarian  than  any  sect  in  Christendom  !  ! 

But  creeds,  he  says,  cause  persecution  ;  and  he  descanted  eloquendy 
on  the  persecution  suffered  by  Arius,  in  the  fourth  century.  Let  the 
gendeman  give  us  some  litde  evidence,  that  creeds  do  originate  persecu- 
tion. If  he  will  prove  that  they  have  any  such  tendency,  I  will  imme- 
diately abandon  the  defence  of  them.  But  have  those  ivho  had  no  lurit- 
ten  creed,  never  perscaded?  For  if  they  have,  (and  who  does  not  know 
\t  ?)  it  is  certain  that  persecution  does  not  originate  in  creeds.     That  it  is 


772  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

wrong"  io  force  men  to  adopt  any  creed,  written  or  unwritten,  I  maintain 
as  earnestly  as  Mr.  C.  But  facts  prove,  beyond  contradiction,  that 
churches,  having  no  written  creed,  may  be,  and  are,  as  exclusive  and 
as  sectarian  as  any  other,  and  as  much  disposed  to  force  their  opin- 
ions on  others.  The  gentleman's  own  church  affords  us  evidence  con- 
clusive of  the  truth  of  this  remark  ;  for  without  a  written  creed  they  have 
excommunicated  more  christians  than  any  creed  in  Christendom  !  There 
is  not  another  Protestant  denomination  sO'  exclusive  as  they ! 

But  in  order  to  discuss  this  subject  satisfactorily,  we  must  understand 
the  precise  point  in  debate.  And  let  me  here  remark,  that  opposition  to 
creeds  was  the  starting  point  in  Mr.  C.'s  reformation.  It  is  the  more 
important,  therefore,  that  we  examine  the  principle  carefully;  for  if  he 
set  out  on  false  principles,  the  course  of  eoiiduct  based  upon  those  prin- 
ciples is,  of  course,  wrong.  I  will  read  an  extract  or  two  from  his  Chris- 
tian System,  for  which  I  may  have  use  hereafter:   (pp.  8,  9.) 

"  The  principle  which  was  inscribed  upon  our  banners  when  we  withdrew 
from  the  ranks  of  the  sects,  was.  Faith  in  Jesus  as  the  true  Messiah,  and 
obedience  to  him  as  our  Law-giver  and  King,  the  only  test  of  christian  char- 
acter, and  the  only  bond  of  christian  union,  communion,  and  co-operation, 
irrespective  of  all  creeds,  opinions,  commandments  and  traditions  of  men. 
*  *  *  *  Unitarians,  for  example,  have  warred  against  human  creeds, 
because  those  creeds  taught  Trinitarianism.  Arminians,  too,  have  been 
hostile  to  creeds,  because  those  creeds  supported  Calvinism.  It  has  indeed 
been  alledged,  that  all  schismatics,  good  and  bad,  since  the  days  of  John 
Wicklitfe,  and  long  before,  have  opposed  creeds  of  human  invention,  be- 
cause those  creeds  opposed  them.  But  so  far  as  this  controversy  resembles 
them  in  its  opposition  to  creeds,  it  is  to  be  distinguished  from  them  in  this 
all-essential  attribute,  viz. //ta<  our  opposition  to  creeds  arose  from  a  con- 
viction, that  whether  tlie  opinions  in  them  were  true  or  false,  they  were  hos- 
tile to  the  union,  peace,  harmony ^  purity  and  joy  of  christians,  and  adverse 
to  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  Jesus  Christ.^'' 

But  my  charitable  friend  did  not  stop  with  condemning  the  use  of 
creeds,  as  tending  to  hinder  the  union  of  christians,  and  the  progress  of 
the  gospel.  He  has  denounced  and  excommunicated  all  those  churches 
and  individuals  who  have  perpetrated  the  awful  crime  of  making  a  creed ! 
Since,  then,  the  using  of  a  written  creed  is  made  a  damning  sin,  it  is  the 
more  important  that  we  inquire  into  the  merits  of  the  question.  To  show 
you  the  high  ground  taken  by  the  gentleman,  on  this  subject,  I  will  read 
a  brief  extract  from  the  Christian  Baptist,  (pp.  4,  23.) 

"  Besides,  to  convert  the  heathen  to  the  popular  Christianity  of  these 
times  would  be  an  object  of  no  great  consequence,  as  the  popular  christians 
themselves,  for  the  most  part,  require  to  be  converted  to  the  Christianity  of 
the  'New  Testament." 

Again  : 

"The  worshiping  establishments  now  in  operation  throughout  Christen- 
dom, increased  and  cemented  by  their  respective  voluminous  confessions  of 
faith,  and  their  ecclesiastical  constitutions,  are  not  churches  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but  the  legitimate  daughters  of  that  mother  of  harlots,  the  church  of  Rome .'" 

Again,  I  will  read  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  vol.  iii.  p.  362.  Here 
we  have  a  sort  of  doctrinal  catechism.  I  will  read  question  168,  and  the 
answer: 

"  Q,  And  what  of  the  apostasy — do  you  place  all  the  sects  in  the  apos- 
tasy'? 

A.  Yes  ;  all  religious  sects  who  have  any  human  bond  of  union  ;  all  who 
rally  under  any  articles  of  confederation,  other  than  the  apostles"  doctrine, 
and  who  refuse  to  yield  all  homage  to  the  ancient  order  of  things." 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  773 

All,  it  seems,  who  are  guilty  of  the  heinous  crime  of  using  a  creed,  are 
apostates  from  the  church  of  Christ  and  from  Christianity  !  I  have  read 
these  extracts,  my  friends,  that  you  may  know  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
doctrine  of  my  charitable  friend.  Surely  it  behooves  us  to  examine  into 
this  subject,  and  ascertain  whether  writing  and  adopting  a  creed  is,  in- 
deed, a  crime  of  such  magnitude  as  he  pretends — a  crime  which  amounts 
to  apostasy,  and  excludes  from  the  church  and  from  heaven. 

The  question  now  before  us,  is  not  whether  the  Nicene  or  the  Athana- 
sian  creed,  the  Westminster  confession,  or  any  other  creed  now  in  exist- 
ence, is  good  or  bad,  true  or  false.  It  is  admitted,  that  there  may  be,  as 
there  have  been,  erroneous  creeds — creeds  teaching  false  doctrines  ;  and  it 
is  not  denied  that  a  bad  creed  will  do  injury,  as  will  error,  no  matter  in 
what  way  it  may  be  inculcated.  But  the  question  before  us  is  not  whe- 
ther any  particular  creed  is  true  or  false,  but  ivhether  it  is  lawful  and 
expedient  to  have  any  creed — whether  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical 
and  schismatical.  This  being  the  question,  and  the  only  question  before 
us,  you  at  once  see  the  irrelevancy  of  all  that  my  friend  read  to  us  con- 
cerning the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  creeds. 

To  determine  whether  the  using  of  a  creed  is  lawful  or  unlawful,  whe- 
ther it  tends  necessarily  to  schism  and  heresy,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire, 
what  is  the  design  of  creeds,  as  used  by  Protestant  christians  l  They  are 
designed  to  answer  several  purposes,  which  I  will  proceed  to  state. 

I.  A  creed  is  intended  to  be  a  public  declaration  of  the  great  doctrines 
and  truths  which  we,  as  a  body,  understand  the  Bible  to  teach.  It  is  not 
a  substitute  for  the  Bible,  nor  an  addition  to  it.  The  Westminister 
confession  (which  I  mention  as  an  example,  not  as  in  this  respect  differ- 
ing from  others,)  commences  with  a  declaration,  that  the  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  alone,  contains  the  whole  revelation  of  God,  designed  to  be  a  rule 
of  faith  and  of  life  for  his  people. 

"  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  ov.'n 
glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scrip- 
ture, or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture  : 
unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelation 
of  the  Spirit,  or  tradition  of  men." 

The  confession,  you  see,  at  the  very  outset,  declares,  that  the  Bible 
teaches  every  doctrine  necessary  to  be  believed,  and  prescribes  every  duty 
to  be  performed  in  order  to  salvation,  to  which  nothing  is,  at  any  time,  to 
be  added,  either  by  new  revelation,  or  traditions  of  men.  Then  this  creed 
is  not  a  substitute  for  the  Bible,  nor  an  addition  to  it.  Other  creeds, 
adopted  by  evangelical  denominations,  take  the  same  ground.  Viewing 
creeds,  then,  not  as  substitutes  for,  or  additions  to,  the  Bible,  but  as  pub- 
lic declarations  of  what  those  adopting  them  understand  the  Bible  to  teach, 
we  may  inquire,  whether  they  tend  to  produce  heresy  and  schism. 

Now  let  mc  here  stale  an  important  fact,  viz  :  It  is  impossible  to  know 
any  thing  of  a  man's  faith,  from  the  mere  fact  of  his  saying,  that  he  takes 
the  Bible  alone  as  his  infallible  guide.  When  you  hear  an  individual 
make  this  declaration,  I  ask,  do  you  know  any  thing  definitely  concern- 
ing his  faith — what  particular  doctrines  he  believes  ?  You  do  not.  The 
difficulty  arises  not  from  any  obscurity  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Bi- 
ble are  involved,  for  its  fundamental  truths  especially  are  taught  with  re- 
markable clearness,  and  very  variously  illustrated.  The  difficulty  arises 
from  the  fact,  that  men,  professing  to  be  guided  in  their  faith  anil  practice 
by  the  Bible,  have  perverted  its  language,  and  employed  it  in  a  great  va- 

3t2 


774  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

riety  of  senses.  When  men,  therefore,  use  Scripture  phraseology,  it  is 
by  no  means  certain,  that  they  use  it  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  em- 
ployed by  the  inspired  writers.  For  example,  the  time  was,  when  the 
expression  "  Son  of  God,"  had  a  clear  and  well-defined  meaning.  It 
was  then  universally  understood  to  express  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ. 
When  he  said  to  die  Jews — "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work," 
we  are  told,  "  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only 
had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  making 
himself  equal  tvith  God,'''' — John  v.  17,  18.  But  now  the  Arian,  who 
makes  Christ  only  a  super-angelic  creature,  and  the  Socinian,  who  makes 
him  a  mere  man,  still  use  the  Scripture  language,  "  Son  of  God  ;"  but  by 
it  they  mean  something  infinitely  different  from  what  the  inspired  writers 
meant.  The  difficulty  arises  not  from  any  indefiniteness  in  the  expres- 
sion as  used  by  the  inspired  writers  ;  for  they  evidently  used  it  to  express 
the  underived  divinity  of  Christ.  But  erring  men  have  given  to  the  lan- 
guage of  inspiration  new  meanings  ;  and  hence  it  happens,  that  whilst  the 
Arian,  the  Socinian,  and  the  Trinitarian,  all  profess  to  take  the  Bible  alone 
as  their  infallible  guide;  they  differ  infinitely  in  their  interpretation  of  its 
language  on  this  vital  subject.  You  cannot,  therefore,  know  the  faith  of 
any  man  by  the  fact  that  he  professes  to  take  the  Bible  as  his  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

The  very  great  importance  of  each  denomination  of  professing  chris- 
tians giving  a  public  declaration  of  the  principal  doctrines  and  truths  they 
understand  the  Scriptures  to  teach,  will  appear  from  two  or  three  consi- 
derations. 

1st.  Persons  desiring  to  enjoy  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ, 
can  learn  the  views  we,  as  a  body,  entertain,  compare  them  with  the  Bi- 
ble— the  only  rule  of  faith — and  determine  whether  they  can  conscien- 
tiously unite  and  co-operate  with  us.  No  prudent  man  will  become  a 
member  of  any  society,  of  any  kind,  until  he  knows  what  are  their  prin- 
ciples. Much  less  will  any  considerate  man  unite  himself  with  any  body 
of  professing  christians,  until  he  is  well  satisfied,  that,  as  a  body,  they 
hold  and  teach  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  truths  of  Christianity.  In 
his  selection  of  a  church,  not  only  are  his  usefulness  and  liis  comfort  in- 
volved ;  but  by  it  his  children,  and  his  children's  children,  are  to  have  their 
faith  moulded,  and  their  destiny  determined.  Never  does  a  man  take  a 
step  more  solemn  in  its  character,  or  more  momentous  in  its  results,  than 
when  he  identifies  himself  and  his  family  with  a  particular  body  of  pro- 
fessing christians.  If  there  be  any  one  act  of  his  life  which  ought  to  be 
preceded  by  most  careful  and  prayerful  examination,  this  is  the  act.  The 
interests,  present  and  future,  of  those  most  dear  to  him,  and  to  whom  he 
is  under  obligations  the  most  solemn,  require  him  to  be  assured  before 
connecting  himself  and  them  with  any  church,  that  that  church  holds  and 
teaches  the  truth. 

Now  suppose  a  man  with  his  family  to  arrive  in  this  country  from 
England.  He  desires  to  become  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ.  He 
finds  a  number  of  bodies  claiming  to  constitute  a  part  of  that  church,  and 
several,  (of  which  the  church  of  my  friend  Mr.  C.  is  one,)  claiming  to 
be  the  church.  The  deeply  interesting  question  arises,  with  which  of 
these  bodies  can  he,  consulting  his  duty,  his  usefulness,  his  happiness, 
and  the  present  and  eternal  interest  of  his  family,  unite  himself.  Before 
he  can  determine,  he  wishes  to  know,  and  it  is  absolutely  essential  that 
he  should  know,  how  they  severally  understand  the  Bible — what  are  the 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  775 

doctrines  they  understand  it  to  teach.  If  he  tliinks  of  becoming  a  mem- 
ber of  any  one  of  them,  he  desires  first  to  compare  their  views  with  the 
Word  of  God.  He  can  take  our  confession  of  faith  and  very  soon  as- 
certain what  Presbyterians  understand  the  Bible  to  teach ;  and  lie  can 
carefully  compare  their  doctrines  with  that  blessed  Book,  and  determine, 
in  view  of  all  his  responsibilities,  whether  he  can  co-operate  with  us. 
And  he  may  learn  from  the  creeds  of  the  Methodists,  Episcopalians  and 
others,  what  are  their  views.  Thus  lie  maj^  be  able  to  take  a  position  in 
which  he  and  his  family  can  be  happy  and  useful. 

But  tvhifher,  I  emphatically  ask,  in  this  ivorld  loouJd  such  a  man 
go  to  ascertain  the  doctrines  of  this  modern  reformation?  Where  could 
he  ascertain  what  Mr.  Campbell's  church,  as  a  body,  understand  the  Bible 
to  teach  ?  I  have  said  publicly,  on  another  occasion,  that  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  source  from  which  such  information  can  be  gained.  The  state- 
ment has  been  by  some  of  his  brethren  pronounced  slanderous.  I  now 
make  it  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Campbell,  that  he  may  disprove  it,  if  he 
can;  and  I  call  on  him  to  enlighten  us  on  this  subject.  I  may  ascer- 
tain what  he  as  an  individual  believes  ;  but  what  his  church  as  a  body 
believes,  I  cannot  possibly  be  informed;  nor  can  any  man  living,  unless 
he  could  hear  every  one  of  the  preachers  and  members  declare  their  sen- 
timents. Hence  no  considerate  man,  as  it  appears  to  me,  can  become  a 
member  of  that  church.  He  who  does  so,  if  he  love  the  truth,  may  soon 
have  occasion  to  repent  his  imprudent  step. 

2d.  A  second  important  purpose  answered  by  creeds,  is  this :  other 
christian  communities  can,  by  an  examination  of  our  creed,  for  example, 
determine  whether  they  can  recognize  us  as  constituting  a  part  of  the 
family  of  God,  and  how  far  they  can  co-operate  with  us.  I  take  it  as 
granted,  that  every  true  christian  desires  to  know  and  recognize  all  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  and,  so  far  as  he  consistently  can,  to  co-operate  with 
them  in  promoting  his  cause.  Other  denominations  of  christians  can, 
by  an  examuiation  of  our  creed,  very  soon  determine  whetlier  they  can 
acknowledge  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  a  part  of  Christ's  church.  So 
when  we  wish  to  determine  whether  we  can  acknowledge  the  Methodist, 
the  Baptist,  or  the  Episcopal  church,  we  can  examine  their  creed,  and  as- 
certain what  they  understand  the  Scriptures  to  teach.  On  examining  their 
articles  of  faith  we  see,  that  on  some  points  we  diiler  from  them  ;  but  we 
also  see,  that  on  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel  we  are  agreed 
— that  we  stand,  side  by  side,  on  the  same  immovable  foundation.  We 
can,  therefore,  own  tliem  as  brethren  in  the  Lord,  and  rejoice  in  their 
success  in  spreading  abroad  the  saving  knowledge  of  Christ. 

But  how  can  any  denomination  of  ciiristians  determine  to  recognize 
Mr.  Campbell's  church  ?  Aye,  here  is  the  difficulty.  One  man  preach- 
es one  kind  of  doctrine,  and  another  the  opposite;  and  thus  they  are  in- 
volved in  endless  contradiction.  Even  their  leader,  Mr.  C,  notwithstanding 
his  strong  partialities,  is  constrained  to  acknowledge  and  declare,  that  in 
it  all  sorts  of  doctrine  have  been  preached  by  almost  all  sorts  of  men  ! 
It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what,  as  a  church,  they  do  believe.  The 
very  least,  therefore,  that  any  evangelical  denomination  can  say,  is,  that 
they  do  not  know  them,  and  cannot  acknowledge  them. 

3d.  A  third  purpose  answered  by  a  creed,  is — that  it  becomes  an  impor- 
tant means  of  instruction  to  members  of  the  church.  Our  confession  contains 
a  clear  and  distinct  statement  of  the  principal  doctrines  and  duties  of  Chris- 
tianity, with  suitable  reference  to  the  word  of  God  as  supporting  them. 


776  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

4th,  A  creed  is  an  important  means  of  correcting  misrepresentations 
and  slanders  concerning  the  faiih  of  the  church.  No  body  of  professing 
christians  is  wilHiig  to  lie  under  misrepresentations,  to  have  their  charac- 
ter blackened,  and  the  minds  of  the  people  prejudiced  against  them,  by 
being  charged  with  holding  and  teaching  doctrines  they  abhor.  But  a 
church  with  no  creed  cannot  but  be  misrepresented.  No  man  has  com- 
plained more  of  misrepresentations  and  slanders  of  his  church  than  Mr.  C. 
Yet  how  can  it  be  otherwise  than  that  all  kinds  of  doctrine  will  be  charged 
upon  them,  since  he  himself  declares,  that  they  do  in  fact  preach  all  kinds 
of  doctrine  ?  Indeed  one  can  scarcely  charge  the  church  with  holding 
any  one  tenet,  without  slandering  or  misrepresenting  some  of  its  mem- 
bers ;  for,  as  a  body,  they  believe  scarcely  any  thing  !  You  hear  one  of 
their  preachers  to-day  preach  a  certain  set  of  doctrines ;  and  another  in- 
dividual hears  another  preach  doctrines  widely  different,  if  not  directly 
contrary.  You  state  what  you  have  heard  preached;  and  you  are  charged 
with  slander  by  some  one  who  heard  the  other  individual. 

But  if  men  misrepresent  our  doctrines,  as  they  often  do,  our  confession 
of  faith  is  a  standing  refutation  of  their  false  statements.  If  they  charge 
us  with  believing  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  we  refute  and  expose 
the  charge  by  reference  to  our  book. 

To  tliese  purposes  answered  by  a  creed,  Mr.  Campbell  cannot  object. 
I  venture  to  assert,  that  he  himself  would  not  unite  with  any  body  of 
professing  christians  on  their  mere  declaration  that  they  go  by  the  Bible, 
without  further  inquiries  or  explanations.  He  would  desire  some  partic- 
ular information  concerning  their  faith.  Even  the  Shakers,  I  believe,  pro- 
fess to  receive  the  New  Testament  as  their  infallible  guide.  I  remember 
once  to  have  read  a  letter  from  a  Shaker  female  to  her  mother,  and  I  found 
it  filled  with  quotations  from  tiie  New  Testament  most  strangely  misap- 
plied.    All  errorists  profess  to  find  their  faith  in  the  Bible. 

A  Mr.  Jones,  of  England,  wrote  to  Mr.  Campbell,  inquiring  particu- 
larly concerning  his  faith  and  the  faith  of  his  church  on  a  number  of 
points.  JMr.  C.  replied  at  considerable  length,  giving  a  detailed  account 
of  the  items  of  their  belief.  Why  did  he  not  say  to  Mr.  Jones — 'we  go 
by  the  Bible  ;  read  it  and  you  will  find  our  faith  V  But  although  he  de- 
nounces all  creeds  and  professes  to  go  by  the  Bible  alone,  he  thought  it 
necessary  particularly  to  write  out  and  send  his  creed  to  Jones,  and  his 
friends,  over  the  water !  And  in  turn  he  inquired  of  Jones  concerning 
the  faith  of  those  with  whom  he  was  associated.  If  any  one  wishes  to 
know  what  Presbyterians  believe,  we  refer  him  to  our  confession ; 
and  when  we  find  others  subscribing  to  that  book,  Ave  can  form  some 
definite  idea,  if  they  are  honest  men,  what  they  understand  the  Scriptures 
to  teach.  But  Mr.  Campbell,  to  remove  the  very  difficulties  I  have  sug- 
gested, has  published  a  kind  of  creed,  which  he  calls  "  The  Christian 
System."  That  you  may  understand  for  what  purposes  he  published 
this  work,  I  will  read  an  extract  on  pages  10,  11. 

"  Havinir  paid  a  very  candid  and  considerate  regard  to  all  that  has  been 
offered  against  these  principles,  as  well  as  having  been  admonished  from 
the  extremes  into  which  some  of  our  friends  and  brethren  have  carried  some 
points,  I  undertake  this  work  with  a  deep  sense  of  its  necessity,  and  with 
much  anticipation  of  its  utility,  in  exhibiting  a  concentrated  view  of  the 
whole  ground  we  occupy — of  rectifying  some  extremes — of  furnishing  new 
means  of  defence  to  those  engaged  in  contending  with  this  generation  for 
primitive  Christianity." 

He  undertook  this  work  with  a  deep  sense  of  its  necessity,  and  antici- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  777 

pating  much  good  that  it  would  do  by  giving  a  concentrated  view  of  the 
whole  ground  he  and  his  church  occupy  !  Does  not  the  Bible  exhibit 
with  sufficient  clearness  the  views  they  entertain  ?  No.  And  he  wished 
to  rectify  some  extremes.  Could  not  the  Bible  rectify  them  ?  But  last, 
though  not  least,  he  wished  to  furnish  new  means  of  defence  to  his 
preachers.  No  doubt,  they  gready  needed  means  of  defence ;  but  how 
he,  on  his  principles,  could  so  think,  I  do  not  understand.  Does  he  not 
contend,  that  the  Bible,  without  any  creed  or  any  other  help,  furnishes 
abundant  means  of  defence  against  error  ? 

The  Christian  System  is  not  adopted  by  the  gentleman's  church ;  for 
it  is  a  creed  which  they  could  not  honestly  adopt.  And  here  is  the  difficul- 
ty attending  it.  It  professes  to  give  "  a  concentrated  view  of  the  whole 
ground  "  his  church  occupies,  of  the  principles  they  hold.  But  what 
evidence  have  we,  that,  as  a  body,  they  adopt  these  principles  ?  I  know 
that  many  of  his  leading  preachers  do  reject  some  of  the  most  impor- 
tant doctrines  here  stated.  If  I  were  to  charge  them  with  holding  such 
views,  they  would  consider  themselves  very  much  misrepresented.  The 
church,  as  a  body,  does  not  hold  them.  Many  are  further  from  the  truth. 
This  System  would  induce  us  to  believe,  that  Mr.  C.  is  returning  to 
Babylon. 

But  these  private  creeds  are  absolutely  Avorthless.  They  do  not  give 
the  information  desired  concerning  the  faith  of  the  church.  I  have  re- 
cently seen  two  or  three  little  creeds,  in  the  Christian  Journal,  a  paper 
published  in  Harrodsburgh,  each  professing  to  give  an  outline  of  what  the 
gentleman's  church,  or  some  portion  of  it,  holds ;  but  they  differ  most 
seriously  from  each  other.  In  one,  I  find  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  ; 
and  in  the  other  it  is  entirely  omitted.  Some  of  the  most  prominent 
preachers  in  the  church  do  not  believe  it.  We  have  truly  quite  a  variety 
of  published  statements  of  doctrine,  coming  from  leading  men  in  this 
reformation  ;  but  who  can  tell  what  the  church,  as  a  body,  believes  ?  If 
they  consider  themselves  often  misrepresented,  they  should  remember, 
that  if  men  say  any  thing  concerning  their  faith,  they  can  scarcely  avoid 
misrepresenting  some  of  them.  How,  I  ask,  can  any  considerate  man 
unite  himself,  and  connect  the  destinies  of  his  family,  with  a  body  of 
people  whose  faith  he  never  can  ascertain,  because  there  is  no  unity  and 
no  means  of  certain  information  concerning  it  ? 

II.  The  second  general  purpose  answered  by  a  creed  is,  that  it  is  a 
standard  of  ministerial  qualijicaiion,  as  well  as  of  the  qualifications  of 
other  church  officers.  A  minister  of  the  gospel,  Paul  says,  must  be  "  apt 
to  teach,"  1  Tim.  iii.  2.  He  must  be  one  who  "  holds  fast  the  faithful 
word,  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine 
both  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gainsayers,"  Tit.  i.  9.  Other  passages 
of  the  same  character  might  be  quoted,  were  it  necessary. 

Mr.  Campbell  will  not  deny  that  some  qualifications  are  necessary  to 
the  work  of  the  ministry.  He  will  admit,  that  the  man  who  undertakes 
to  preach  the  gospel,  ought  to  possess  some  education,  to  be  able  to  teach. 
Men  will  not  patronize  a  teacher  of  a  little  country  school,  until  they  have 
some  evidence  that  he  understands  the  branches  he  proposes  to  teach. 
Unspeakably  more  important  is  it,  that  he  who  undertakes  to  expound 
the  Word  of  God  to  immortal  minds,  should  be  "  apt  to  teach."  And 
the  church  is  most  solemnly  bound  to  know,  that  he  possesses  the  neces- 
sary qualifications,  before  she  ordains  him  to  the  work. 

Again,  Mr.  C.  will  not  deny,  that  the  candidate  of  the  ministerial  office 


778  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

should  give  evidence  of  his  personal  purity  and  of  his  soundness  in  the 
faith.  If  he  be  not  truly  pious,  whatever  talents  and  learning  he  may  pos- 
sess, he  cannot  preach  the  gospel.  If  he  be  not  sound  in  the  faith — if 
he  hold  dangerous  error,  he  will  mislead  and  ruin  multitudes.  The  gen- 
tleman will  not  deny  the  necessity  of  these  qualifications ;  nor  will  he 
deny  that  it  is  both  the  duty  and  the  interest  of  the  church,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  see  to  it  that  none  enter  upon  the  responsible  work,  who  are  des- 
titute of  them ;  for  "  whether  one  member  suffers,  all  tlie  members  suffer 
with  it."  Every  unworthy  minister  is  a  terrible  curse  to  the  body  with 
which  he  is  connected. 

Now  observe,  God  has  made  it  the  solemn  duty  of  the  church  to  se- 
cure, as  far  as  possible,  ministers  possessing  these  qualifications.  He 
has  prescribed  no  particular  method  of  ascertaining  the  qualifications  of 
individuals  seeking  the  office.  No  passage  of  Scripture  can  be  produced 
requiring  any  one  method  to  be  pursued.  Then  it  follows,  that  he  has  left 
the  church  to  secure  the  object  in  whatever  way  may  be  deemed  wisest 
or  most  expedient.     This,  I  presume,  cannot  be  denied. 

The  Presbyterians  have  deemed  it  wise  to  draw  up  an  outline  of  the 
doctrines  and  truths  they  understand  the  Scriptures  to  teach,  and  to  re- 
quire all  who  seek  the  office  of  the  ministry  at  their  hands,  to  state  dis- 
tinctly whether  they  so  understand  them.  We  have  also  agreed  on  what 
we  regard  as  a  proper  standard  of  literary  and  scientific  attainments,  that 
our  ministers,  being  sound  in  the  faith  and  suitably  educated,  may  be 
"  workmen  that  need  not  be  ashamed."  Our  regard  for  the  cause  of 
Christ  and  for  the  eternal  interests  of  men,  as  well  as  our  solemn  respon- 
sibility to  God,  forbid  us  to  allow  men  to  go  forth  with  our  sanction,  until 
we  have  ascertained,  as  far  as  possible,  whether  they  have  the  qualifica- 
tions required  by  the  Head  of  the  church. 

Quacks  in  medicine  kill  the  body.  Quacks  in  theology  kill  the  soul. 
If  it  is  wise  in  our  legislatures  to  forbid  men  to  practice  medicine,  until  duly 
qualified,  surely  it  is  wise  in  the  church  to  refuse  to  invest  men  with  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  until  they  are  properly  prepared  for  its  solemn 
duties.  Paul  admonished  Timothy  to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man" 
— not  to  place  in  the  sacred  office  "  a  novice,  lest,  being  lifted  up  with 
pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of  the  devil." 

The  uniformity  of  our  standard  of  ministerial  qualifications,  begets  con- 
fidence and  preserves  harmony  throughout  our  church.  If  a  Presbyterian 
minister  from  the  east  or  the  far  west  visit  our  churches,  we  are  not  afraid, 
that,  if  invited  to  preach  in  our  pulpits,  he  will  inculcate  dangerous  and 
destructive  error.  We  know  his  faith.  True,  we  may  be  deceived  by 
hypocrites.  Our  creeds  are  not  expected  entirely  to  shield  us  from  such 
imposition. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Creeds,  so  far  from  creating  schism,  tend  to  draw  evan- 
gelical denominations  more  closely  together.  In  examining  the  creeds  of 
our  Methodist,  Baptist,  Episcopal  or  Congregational  brethren,  we  dis- 
cover that  on  some  points  we  dilTer  from  them ;  but  we  also  see,  tliat  as  to 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  we  agree.  We  can,  therefore, 
preach  and  pray  together,  and  aid  each  other  in  the  good  work.  I  can 
sincerely  thank  God,  that  the  labors  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  have 
been  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  thousands  of  blinded  pagans,  in  the 
islands  of  the  South  Sea;  that  the  Baptists  have  successfully  proclaimed 
the  gospel  in  Burraah ;  and  that  other  evangelical  denominations  are  en- 
gaged in  the  same  glorious  work.     I  bid  them  God  speed.     Some  time 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  779 

since,  I  read  with  deep  interest  an  account  of  a  meeting  of  a  number  of 
missionaries,  of  several  evangelical  denominations,  at  Jerusalem,  for  the 
purpose  of  consulting  how  they  might  most  successfully  promote  the  cause 
of  truth  and  righteousness  in  that  dark  region.  They  knew  well  each 
others'  views  of  divine  truth  by  means  of  ilieir  several  creeds,  and  were 
thereby  prepared  to  co-operate  in  the  general  cause. 

Not  long  since,  two  denominations  of  Presbyterians  were  united  in  one 
ecclesiastical  organization,  and  formed  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  in  Ireland.  They  had  a  creed,  by  which  they  could  as- 
certain each  others'  views  ;  and,  linding  themselves  on  common  ground, 
they  became  united  in  one  body.  And  I  understand,  there  is  now  a  plan 
on  foot,  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  two  very  respectable  denominations  in 
our  country.  I  mean  the  German  Reformed  and  tlie  Dutch  Reformed 
churches. 

III.  The  adoption  of  our  confession  of  faitli,  let  it  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, is  not  required  as  a  condition  of  membership  in  our  church.  In 
order  to  obtain  membership,  we  require  persons  to  receive  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  to  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  possessing 
true  piety.  It  is  not  expected,  that  before  entering  the  church,  persons 
who  have  been  converted,  will  examine  a  system  of  truth  so  extensive  as 
that  contained  in  our  confession.  We  do  not  expect  the  pupil  to  be  as 
well  instructed  as  his  teacher. 

Now  I  ask  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  where  in  the  Bible  he  can  find  a  law  for- 
bidding creeds  for  these  purposes?  There  are  two  principles  taught  in 
the  Scriptures,  of  which  we  should  never  lose  sight :  1st.  We  may  not  do 
what  the  Bible  forbids;  and,  2d.  We  may  not  condemn  what  the  Bible 
does  not  condemn.  If  there  is  in  the  Bible  a  passage  which  condemns 
the  use  of  creeds  for  the  purposes  I  have  mentioned,  let  it  be  produced. 
If  there  is  not,  by  what  authority  does  Mr.  C.  condemn  as  apostates,  all 
christians  who  have  a  creed  ?  Most  assuredly,  if  he  cannot  find  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  to  sustain  him  in  his  sweeping  denunciations,  he  and  his 
church  stand  in  a  most  unenviable  altitude.  They  have  condemned  those 
whom.  God  has  not  condemned.  They  have  excommunicated  multitudes 
whom  he  owns  as  his  children,  because  they  have  ventured  to  do  what  he 
never  did  forbid.     "Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged." 

Again,  /  ask,  ivhat  is  the  standard  of  ministerial  qualiJicMlion  in  Mr. 
Campbell's  church?  By  the  way,  I  do  not  speak  his  clmrch  in  an  invi- 
dious sense,  as  he  seems  to  imagine.  I  often  speak  of  the  Presbyterian 
clmrch  as  my  church  ;  and  of  Kentucky  as  my  native  state.  But  I  am  par- 
ticularly anxious  to  know  what  is  the  standard  of  ministerial  qualification 
in  his  church.  AVhat  education  is  required  of  those  who  desire  to  be- 
come public  teachers?  What  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures — what  sound- 
ness in  the  faith  is  required  ?  Wliat  truths  are  they  required  to  believe 
and  teach,  when  they  go  forth  under  the  sanction  of  the  church  ?  I  press 
these  questions  the  more  earnestly,  because  we  are  to  regard  this  as  the 
model  church — as  the  church — the  very  best  and  most  successful  efTort 
in  this  nineteenth  century,  "  to  restore  the  ancient  order  of  things."  Is 
there  in  the  gentleman's  church,  any  uniform  standard  of  education? 
There  is  not!  Is  any  particular  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures — any 
theological  training  required?  None!!  Is  there  any  standard  as  to 
soundness  in  the  faith  ?     None  whatever  ! ! ! 

What  is  the  consequence  of  this  state  of  things  ?  All  sorts  of  men  may 
preach,  and  do  preach  all  sorts  of  doctrine.    No  wonder — the  door  is  wide 


780  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

open.  And  who  does  not  know,  that  if  all  may  preach,  the  most  rash, 
self-conceited,  ignorant  persons  will  preach  ?  Such  men  will,  to  a  great 
extent,  be  your  preachers;  whilst  those  better  qualified,  but  more  modest, 
will  shrink  from  the  responsibility. 

Concerning  christian  union  let  me  repeat,  we  are  most  decidedly  in 
favor  of  it.  This  is  a  theme  on  which  my  friend  Mr.  C  has  long  de- 
claimed. And  where  is  the  christian  whose  heart  does  not  respond  to 
every  appeal  in  favor  of  the  union  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  ?  But  what 
13  CHRISTIAN  UNION  ?  We  go  for  it  not  in  name,  but  in  fact.  Let  us  in- 
quire what  is  the  union  of  which  the  inspired  writers  speak.  Paul,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  thus  speaks  concerning  it:  "And  he  gave 
some,  apostles  ;  and  some,  prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some, 
pastors  and  teachers  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ:  till  we  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect 
man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ:"  chapter 
iv.  11—13. 

What  is  the  union  of  which  the  apostle  speaks?  It  is  the  unity  of  the 
faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  oneness  of  which 
the  Bible  speaks,  does  not  consist  in  having  the  same  name,  or  in  sus- 
taining the  same  ecclesiastical  relation.  A  thousand  persons  may  be 
thrown  together  in  the  same  church,  and  yet  there  may  be  no  real  unity, 
and  no  true  union  amongst  them.  They  may  all  profess  to  be  guided  by 
the  Bible,  but  their  views  may  be  so  discordant,  that  they  are  not  one  in 
any  good  sense.  Bible  unity  consists  in  having  the  same  faith,  knowing 
and  receiving  the  same  great  doctrines  and  truths,  as  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures;  and  no  union  without  this  is  desirable  or  attainable.  If  any  man 
can  devise  a  plan  by  which  a  closer  union  of  this  kind  can  be  secured,  I 
will  promote  it  with  all  my  heart.  But  I  do  not  believe  in  the  plan  of 
throwing  all  christians  into  one  ecclesiastical  organization,  so  long  as 
they  differ  on  some  important  points  of  doctrine  and  order. 

The  different  families  in  this  city  are  now  living  in  harmony  and  friend- 
ship. They  enjoy  each  other's  society,  and  afford  mutual  assistance,  as 
circumstances  require;  and,  in  one  important  sense,  they  constitute  one 
community.  But  throw  them  all  into  one  house,  and  they  would  quarrel 
in  less  than  twenty-four  hours.  [A  laugh.]  They  have  different  ways 
of  doing  divers  things,  and  they  would  be  constanily  coming  in  collision. 
So  it  is  with  the  different  evangelical  denominations.  They  can  now 
cordially  co-operate  in  many  benevolent  enterprises,  and  rejoice  in  each 
others'  success  in  doing  good.  But  bring  us  all  together  in  one  organi- 
zation, with  our  different  views  of  minor  matters,  and  difficulties  must 
almost  immediately  arise.  When  they  all  see  alike,  there  will  be  no  dif- 
ficulty in  prevailing  on  them  to  unite  in  one  body,  as  the  two  denomina- 
tions in  Ireland  have  done.  Till  then,  they  can  labor  in  the  cause  of 
Christ  more  harmoniously  and  more  efficiently  in  their  separate  organi- 
zations, than  if  thrown  into  one  body. 

Mr.  Campbell  has  undertaken  to  prove,  that  human  creeds,  as  bonds  of 
union  and  communion,  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  arguments  already  offered  on  the  negative  of  this  proposition, 
I  wish  to  state  and  prove  one  important  fact,  viz.  There  is  more  heresy 
mid  more  schis7n  in  those  churches  that  have  no  creeds,  than  in  most  of 
those  that  have  creeds.  The  gentleman  contends  that  creeds  produce 
heresy  and  schism ;  but  if  I  prove  that  these  evils  abound  more  where 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  781 

there  are  no  creeds,  than  where  there  are,  it  will  follow  that  he  has 
ascribed  effects  to  a  wrong  cause.  If  a  physician  should  contend,  that  a 
certain  malignant  fever  is  caused  by  a  particular  climate,  and  it  were 
proved  that  the  same  fever  does,  in  fact,  prevail  in  a  very  different  cli- 
mate ;  it  would  follow,  that  he  had  entirely  mistaken  the  cause.  When 
a  man  ascribes  an  effect  to  a  certain  cause,  if  I  can  prove  that  the  effect 
exists  where  the  cause  is  not  found,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  he 
has  not  found  the  true  cause. 

Now  I  assert,  and  am  prepared  to  prove,  that  there  is  more  real  schism, 
and  more  heresy,  in  the  church  of  which  Mr.  C.  is  a  member,  than  can 
be  found  in  any  Protestant  church  that  has  a  creed.  This  church  is  the 
latest  edition  of  a  no-creed  church,  and,  he  will  say,  the  very  best.  I  am 
willing  so  to  take  it.  I  will  now  proceed  to  prove  the  truth  of  my  state- 
ment. If  I  make  it  appear  that  heresy  and  schism  abound  in  his  church, 
the  conclusion  will  follow,  that  creeds  are  not  the  cause  of  these  evils. 

1.  It  is  a  fact,  that  his  church  necessarily  (idmits  to  its  communion 
errorists  of  almost  every  grade.  But  he  tells  us,  his  church  goes  by 
the  Bible.  Do  they  go  by  the  Bible,  as  Mr.  C.  understands  it?  No — for 
then  he  would  be  pope ;  and  he  professes  to  be  a  bilter  enemy  of  all 
popes.  Do  they  go  by  the  Bible,  as  each  little  church  understands  it? 
No — for  then  every  little  church,  of  a  dozen  members,  would  be  constitut- 
ed an  infallible  council.  Do  they  go  by  the  Bible,  as  each  individual 
understands  it  for  himself?     This  must  be  the  way. 

Then,  I  ask,  is  not  Mr.  C.'s  church  obliged  to  receive  to  its  fellowship 
every  individual  who  professes  to  take  the  Bible  as  his  rule  of  faith  and 
practice?  The  church  is  not  to  interpret  the  Bible  for  him.  Now  suppose 
I  should  renounce  my  creed,  and  seek  to  become  a  member  of  the  gen- 
tleman's church — would  they  receive  me  ?  I  say  to  them  I  have  no  writ- 
ten creed — I  go  by  the  Bible,  and  I  claim  the  right  of  membership  in  the 
church.  They  are  solemnly  bound  to  receive  me,  or  renounce  their  fun- 
damental principle.  How  can  they  exclude  the  Arian,  the  Socinian, 
the  Universalist,  or  any  errorist  who  may  choose  to  enter  the  church  ? 
They  all  profess  to  take  the  Bible  as  their  infallible  guide.  The  Univer- 
salist, for  example,  can  say,  that  he  has  no  written  creed — that  he  goes  by 
the  Bible  alone.  The  door  into  the  church  is  wide  enough  to  admit  him. 
You  cannot  reject  him  without  a  palpable  abandonment  of  your  funda- 
mental principle,  that  every  man  is  to  take  the  Bible  simply  as  he  under- 
stands it.  I  will  prove,  in  due  time,  that  the  gentleman's  church  has  a 
creed — a  short  one  indeed,  but  one  of  the  most  exclusive  in  the  world. 

I  will  now  prove,  that  their  foundation  is  broad  enough  for  all  to  stand 
upon — that  they  cannot  exclude  any  individual  who  professes  to  take  the 
Bible  alone  as  his  rule  of  faith  and  life.  They  must  even  admit  the  Pedo- 
baptist,  or  abandon  their  principle ;  for  he  professes  to  go  by  the  Book. 
I  will  read  in  Christianity  Restored,  pp.  118,  119. 

"  But  the  grandeur,  sublimity,  and  beauty  of  the  foundation  of  hope,  and 
of  ecclesiastical  or  social  union,  established  by  the  Author  and  Founder  of 
Christianity,  consisted  in  this,  that  the  helxcj  of  one  fact,  and  that  upon  the 
best  evidence  in  the  world,  is  all  that  is  requisite,  as  far  as  faith  goes,  to 
ealvation.  The  belief  of  this  one  fad,  and  submission  to  one  inslilidioii  ex- 
pressive of  it,  is  all  that  is  required  of  Heaven  to  admission  into  the  church. 
A  christian,  as  defined,  not  by  Dr.  Johnson,  nor  any  creed-maker,  but  by 
one  taught  from  Heaven,  is  one  that  believes  this  one  fact,  and  has  submit- 
ted to  one  institution,  and  whose  deportment  accords  with  the  morality  and 
virtue  of  the  great  Prophet.     The  one  fact  is  expressed  in  a  single  propo- 

3U 


782  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

eition,  that  Jesus  the  Nazarene  is  the  Messiah.  The  evidence  upon  which 
it  is  to  be  believed  is  the  testimony  of  twelve  men,  confirmed  by  prophecy, 
miracles  and  spiritual  gifts.  The  one  institution  is  baptism  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Every  such  person 
is  a  disciple,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  the  moment  he  has  believed 
this  one  fact." — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  30—12  o'clock,  M. 
[iMR.  Campbell's  second  address.] 

Mr.  President — A  person,  in  only  one  half  hour,  can  make  more 
points  than  could  be  discussed  in  a  year.  Nay,  sir,  a  child  can  propose 
more  questions  in  five  minutes  than  a  philosopher  could  answer  in  an 
age.  The  speech  which  you  have  just  heard,  is  a  most  singular  com- 
pound, difficult  to  refer  to  any^  one  head  or  classification  ;  but,  fortunately, 
it  was  most  self-refutable  and  suicidal.  The  drilt  and  scope  of  the  first 
half  of  it  was  to  prove  me  to  be  one  of  the  most  exclusive  men  in  the 
world.  He  spent  almost  half  his  time  in  showing  the  detailed  evidences 
of  my  superlative  exclusivencss  :  but  the  remainder  of  it  was,  indeed,  not 
in  the  most  complimentary  way,  yet  still  it  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  my 
remarkable  inclusiveness  and  latitudinarianism.  So  that  our  exclusive 
inclusiveness  was  made  to  stand  out  before  you  in  very  bold  dimensions. 
Strange  conceptions.  We  exclude  all  and  receive  all — mentally  at  least. 
We  manage,  however,  this  peculiar  exclusiveness  of  theory  so  as  to 
make  it  the  most  inclusive  of  any  other  system  in  operation  in  this  com- 
munity. We  must,  then,  attend,  if  not  to  all,  to  as  many,  at  least,  as 
possible  of  these  points  of  evidence  by  which  Mr.  Rice  would  sustain 
these  grievous  imputations  and  aspersions,  for  arguments  no  one  will  call 
them. 

He  commenced  by  telling  you  how  many  books  I  have  written,  and 
this,  of  course,  is  his  first  argument  in  defence  of  creeds.  Now,  in  point 
of  logic,  this  argument  is  refuted  by  one  fact,  viz :  that  of  all  these  books 
not  one  has  ever  been  used  as  a  confession  of  faith  by  any  congregation, 
or  community,  in  the  world.  If  I  had,  then,  written  a  hundred  volumes, 
they  would  not,  in  the  aggregate,  nor  in  the  detail,  count  any  thing  at  all 
as  an  oft'set  against  this  litde  book,  called  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  for  one  reason  that  a  child  may  comprehend :  no  individual,  no 
society'  amongst  us  either  so  contemplates  them,  or  uses  them,  in  theory 
or  in  practice.  On  yesterday,  holding  up  this  volume — the  "  Christian 
System  in  reference  to  the  union  of  christians,^'  &c. — by  way  of  re- 
sponse, he  Avould  have  you  believe,  that  we  regarded  it  as  a  creed,  or 
some  such  thing.  I  must,  then,  pause  a  moment  on  this,  his  first  argu- 
ment for  creeds.  Does  not  the  gentleman  comprehend  the  difference  be- 
tween writing  a  book  on  any  religious  question,  and  making  that  book  a 
creed,  a  test  by  which  to  try  the  principles  of  men,  in  order  to  church  or 
ministerial  fellowship  ?  If  Mr.  Rice  comprehends  the  difference,  to  what 
influence,  then,  are  we  to  assign  his  attempt  to  place  this  book  before  you 
in  such  an  attitude  ? 

But,  as  it  is  always  fair  and  honorable,  in  discussion,  to  answer  an  argu- 
ment in  die  very  same  logic  and  rhetoric  by  which  it  is  assailed,  I  ask,  if 
writing  a  book  on  any  religious  subject  be  making  a  creed,  then  how  many 
creeds  have  the  Presbyterians  in  their  church  ? !  !  How  many  hundred 
to  one,  or  how  many  thousand  to  one,  have  they  against  us  ?  Who  can 
count  the  number  of  folios,  quartos,  octavos,  and  duodecimos  issued  from 
the  Presbyterian  press,  and  published  by  its  doctors,  its  learned  rabbins, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  783 

ministers,  laymen,  on  every  question  in  theology — didactic,  speculative, 
polemic,  pragmatic,  practical,  &c.  How  many  magazines,  reviews,  re- 
positories, and  periodicals  are  annually  still  teeming  from  their  presses ! 
Are  these  all  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith  ?  If  not,  then,  in  logic,  in 
truth,  and  in  candor,  why  so  represent  my  few  unpretending  volumes  ? 
I  have  too  much  respect  for  your  good  sense,  ray  fellow-citizens — I  have 
too  much  respect  for  my  own  intellectual  standing  in  this  community, 
than  to  argue  such  a  point  before  you.  I  think  it  is  more  than  sufficient 
to  state  the  fact,  and  submit  the  case  thus  formally  to  your  own  deliber- 
ate reflections  and  decision !  We  all  write  books,  and  will  continue,  if 
not  Solomons,  like  king  Solomon,  to  write  many  books ;  for  he  says,  of 
many  books  there  is  no  end.  I  presume  in  number  he  meant ;  and  true 
it  is,  also,  of  many  books  there  is  wo  point.  But  time  will  do  with  most 
of  our  books  as  it  did  with  those  of  even  Solomon  the  wise — send  them 
to  oblivion. 

We  are  not,  then,  to  be  impugned  for  writing  a  book ;  nor  are  our  ar- 
guments against  creeds  to  be  met  with  the  fact,  that  we  have  written  a 
volume,  or  various  volumes,  upon  the  religious  and  moral  questions  that 
agitate  and  disturb  society.  AH  professors,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  dis- 
tinguish between  writing  a  book  and  making  a  creed.  We  cannot  be  as- 
sailed on  this  point  but  by  a  train  of  reasoning  that  would  reprobate  all 
Catholic,  all  Protestant  Christendom,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  nations.  He 
that  does  not,  or  cannot,  appreciate  the  diiference  between  making  a  doc- 
trinal standard,  to  measure  candidates  for  admission  into  christian  churches, 
and  a  book  explanatory  of  our  views  of  any  thing  in  the  Bible,  or  out 
of  it,  is  not  to  be  reasoned  with  on  any  subject. 

But  the  gentleman  has  pronounced  a  compliment  on  the  confession. 
Remark  the  drift  of  his  words — men  read  the  Bible  and  mistake  its  mean- 
ing— misconstrue,  overstrain,  and  pervert  its  language.  Take,  for  exam- 
ple, says  he,  the  phrase,  '■'■Son  of  God.''''  This  phrase  is  now  so  well 
defined  in  the  creeds,  that  it  is  a  test  of  orthodoxy  !  Handsome  compli- 
ment truly !  Uninspired  men  traced,  ascertained,  and  fixed  for  ever  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  phrase,  ^'^ Son  of  God,^'  so  that  now  they  can  keep 
out  hosts  of  hereUcs  and  heresiarchs,  who,  through  the  loose,  unguarded, 
and  vague  style  of  inspired  men,  had,  before  the  invention  of  these  safe- 
guards of  truth,  crept  into  the  church  !  How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  unin- 
spired men  have  views  so  much  clearer,  definite,  and  unambiguous,  than 
those  guided  and  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  able  to  express 
them  in  terms  so  much  more  apposite  than  did  the  holy  twelve  ?  !  Does 
not  Mr.  R.  believe,  that  holy  men  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit?  Now  if  John  Calvin,  or  the  Westminster  divines,  can  speak 
more  learnedly,  more  intelligibly,  more  definitely,  than  the  inspired  ora- 
cles of  God's  Spirit,  what  is  the  value  of  inspiration  ?  The  less  inspira- 
tion the  better  ! 

Desultory  must  be  my  notices  of  such  a  defence  of  creeds  as  you  have 
heard.  The  gentleman's  next  argument  in  favor  of  creeds  is  my  unchar- 
itableness.  Well,  I  am  pleased  with  this  argument.  He  must  be  expert 
at  it ;  for  I  am  told,  it  has  been  one  of  his  standing  topics  for  several 
years.  It  will  give  me  an  opportunity  of  meeting  the  charge  with  one 
well  versed  in  the  subject,  profoundly  read,  and  erudite  on  this  theme. 
He  has  not  studied  my  writings  to  much  profit,  if  he  still  regards  me  as 
most  exclusively  uncharitable.  Well,  what  is  the  true  state  of  the  case  ? 
We  all  see,  that  Christendom  is,  at  present,  in  a  disturbed,  agitated,  dis- 


784  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS 

located  condition — cut  up,  or  frittered  down  into  sects  and  parties  innu- 
merable, wholly  unwarranted  by  right  reason,  pure  religion,  the  Bible, 
the  God  of  the  Bible.  Before  the  high,  and  holy,  and  puissant  intelli- 
gences of  earth  and  heaven,  this  state  of  things  is  most  intolerable.  I 
have,  for  some  five  and  twenty  years,  regarded  human  creeds  as  both  the 
cause  and  the  efl'ect  of  partyism,  and  the  main  perpetuating  causes  of 
schism,  and,  therefore,  have  remonstrated  and  inveighed  against  them. 
Not,  lilie  many  who  oppose  creeds,  because  they  have  first  opposed  their 
peculiar  tenets ;  we  opposed  them  on  their  own  demerits,  not  because 
they  opposed  us.  In  this  particular  at  least,  if  not  on  other  accounts, 
we  differ  from  the  great  majority  of  those  who  oppose  them — because 
old  parties  were  sustained  by  them,  because  they  made  new  parties, 
and  because  they  were  roots  of  bitterness  and  apples  of  discord,  we 
opposed  them. 

In  lieu  of  them  all,  we  tendered  the  book  that  God  gave  us.  We  re- 
gard the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  King,  Lord,  Lawgiver,  and  Prophet  of  the 
church,  and  well  qualified  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  give  us  all 
a  perfect  volume — one  in  substance  and  in  form  exactly  adapted,  as  he 
would  have  it,  for  just  such  a  family  as  the  great  family  of  man  ;  if  we 
believe  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  wiser  and  more  benevolent  than  all  his 
followers,  in  their  united  wisdom  and  benevolence  ;  and  that  he  both 
could  and  would  give  them  such  a  book  as  they  needed.  It  is  both  the 
light  of  salvation  and  the  bond  of  union  amongst  the  saved.  We  abjure 
creeds,  simply  as  substitutes,  directly  or  indirectly  substitutes,  for  the  book 
of  inspiration.  In  other  respects,  we  have  no  objection  whatever  to  any 
people  publishing  their  tenets,  or  views,  or  practices  to  the  world.  I  have 
no  more  objections  to  writing  my  opinions  than  I  have  to  speaking  them. 
But,  mark  it  well,  it  is  the  making  of  such  compends  of  vicAvs,  in  the 
ecclesiastic  sense,  creeds  (that  is,  terms  of  communion  or  bonds  of  union) 
— I  say  again,  as  ecclesiastic  documents,  as  terms  of  exclusion  and  recep- 
tion of  members,  we  abjure  them.  Calling  them  creeds  is,  indeed,  a  grand 
misnomer.  They  have  been,  in  days  of  yore,  collects  of  speculations,  by 
which  in  numerous  instances  to  ferret  out  heretics  and  slaughter  inno- 
cents— tests  of  orthodoxy,  which  in  no  country  a  person  can  safely,  so 
far  as  respects  his  person,  his  reputation  or  his  property,  publicly  oppose. 
They  have,  in  ages  of  proscription  and  tyranny,  for  the  single  sin  of  non- 
conformity, slaughtered  their  millions.  On  these  accoimts,  as  causes  of 
oppression  to  scrupulous  consciences  ;  as  sources  of  alienation  and  es- 
trangement amongst  good  men  ;  as  tests  to  proscribe  and  oppress,  to  per- 
secute and  to  destroy,  we  solemnly  abjure  them,  regardless  of  their  con- 
tents, whether  orthodox  or  heterodox.  Our  sin,  in  the  eyes  of  all  devot- 
ed to  them,  is,  that  we  substitute  for  them  the  new  covenant  as  our 
church  covenant,  and  the  apostolic  writings  as  our  christian  creed,  be- 
lieving all  things  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets. 

We  preach,  in  the  words  of  that  book,  the  gospel,  as  promulged  by  the 
apostles  in  Jerusalem.  We  use,  in  all  important  matters,  the  exact  words 
of  inspiration.  We  command  all  men  to  believe,  repent  and  bring  forth 
fruits  worthy  of  reformation.  We  enjoin  the  same  good  works  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  and  by  his  apostles.  We  receive  men  of  all  denomi- 
nations under  heaven — of  all  sects  and  parties,  who  will  make  the  good 
confession,  on  which  Jesus  Christ  builded  his  church.  We  propound 
that  confession  of  the  faith  in  the  identical  words  of  inspiration ;  so  that 
they  who  avow  it,  express  a  divine  faith,  and  build  upon  a  consecrated 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  785 

foundation — a  well  tried  corner  stone.  On  a  candid  and  sincere  confession 
of  this  faith,  we  immerse  ail  persons,  and  then  present  them  with  God's 
own  book  as  their  book  of  faith,  piety,  and  morality.  This  is  our  most 
obnoxious  offence  against  the  partyism  of  this  age. 

On  this  ground  many  of  us  have  stood  for  many  years.  We  have  firllj 
tested  this  principle.  Men,  formerly  of  all  persuasions,  and  of  all  de- 
nominations and  prejudices,  have  been  baptized  on  this  good  confession, 
and  have  united  in  one  community.  Among  them  arc  found  those  who 
had  been  Romanists,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists, 
Restorationists,  Quakers,  Arians,  Unitarians,  cfec,  &;c.  We  have  one 
faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism,  but  various  opinions.  These,  when  left  to 
vegetate,  without  annoyance,  if  erroneous,  wither  and  die.  We  find  much 
philosophy  in  one  of  Paul's  precepts,  somewhat  mistranslated,  "  Receive 
one  another  without  regard  to  differences  of  opinion."  We,  indeed,  re- 
ceive to  our  communion  persons  of  other  denominations  who  will  take 
upon  them  the  responsibility  of  their  participating  with  us.  We  do,  in- 
deed, in  our  affections  and  in  our  practice,  receive  all  christians,  all  who 
give  evidence  of  their  faith  in  the  Messiah,  and  of  their  attachment  to  his 
person,  character,  and  will. 

Our  charities  are,  then,  more  extensive  than  those  of  my  opponent. 
We  have  not  so  many  dogmas  in  our  creed.  All  these  persons,  of  so 
many  and  so  contradictory  opinions,  weekly  meet  around  our  Lord's  table 
in  hundreds  of  churches  all  over  the  land.  Our  bond  of  union  is,  faith 
in  the  slain  Messiah,  in  his  death  for  our  sins,  and  his  resurrection  for  our 
justification.  Therefore,  we  acknowledge  nothing  among  us  but  Christ, 
and  him  crucified.  We  do  not  talk  of  old  opinions — we  desire  to  be  ab- 
sorbed in  the  Lord  Messiah,  as  made  unto  us  "  wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification,  and  redemption." 

Our  doctrine  is  catholic,  very  catholic — not  Roman  Catliolic,  nor  Greek 
Catholic — but  simply  catholic.  All  admit  the  New  Testament  and  its 
ordinances,  the  seven  unities  of  Paul.  We  are  so  exclusive,  however, 
that  we  say  to  every  one,  without  the  fold,  you  must  repent  and  be  bap- 
tized for  the  remission  of  your  sins,  if  you  would  enjoy  the  fullness  of 
the  blessing  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Still  we  do  not  so  make  conditions 
of  ultimate  salvation  out  of  the  conditions  of  church  membership.  We 
are  not  now  descanting  upon  the  conditions  of  salvation  among  the  ante- 
diluvians, the  Jews,  the  pagans,  infants,  and  those  otherwise  incapable  of 
hearing,  believing,  and  obeying  the  gospel.  Mr.  Rice  has  told  us  what 
is  necessary  to  a  church  on  earth.  We  extend  our  views  much  farther. 
We  stand  on  ground  much  more  catholic  and  charitable ;  embracing,  with- 
out regard  to  so  many  diversities  of  opinion,  all  who  sincerely  believe  in 
the  Messiah,  and  are  willing  to  be  governed  by  his  precepts. 

After  all  the  gentleman  has  said  of  his  confession  of  faith,  it  is  very 
far  from  a  scriptural,  plain,  and  intelligible  exhibition  of  christian  doctrine. 
I  could  satisfy  Presbyterian  clergymen  themselves  that  there  is  no  form- 
ulary of  faith  more  obscure,  or  difticult  of  definite  and  clear  apprehension, 
than  the  creed  and  catechism  of  Westminster.  In  proof  of  this,  I  appeal 
to  the  divisions  it  has  made  during  the  two  centuries  of  its  existence.  It 
was  a  document  made  by  divines  and  politicians — a  state  expedient,  with 
which  no  church  of  Christ,  no  professed  body  of  christians,  had  anything 
to  do.  It  was  political  in  its  conception,  political  in  its  execution,  and 
political  in  its  spirit  and  design.  It  was  as  political  in  its  day,  as  were 
our  articles  of  state  confederation  in  their  day  and  generation ;  and  got  up 
50  3u2 


786  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

for  a  purpose  as  similar  as  any  two  great  conventional  affairs  could  be, 
at  the  distance  of  two  centuries,  and  of  four  thousand  miles. 

With  all  the  boasted  plainness  and  clearness  of  that  document,  its  most 
learned  ministers  interpret  both  it  and  the  Bible  as  diversely  as  Mr.  Rice 
and  myself.  I  will  select  an  instance,  by  way  of  illustration,  from  the 
subject  of  debate  on  yesterday,  and  show  him  how  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished Presbyterian  preachers  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  under- 
stands the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  confession  on  that  question. 
The  doctrine  which  I  have  set  forth  here  on  the  present  occasion  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  confession  on  spiritual  influence,  if  the  elder  Dr.  Beecher  is  a 
competent  judge  of  this  doctrine:  the  doctrine  which  I  have  taught  here, 
not  the  doctrine  reprobated  in  my  opponent's  last  speech  yesterday  even- 
ing, as  mine  ;  for  the  doctrine  he  assigned  to  me  then  and  there  is  not  my 
doctrine  at  all,  as  my  own  addresses  will  show  to  every  candid  mind.  But 
my  own  doctrine,  set  forth  in  this  discussion,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  if  Mr.  Beecher  be  right,  and  the  Westminster  confession 
be  an  intelligible  document ;  and  here  now  is  the  proof  of  it  in  the  Doctor's 
own  words : 

"  Dr.  Beecher. — I  hold  that  God  operates  on  matter  by  his  direct  om- 
nipotence ;  and  that  he  operates  on  mind  by  the  gospel,  and  by  the  whole 
amount  of  moral  means,  which  he  applies  to  it,  called  in  Scripture  the 
word,  the  truth,  &c.  But  Dr.  Wilson  asks,  is  it  to  be  endured  that  any 
man  should  say  that  God  will  exclude  himself  from  immediate,  direct  ope- 
ration on  mind  in  regeneration  ]  Why  that  will  be  just  as  he  chooses.  He 
will  not,  unless  it  so  seems  good  in  his  sight ;  and  if  it  does,  he  will.  The 
question  is  whether  he  does,  and  we  are  to  bring  no  a  priori  conclusions  to 
that  question.  To  the  word  and  to  the  testimony.  What  does  God  say  1 
Dr.  Wilson  says,  that  I  hold  God  cannot  directly  operate  on  the  human 
mind ;  and  he  is  awfully  horrified  that  such  an  idea  should  ever  have  been 
advanced.     But  I  did  not  say  any  such  thing,  and  never  have  said  it.    *     * 

I  did  not  say  that  God  cannot  act  on  the  human  mind  directly  ;  nor  have 
I  ever  said  that  he  does  so  act.  I  said  that  no  such  thing  could  be  advanced 
philosophically  and  theoretically  as  God  acting  by  means  and  not  by  means 
at  the  same  time.  I  was  only  interpreting  what  God  says  about  it.  I  never 
said  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  do  what  he  would,  by  direct  agency. 
But  I  did  say,  that  if  he  does  it  directly,  then  he  does  not  do  it  mediately. 
If  he  does  it  by  naked  omnipotence,  then  he  does  not  do  it  by  the  word  as 
an  instrument :  for  the  two  things  are  inconsistent.  No  doubt  God  can  do 
either.  But  he  chooses  to  do  one,  and  not  the  other.  To  settle  which  this 
is,  I  go  not  to  philosophy  and  speculation,  but  to  the  word  of  God.  If  there 
is  any  heresy  in  my  opinions  on  this  subject,  it  is  the  heresy  of  the  confession 
of  faith.  My  faith  is  in  that  position  which  both  the  confession  and  the 
catechisms  lay  down.  I  advance  no  theory  about  it.  I  stand  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  the  confession.  If  that  is  not  with  me,  then  I  must  fall.  All  I 
say  is,  that  direct  action  without  an  instrument,  and  action  by  the  truth, 
are  not  the  same  thing,  and  cannot  co-exist.  If  a  man  levels  a  tree  by 
pushing  it  down  with  his  naked  hand,  then  he  does  not  level  the  tree  by 
chopping  it  down  with  an  axe.  Now  the  confession  and  the  word  of  God 
say  that  God  converts  men  by  the  truth.  Here  I  beg  leave  to  offer,  in  cor- 
roboration of  my  view,  the  opinion  of  Matthew  Henry,  in  his  Commentary 
on  James  i.  18  : 

'  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth. — Here  let  us  take 
notice,  1.  A  true  christian  is  a  creature  begotten  anew.  *  *  *  2.  The 
original  of  this  good  work  is  here  declared :  it  is  of  God's  own  will ;  not  by 
our  skill  or  power,  not  from  any  good  foreseen  in  us,  or  done  by  us,  but 
purely  from  the  goodwill  and  grace  of  God.  3.  The  means  whereby  this  is 
effected  are  pointed  out :  the  word  of  truth,  that  is,  the  gospel ;  as  St.  Paul 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  787 

expresses  it  more  plainly,  1  Cor.  iv.  15,  I  have  begotten  you  to  Jesus  Christ 
through  the  gospel.  This  gospel  is  indeed  a  word  of  truth,  or  else  it  could 
never  produce  such  zeal,  such  lasting,  such  great  and  noble  effects.  We 
may  rely  upon  it,  and  venture  our  immortal  souls  upon  it.'" 

I  affirm,  if  I  know  the  meaning  of  words,  that  the  doctrine  and  inter- 
pretations of  Dr.  Beecher,  as  set  forth  in  this  extract,  backed  by  Matthew 
Henry,  is  precisely  what  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  set  forth  for  the  last 
three  days.  Have  I  not  said  that  the  question  was,  whether  with  or 
without  the  truth;  whether  mediately  or  immediately  ;  whether  directly 
or  through  an  vistrument,  the  Spirit  operates  upon  the  sinner  in  conver- 
sion, and  the  saint  in  sanctiiication  1  I  say,  it  is  either  the  one  or  the 
other.  So  says  Dr.  Beecher.  I  say,  it  is  either  mediately  or  immedi- 
ately. So  says  the  Doctor.  I  say,  it  is  mediately,  or  through  an  instru- 
ment, or  through  the  Word.  So  says  the  Doctor.  We  are  perfectly  agreed 
in  all  these  points.  Do  you  think,  sir,  that  Dr.  Beecher  does  not  under- 
stand the  confession  ?  If  not,  what  is  this  confession  worth  ?  But  if  there 
be  heresy  in  me,  it  is  in  the  confession  too,  if  Dr.  Beecher  is  right. 
Either,  then,  the  confession  is  an  obscure  book,  or  it  teaches  the  doctrine 
which  I  teach. 

Mr.  Rice  asks  me  for  authority.  Authority  for  what — for  his  having 
a  creed  other  than  the  Bible  ?  Let  him  bring  his  own  authority  !  1  have 
precepts  authorizing  me  to  contend  for  the  faith  formerly  delivered  to  the 
saints.    Let  him  bring  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  in  support  of  his  assertions. 

But  he  asks  for  a  precept  against  creeds.  The  gendeman  has  changed 
since  the  other  day.  He  said,  there  was  no  precept  against  promiscuous 
dancing — against  games  of  chance.  Why,  then,  ask  me  for  a  precept 
against  creeds  ?  Ternpora  mutantur,  et  nos  mutamur  in  illis.  We 
change  principles  with  books — tenets  with  times,  as  some  might  translate 
it.  There  is  no  precept  against  duelling,  horse-racing,  theatres,  &c. — and 
shall  we  ask  for  a  precept  against  creeds  !  He  knows  the  proof  lies  upon 
the  affirmant.  He  feels  the  lack  of  divine  authority.  He  can  bring  no 
authority  for  making  a  creed.  Whenever  he  attempts,  we  will  demon- 
strate his  failure.     I  presume  he  will  not  try. 

The  gendeman  talks  of  quacks  in  medicine,  and  quacks  in  theology.  I 
admit  there  are  such,  many  such.  We  have  learned  quacks,  too.  I  am 
opposed  to  learned,  as  well  as  to  unlearned  quacks.  I  presume,  even  the 
pope  of  Rome,  in  his  esteem,  is  a  learned  quack — else  why  pretend  to 
infallibility?  Many  of  his  prelates,  too,  are  learned  quacks.  If  they  are 
not,  they  are  true  expositors  of  the  Bible ;  and  if  tliey  be — alas,  for  the 
Bible ! 

Mr.  Rice  asks  another  question  :  What  is  our  standard  of  orthodoxy — 
of  ministerial  orthodoxy  or  attainments?  I  could,  perhaps,  satisfy  the 
gentleman's  laudable  curiosity  by  telling  him  some  of  our  practice.  When 
we  baptize  a  Presbyterian,  or  any  other  of  the  Pedo-baptist  family  of 
churches,  we  simply  add  to  his  old  stock  of  knowledge  on  hand,  all  that 
he  confesses  in  his  baptism,  and  all  that  he  sees  new  in  our  order  of  wor- 
ship. If  he  should  have  a  tongue  to  speak,  and  a  character  worthy  of 
being  a  proclaimer  of  the  truth,  we  send  him  out  into  the  vineyard.  The 
other  evening,  for  example,  we  baptiznd  a  Pedo-baptist  minister,  of  repu- 
table education  and  character — a  graduate  of  Union  college,  New  York, 
and  of  the  theological  seminary  at  Gettysburgh,  Pennsylvania.  We  only 
require  such  a  brother  to  add  to  his  former  biblical  attainments  the  new 
ideas  acquired,  and  then  go  and  spread  them  abroad  through  the  length 


788  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

and  breadth  of  the  land.  We  commend  to  him  the  New  Testament  espe- 
cially as  our  creed,  and  advise  him  to  take  Moses  and  the  prophets  as  pio- 
neers to  the  christian  institution ;  and  as  he  grows  in  knowledge,  teach  it, 
that  his  profiting  may  appear  to  all. 

I  confess,  in  our  widely  extended  connection,  we  have  many  sent  out 
too  soon — not  properly  qualified.  But  in  this  respect,  we  are  no  worse 
than  were  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  of  former  times.  I  can  tell  a  long 
story  about  their  proceedings,  and  their  difficulties,  errors  and  blunders, 
during  their  incipiency.  "^I'here  is  the  elementary  state,  and  the  transition 
state  in  society,  as  well  as  the  matured  and  perfected  state.  Every  thing 
cannot  be  done  in  a  few  days.  Years  were  occupied  in  the  experiments 
of  Presbyterians,  Lutherans  and  English  Episcopalians.  The  Presbyte- 
rians in  Scotland  were  not  able  to  form  a  synod  till  1560,  if  I  remember 
right.  And  then  a  synod  was  somewhat  different  from  what  it  is  now. 
Indeed,  the  General  Assembly  in  this  community  have  changed  as  much 
within  thirty  years,  as  our  own  community. — \_Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  30—12^  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  second  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  expected,  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  to  pro- 
pound to  my  friend  some  questions  that  would  prove  troublesome,  and 
rather  difficult  to  answer.  He  must,  however,  allow  me  to  ask  a  few  now 
and  then. 

He  would  have  you  think,  that  I  made  a  very  suicidal  speech ;  but  not 
another  individual  in  the  house,  1  venture  to  say,  made  the  discovery. 
How  was  it  suicidal?  Why,  he  says,  I  proved  his  church  to  be  more 
exclusive  than  any  other,  and  more  inclusive.  I  did,  indeed,  not  only 
assert,  but  I  proved,  that  it  is  more  exclusive  than  any  other.  I  proved 
it,  not  by  enemies,  but  by  prominent  men  in  his  own  church — Dr.  Fish- 
back  and  Barton  W.  Stone.  But  I  also  proved,  he  says,  that  it  includes 
every  body  ;  and  this  was  my  inconsistency.  I  proved,  that  according  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  his  reformation,  he  is  bound  to  receive  all, 
good  and  bad,  who  profess  to  take  the  Bible  as  their  infallible  guide;  and 
that,  in  his  exclusiv^ness,  he  is  most  inconsistent  with  his  own  principles. 
His  foundation  is  broad  enough  to  receive  all ;  but  in  practice  he  excludes 
multitudes  of  the  most  godly  christians.  The  inconsistency  was  not  in 
my  speech,  but  in  his  principles  and  his  conduct. 

The  writing  of  a  book,  he  says,  is  not  the  same  thing  as  making  a  creed. 
This  is  true  ;  but  he  attempted  to  prove  it  wrong  to  make  a  creed,  because 
there  is  no  command  to  do  it.  It  is,  then,  wrong  to  do  any  thing  we  are 
not  commanded  to  do.  But  there  is  no  command  to  write  and  publish  a 
book;  and,  therefore,  according  to  this  mode  of  reasoning,  it  is  wrong  to 
do  it.  He  contended,  that  it  is  wrong  to  make  a  creed,  because  human 
creeds  ^re  fallible.  I  turned  his  own  logic  against  himself;  for  if  it  is 
wrong  to  make  a  fallible  creed  to  influence  the  minds  of  men,  it  is  also 
wrong  to  write  a  fallible  book,  and  publish  it.  There  is  no  difference  as 
to  the  principle ;  for  men  are  no  more  bound  to  adopt  my  creed,  than  to 
believe  my  book. 

The  gentleman  tells  you,  I  said  that  the  Bible  does  not  determine  the 
meaning  of  the  expression  "  Son  of  God ;"  but  the  confession  of  faith 
does.  This  is  a  misrepresentation  of  the  most  singular  character.  I  said 
nothing  that  could  be  tortured  into  such  a  sentiment.  I  am  constrained 
to  think,  that,  from  some  cause  or  other,  he  hears  very  imperfectly.  '  In 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  789 

deed,  his  hearing  has  appeared  to  be  bad  for  some  time.  What  did  I  say  ? 
I  said  very  distinctly,  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  expression  "  Son 
of  God,"  had  a  clear  and  well-detined  meaning — that  in  the  Bible  it  is 
evidently  used  to  signify  the  underived  divinity  of  Christ ;  and  to  prove 
it  I  quoted  John  v.  18,  where  it  is  said,  that  when  he  called  God  his  Father, 
the  Jews  were  anxious  to  stone  him,  because  they  understood  him  to 
make  himself  equal  with  God.  The  gentleman,  strangely  enough,  has 
represented  me  as  saying  precisely  the  opposite  of  what  I  did  say  !  I  fur- 
ther said,  that  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  men  have  used  this  expres- 
sion, which  was  once  perfecdy  definite  in  its  meaning,  in  so  great  a  vari- 
ety of  senses,  that  we  do  not  know,  without  an  explanation,  what  they 
mean  by  it.  The  Trinitarian  understands  it  to  express  the  divinity  of  our 
Savior;  but  the  Socinian,  who  makes  him  a  mere  man,  still  uses  the  ex- 
pression— "Son  of  God."  Its  meaning,  as  it  is  used  in  the  Bible,  is 
clear ;  but  as  used  by  many  men,  it  is  not  so.  Certainly  the  gentleman 
hears  badly ;  there  must  be  something  the  matter. 

The  Bible,  he  says,  is  a  very  plain  book — so  plain  in  its  teaching,  that  no 
one  can  present  its  truths  more  plainly.  If  it  is,  why  has  he  written  so 
much  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  it?  He  will  certainly  admit,  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  may  be  made  as  clear  in  a  creed,  as  he  can  make 
them  in  his  books.  If,  then,  creeds  cannot  make  them  plainer,  his  publi- 
cations cannot;  and,  therefore,  they  should  never  have  been  made!  I 
admit,  that  on  all  important  points  the  Bible  teaches  with  great  simplicity 
ahd  plainness  ;  but  yet  the  Savior  deemed  it  wise  to  have  men  qualified 
and  appointed  to  expound  it.  The  Bible  is  plain;  but  men's  heads  are 
not  clear.  Sin  blinds  them  ;  and  hence  the  fact  cannot  be  denied,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  know  what  a  man  believes  concerning  Christ,  from  the 
circumstance  of  his  calling  liim  the  Son  of  God. 

The  schism  in  the  church,  caused  by  the  Arian  heresy,  the  gentleman 
has  represented  as  caused  by  the  Nicene  creed.  This  is  a  great  mistake. 
The  schism  existed,  in  fact,  before  the  creed  was  made.  Arius  had  de- 
nied the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  had  gained  many  adherents.  He  and  his 
followers  had  rejected  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
could  no  longer  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  church  of  Christ.  The 
creed  formed  at  Nice  had  the  effect  of  separating  those  who  robbed  Christ 
of  his  glory,  from  those  who  "  honored  the  Son  even  as  they  honored  the 
Father."  If  this  was  a  schism,  it  was  a  most  desirable  one.  When  men 
deny  the  divinity  of  our  Savior,  and  rob  him  of  his  glory  by  making  him 
a  mere  creature,  it  is  time  that  they  should  be  separated  from  the  body 
of  believers.  We  can  hold  no  communion  with  such  persons.  Such 
was  the  division  caused  by  the  Nicene  creed. 

Mr.  Campbell  gravely  tells  us,  that  the  head  and  front  of  his  oflending, 
is — that  he  Ijelieves  the  New  Testament  to  be  the  best  book  in  the  world, 
and  opposes  the  substitution  of  creeds  for  the  Bible.  Now  he  knows, 
that  no  Protestant  ever  censured  him  for  opposing  the  substituting  of 
creeds  for  the  Bible ;  and  no  Protestant  denomination  ever  desired  to  do 
any  such  thing.  I  know  of  no  church  but  the  Romish,  that  does  substi- 
tute a  creed  for  the  Bible. 

Persecutions,  he  tells  us,  are  caused  by  creeds.  It  is  vain  to  reason 
against  fact.  By  whom,  I  ask,  was  civil  and  religious  liberty  estab- 
lished, and  the  rights  of  conscience  secured  in  this  country  ?  The  blood 
of  Presbyterians  flowed  freely  in  the  defence  of  these  sacred  rights;  and 
Presbyterian  ministers  stood  prominent  as  the  most  zealous  and  unflinch- 


790  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

ing  friends  of  liberty,  civil  and  religious.  In  the  day  of  the  mighty  strug- 
gle for  freedonti,  this  reformation  was  not  born.  The  victory  was  won, 
and  this  country  was  free  long  before  it  was  heard  of.  It  has  come  into 
existence  and  been  permitted  to  extend  its  influence  under  the  protection 
of  that  liberty  which  was  bought  with  the  blood  of  those  who  subscribed 
to  creeds.  Now  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  liberty,  it  boasts  of  its  zeal  in 
freedom's  cause,  and  denounces  those  who  sacrificed  their  ail  in  this 
world  to  gain  it.  Such  a  course  shows  how  far  men  will  often  presume 
upon  tlie  ignorance  and  credulity  of  the  people. 

I  have  said,  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  men  believe  by  the  mere 
fact  that  they  profess  to  receive  the  Bible  as  their  rule  of  faith— that  all 
classes  of  errorists,  Arians,  Socinians,  Universalists,  and  even  Shakers 
and  Mormons,  profess  great  regard  for  the  Bible.  But,  says  Mr.  C,  we 
teach  men  just  as  the  New  Testament  does,  that  they  must  believe  and  be 
baptized.  No— this  is  not  quite  correct.  He  and  his  friends  teach  men, 
not  to  be  baptized,  but  to  be  immersed.  And  herein  they  do  most  gla- 
ringly depart  from  their  own  principles.  For,  they  tell  us,  they  have 
no  creed  but  the  New  Testament,  and  that  they  allow  every  one  to  inter- 
pret that  book  for  himself.  And  they  do,  in  other  points,  adhere  to  their 
principles.  They  allow  men  to  form  their  own  opinions  concerning  the 
character  and  work  of  Christ,  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  &c. — but  on  that 
one  subject,  immersion,  they  take  the  liberty  of  thinking  for  us.  They 
will  receive  no  one,  unless  on  that  subject  he  thinks  just  as  they  think. 
He  must  believe,  that  baptism  is  immersion.  They  say  virtually,  'You 
may  think  for  yourself  on  all  other  subjects  ;  but  let  us  think  for  you  on 
this.'  But  I  say,  if  I  am  to  think  fur  myself  at  all,  let  me  form  my  own 
opinion  on  all  subjects.  If  you  are  to  think  for  me;  why,  do  all  my 
thinking  and  save  me  the  trouble  ! 

My  friend  says,  he  does  not  distrurb  men  on  account  of  their  opinions  ; 
that  the  best  way  to  destroy  erroneous  opinions,  is  to  let  them  alone. 
Then  why  does  he  not  let  infant  baptism  alone?  Why  does  he  wage 
an  exterminating  war  against  baptism  by  pouring  and  sprinkling  ?  If 
error  will  die  when  it  is  let  alone ;  why  does  he  oppose  these  errors,  as 
he  considers  them  ?  He  has  some  very  singular  philosophy  on  this  sub- 
ject. Some  erroneous  opinions,  he  seems  to  think,  will  die,  if  not  dis- 
turbed ;  whilst  others  must  be  killed  ! 

I  was  truly  astonished  to  hear  the  gentleman  say,  that  he  would  cheer- 
fully admit  a  Presbyterian  or  an  Episcopalian  to  commune  with  him  at 
the  Lord's  table.  In  his  Millenial  Harbinger  he  has  said  precisely  the 
opposite.  Mr.  Jones,  of  England,  of  whom  I  have  spoken  before,  wrote 
to  Mr.  Campbell,  asking  information  on  this  very  point — that  is,  whether 
the  church  with  which  he  is  connected,  admitted  unimmersed  persons  to 
commune.  I  will  read  an  extract  from  Mr.  C.'s  reply, — [Millen.  Harb. 
vol.  vi.  pp.  18,  19:) 

"  Your  third  question  is,  '  Do  any  of  your  churches  admit  unbaptized  per- 
sons to  communion ;  a  practice  that  is  becoming  very  prevalent  in  this  conn- 
try  ?''  Not  one,  as  far  as  kno\vn  to  me.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand 
on  what  principle — by  what  law,  precedent  or  license,  any  congregation 
founded  upon  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief  corner 
stone,  could  dispense  with  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church — with  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  and  the  authority  of  his  apostles.  Does  not  this 
look  like  making  void  the  word  or  commandment  of  God  by  human  tradi- 
tion ]  I  know  not  how  I  could  exhort  one  professor  to  '  arise  and  be  bap- 
tized,' as  Ananias  commanded  Saul,  and  at  the  same  time  receive  anothe? 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  791 

into  the  congregation  without  it.  Nay,  why  not  dispense  with  it  altogeth- 
er, and  be  consistent]  If  I  felt  myself  autliorized  to  dispense  with  it  in  one 
case,  I  know  not  why  T  might  not  dispense  with  it  in  every  case,  and  thua 
wholly  annul  the  institution  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  this  is  said  only  with 
respect  to  the  authority  by  which  it  is  done.  Viewed  in  relation  to  the 
meaning  and  design  of  the  institution,  it  assumes  a  still  more  inexplicable 
mysteriousness.  Does  christian  immersion  mean  any  thing  to  a  believer  ] 
Is  it  the  sign,  or  pledge,  or  means  of  any  spiritual  blessing  .'  Is  it  the  de- 
mand, or  seeking,  or  answer  of  a  good  conscience]  Has  it  any  thing  to  do 
with  the  understanding,  the  conscience,  the  state,  or  character  of  a  man  ! 
And  if  so,  what  is  it?  If  he  be  as  happy  in  himself,  and  as  acceptable  to 
God  without  it  as  with  it,  is  it  not  an  unmeaning  ceremony]     *     *     *     * 

The  Baptist  churches  in  England  must,  on  this  point,  assume  the  Meth- 
odistic  and  Cumberland'  Presbyterian  ground  in  America.  In  this  accom- 
modating age,  many  of  these  preachers  have  given  up  their  own  conscience 
to  the  proselyte.  They  say,  we  will  sprinkle  you  with  water,  or  we  will 
pour  water  upon  you,  or  we  will  immerse  you  in  water,  or  we  will  lay  a 
moist  finger  on  your  forehead  ;  and  we  will  do  it  in  the  name  or  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Lord." 

Now  is  it  not  passing  strange,  that  Mr.  C.  should  tell  us,  that  he  is. 
well  pleased  to  have  Methodists,  Presbyterians  and  others  commune  with 
him  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  yet  that  he  should  have  told  Mr.  Jones,  of 
England,  and  published  it  in  his  Harbinger,  that  he  and  his  churches  ad- 
mit no  such  persons  to  commune  with  them !  ! !  Well,  he  goes  for 
changing.  He  says,  wise  men  change.  I  am  happy  to  lind  him  chang- 
ing his  ground,  as  we  are  to  suppose  he  is  now  doing,  and  embracing 
more  liberal  principles  !  I  presume,  of  course,  he  will  not  deny,  that 
when  he  wrote  to  Jones,  he  was  most  decidedly  opposed  to  permitting 
unimmersed  persons  to  commune  with  him.  So  far,  so  good.  Great  ef- 
forts have  been  made  recently  to  excite  odium  against  the  Presbyterian 
church,  because  we  are  not  willing  to  have  our  members  commune  with 
the  reformers;  but  here  we  find  Mr.  C.  himself  making  decided  opposi- 
tion to  such  inter-communion  ! 

The  Westminster  confession,  the  gentleman  says,  lias  made  quite  a 
number  of  parties.  I  deny  it;  and  when  he  tliinks  proper  to  produce 
his  proof,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  meet  it.  He  thinks,  he  can  convince  even 
Presbyterian  clergymen  of  its  evil  tendencies.  I  very  much  doubt  it. 
Indeed,  as  I  have  had  occasion  repeatedly  to  say,  I  even  doubt  whether  he 
is  very  familiar  with  its  principles.  Certainly  he  is  not,  if  we  are  to  judge 
by  what  we  have  heard  from  him  during  this  discussion. 

The  gentleman  has  considerable  skill  in  the  management  of  his  cause. 
Some  days  after  the  question  of  infant  baptism  had  been  disposed  of, 
and  when  my  books  on  that  subject  were  not  present,  he  brought  up  Mr. 
Jones  and  the  opinions  of  the  Waldenses,  relating  exclusively  to  tliat 
subject.  And  now  he  reads  to  us  Dr.  Beecher's  book  on  a  subject  the 
discussion  of  which  was  closed  on  yesterday  !  I  am  perfecUy  willing, 
that  he  shall  in  this  way  proclaim  his  own  defeat.  I  know,  that  no  sens- 
ible man  will  injure  himself  by  thus  introducing  again  subjects  that  have 
been  disposed  of,  unless  he  is  dreadfully  pressed. 

Dr.  Beecher,  I  presume,  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  advocated  by  Mr. 
C.  Indeed  he  himself  seems  very  reluctant  now  to  teach  it;  for  he 
keeps  it  involved  in  mist  and  darkness.  At  one  time  he  seems  to  admit 
an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  Word,  in  conversion  and  sane- 
tification.  At  another,  he  labors  to  prove,  that  words  and  arguments  do 
the  whole  work.     But  does  Beecher  say,  that  men  can  be  converted  by 


792  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

words  and  arguments  ?  Unless  he  has  recently  changed  his  ground,  he 
does  not,  I  think,  if  he  were  present,  he  would  consider  himself  mis- 
represented. The  gentleman  must  be  permitted  to  discuss  the  proposi- 
tions which  have  been  disposed  of,  until  he  is  satisfied. 

He  seems  to  regard  me  as  very  inconsistent  in  calling  on  him  to  pro- 
duce  a  passage  of  Scripture  that  condemns  creeds  ;  for  he  says,  I  am  in 
the  affirmative.  I  was  not  aware  of  that  fact.  Did  not  he  make  the  in- 
troductory speech  this  morning  ?  I  was  in  the  negative  when  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  proposition  commenced.  How,  then,  has  the  gentleman 
placed  me  in  the  affirmative?  This  strikes  me  as  a  new  mode  of  debat- 
ing. I  am  in  the  affirmative;  and  Mr.  C.  is  the  affirmant!  He  affirms 
that  human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical.  This  I  deny.  There  must  be  something 
the  matter  with  my  friend's  head.  It  is  evidendy  becoming  muddy  [a 
laugh.]  He  does  not  seem  to  know  exacdy  where  he  is;  only  that  he  is 
somewhere  in  the  neighborhood.  [^Continued  laughter.] 

It  is  quite  proper,  on  this  proposition,  that  he  should  be  in  the  affirma- 
tive. If  a  man  condemn  and  excommunicate  me  for  any  course  of  con- 
duct I  may  choose  to  adopt ;  I  have  the  right  to  ask  him  to  be  kind 
enough  to  show  me  the  law.  I  have  the  right  to  do  any  thing  that  the 
Word  of  God  does  not  forbid.  The  different  churches  were  moving  on 
with  a  tolerable  degree  of  harmony,  each  denomination  having  its  creed ; 
and  Mr.  C.  rose  up  and  denounced  the  whole  of  them  as  apostates — as 
guilty  of  the  most  heinous  crime.  We  request  him  to  please  to  prove 
his  charges.  He  excommunicates  us,  because  we  have  a  creed.  I  ask 
him  where  has  God  forbidden  us  to  have  a  creed  ?  I  am  under  no  obli- 
gation to  produce  scripture  authorizing  the  use  of  creeds ;  for  "  where 
there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression."  There  is  a  passage  that  says — 
"  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged." 

He  says,  I  cannot  find  a  passage  that,  in  so  many  words,  condemns 
playing  at  cards,  liorse-racing,  and  the  like.  If  I  cannot  find  the  law 
which  really  condemns  these  things,  I  will  cease  to  condemn  them.  I 
ask  not  for  a  passage  of  Scripture  which,  in  so  many  words,  condemns 
creeds  ;  but  I  desire  one  which  by  any  fair  construction  condemns  them. 
I  will  agree  to  admit  horse-racers  and  gamblers  into  the  church,  if  I  can- 
not find  a  law  in  the  Bible  condemning  these  practices.  He  has  not  pro- 
duced one  text,  which,  by  any  fair  construction,  condemns  the  use  of 
creeds ;  and  he  cannot  produce  one.  To  illustrate  the  obvious  truth,  that 
those  who  preach  the  gospel  should  possess  some  education,  piety  and 
soundness  in  the  ftiith,  I  remarked,  that  quacks  in  medicine  kill  the  body 
— quacks  in  theology  kill  the  soul.  Aye,  says  my  friend,  there  are  learn- 
ed quacks,  as  well  as  ignorant  ones.  But  did  I  speak  of  the  necessity  of 
learning  alone  ?  Can  he  find  a  man  learned,  pious  and  sound  in  the  faith, 
who  is  a  quack  in  theology  ?     Such  a  character  was  never  known. 

I  have  asked  the  gentleman,  what  is  the  standard  of  ministerial  qualifi- 
cations in  his  church  ;  but  I  have  received  no  answ'er.  He  does  not  de- 
ny, that  the  church  is  bound  to  see  to  it ;  that  those  who  enter  the  minis- 
try, shall  possess  some  education,  true  piety,  and  soundness  in  the  faith — 
"  holding  fast  the  form  of  sound  words."  I  ask  him,  what  is  the  stand- 
ard in  his  church  ?  He  cannot  tell  me  !  They  have  none  ! !  No  liter- 
ary or  scientific  training,  no  education,  is  required.  And  as  to  soundness 
in  the  faith,  their  ministers  must  profess  to  believe,  that  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  baptism  is  immersion  ! 


D±]BATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  793 

Pedo-baptist  ministers  who  join  that  chu-f.h,  he  says,  are  "ot  questioned 
about  their  opinions,  but  are  exhorted  to  preach  the  gospel,  I  presume, 
they  are  not  troubled  with  many  converts  of  this  character.  There  al- 
ways have  been  some  cases  of  apostasy — some,  too,  who  are  unwilling 
to  give  up  all  religion,  but  are  tired  of  the  narrow  way.  They  generally 
find  a  broader  road. 

But  let  us  test  the  liberality  of  the  gentleman's  church.  Suppose  I 
should  become  a  member  of  it,  and  on  next  Sabbath  should  preach  a 
strongly  Calvinistic  discourse  ;  I  wonder  whether  it  would  not  create  a  dif- 
ficulty. My  doctrines,  I  incline  to  think,  would  make  a  noise.  My 
friend  would  not  permit  me  to  preach  what  I  believe,  unless  it  came  at 
least  in  the  neighborhood  of  his  faith.  There  is  really  quite  as  much 
tyranny  amongst  the  reformers,  as  amongst  "  the  sects  "  they  so  liberally 
denounce. 

Mr.  Campbell.     Mention  a  case, 

Mr.  Rice.  I  will — a  Dr.  Thomas,  of  Virginia,  a  prominent  preacher 
in  the  gendeman's  church,  contended  that  men  have  no  souls — that  they 
are  constituted  of  body,  blood,  and  breath — that  the  word  soul,  in  the 
Scripture,  means  breath — and  that  infants,  idiots,  pagans  and  Pedo- 
baptists,  are  annihilated.  My  friend  opposed  his  doctrines  ;  but  the  Doc- 
tor insisted,  that  he  had  received  his  training  in  Ireland  and  Scodand, 
where  the  people  believe  in  ghosts  and  witches,  and  that,  although  a  great 
reformer,  he  was  not  quite  reformed,  Mr,  C,  at  length,  refused  to  hold 
christian  fellowship  with  him,  and  called  on  the  church  of  which  he  was 
a  member,  to  excommunicate  him.  Now  this  man  professed  to  take  the 
Bible  as  his  only  guide.  He  believed,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  was  zealous  for  immersion.  How,  then,  could  Mr.  C.  exclude  him, 
without  a  violation  of  the  principles  on  which  he  had  been  admitted  ? 

The  gendeman  cannot  deny,  that  his  church  is  troubled  with  very  se- 
rious disorders ;  but  he  says,  similar  evils  attended  the  Reformation  of 
the  16th  century.  The  circumstances  attending  the  commencement  of 
that  reformation  were  widely  different  from  those  which  existed  when 
Mr.  Campbell  became  a  reformer.  Then  the  people  had,  for  centuries, 
been  almost  wholly  ignorant  of  the  Bible.  They  could  not  read  it,  and 
were  not  even  permitted  to  possess  it.  Even  multitudes  of  the  clergy 
could  not  write  their  own  names.  Amongst  people  ignorant  of  the  Bible, 
and  degraded  by  a  miserable  superstition,  Calvin  and  Luther,  and  their 
fellow-laborers,  began  their  glorious  work.  No  wonder,  then,  that  many, 
when  freed  from  the  restraints  and  the  degrading  slavery  of  superstition 
and  clerical  domination,  turned  their  liberty  to  licentiousness,  and  ran  into 
excesses.  No  wonder,  that  some  time  was  required  to  secure  order  and 
harmony  in  the  churches.  But  the  reformers  of  the  16th  century  never 
did  allow  all  sorts  of  doctrine  to  be  preached  by  almost  all  sorts  of  men 
in  their  churches.  They  did  not  open  the  door  wide  enough  for  every 
thing  to  enter.  Yet  if  they  had  done  so,  they  would  have  been  more 
excusable  in  that  day,  than  Mr.  C.  and  his  church  are  in  doing  so  now. 

Mr,  Campbell  commenced  his  reformation  in  an  enlightened  age,  and 
in  a  country  where  the  Bible  is  known  and  read.  He  has  undertaken 
radically  to  reform  those  who  have  been  reading  the  Bible  from  their  in- 
fancy. And  now  when  his  new  church  is  overrun  with  errors  of  all 
grades,  and  involved  in  great  confusion,  he  attempts  to  apologize  for  it  by 
telling  us,  there  were  disorders  in  the  16th  century  when  light  first  be- 
gan to  dawn  upon  the  midnight  darkness  ! ! !     There  is  a  vast  dilference 


794  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

in  the  circumstances  attending  these  two  reformations.  And  if,  within 
some  fifteen  years,  the  gentleman's  church  has  been  filled  with  confusion 
and  trouble ;  it  is  not  likely  that  he  will  ever  succeed  in  securing  order 
and  harmony.  The  teacher  who  has  disorder  in  his  school  during  the 
first  month,  will  have  it  to  end  of  the  session.  If  he  begin  with  loose 
reins,  he  will  not  easily  take  them  up  afterwards. 

Mr.  C.  has  commenced  with  loose  reins — very  loose;  and  now  he 
cannot  secure  order.  He  has  been  laboring  for  some  two  or  three  years 
to  get  some  kind  of  organization  ;  but  the  state  of  things  is  no  better  than 
before ;  and,  I  venture  to  say,  it  never  will  be. 

But  he  says,  Presbyterianism  has  very  much  changed  within  thirty 
years.  I  deny  that  it  has.  Let  him  prove  it.  When  I  state  facts  con- 
cerning his  church,  I  hold  myself  bound  to  prove  them.  I  deny,  that 
our  doctrines  have  been  changed  in  thirty,  fifty,  or  one  hundred  years. 

Mr.  Campbell.     Presbyterians  have  changed. 

Mr.  Rice.     Neither  the  one  nor  the  other. — [_Time  expired. 

TJmrsday,  Nov.  30—1  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[yuR.  Campbell's  third  address.] 

Mr.  President — The  gentleman  complains  of  ray  hearing.  His  me- 
mory, sir,  is  much  more  at  fault  than  my  hearing.  He  would  have  you 
to  know,  as  a  matter  of  great  importance,  that  books  are  fallible,  and 
creeds  are  fallible,  and  that  there  is  no  command  to  write  a  book ;  nor  to 
read  one,  I  presume;  and  there  is  no  command  to  write  a  creed,  and  so 
all  books  and  creeds  are  equally  without  Divine  authority  !  This  is  ano- 
ther of  the  gentleman's  false  issues.  It  is  not  the  point  in  controversy. 
We  have  no  debate  about  the  right  or  authority,  human  or  Divine,  for 
writing  or  reading  any  sort  of  book.  Nor  do  we  debate  about  the  pro- 
priety of  giving,  in  manuscript  or  in  print,  an  exhibit  of  all  our  views  of 
religion  or  of  the  Bible.  These,  at  present,  would  all  be  false  or  feigned 
issues,  and  introduced  to  mystify  the  subject.  The  issue  is  about  the  use 
we  may  make  of  a  book  as  a  creed  ;  or  whether  we  may  found  a  church  on 
an  instrument,  made  up  of  our  own  selections  from  the  Bible,  or  of  our 
own  inferences,  opinions,  and  views  of  expediency,  &c.  I  argue  that  no 
man  has, _/ro7n  the  Lord,  any  such  power  ;  that  no  people  have  any  right, 
warrant,  or  authority,  from  the  Lord,  to  do  so.  The  gentleman  would 
make  me  equal  with  himself,  by  asking  me  for  Divine  authority  to  build 
on  the  Book  alone.  I  have,  for  him,  some  authority,  some  positive  pre- 
cepts, which  we  shall  present  to  him  in  due  time.  I  need  not  remind 
you,  fellow-citizens,  of  my  friend's  manner.  You  all  understand  him. 
Whenever  he  begins  to  deplore  my  want  of  authority,  weakness,  &c.,  he 
is  then  without  an  argument,  and  without  any  other  means  of  entertaining 
you.  I  need  not  henceforth  notice  this  very  familiar  species  of  logic  and 
rhetoric. 

He  has  told  you  of  the  good  deeds  of  Presbyterians  in  the  cause  of 
human  liberty,  as  another  argument  in  proof  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
creeds.  I  did  not  say  any  thing  on  that  subject.  I  did  not  say  that  they 
were  unwilling  to  shed  their  blood  in  civil  wars.  He  would  seem  to 
draw  invidious  comparisons.  If  to  fight  in  revolutionar}-  wars  be  a  chris- 
tian virtue,  neither  he  nor  we  are  worthy  of  any  invidious  comparison 
with  those  who  did,  except  in  one  point,  that  we  were  not  born  quite  so 
soon  as  they.  For  the  great  crime  that  we,  reformers,  were  not  born  a 
hundred  years  ago,  we  must  plead  guilty.    But  as  this  is  a  political  affair, 


DEBATE  Ox\  HUMAN  CREEDS.  795 

I  know  not  by  which  of  our  rules  of  discussion  it  has  found  access  here. 
But  this  much  I  must  say;  that  those  who  concur  with  us  in  our  views 
of  Bible  interpretation,  creeds,  and  church  organization,  were  the  patrons 
and  promulgers  of  the  principles  that  originated  our  political  institutions ; 
and  infused  into  the  mother  country,  and  into  this,  the  true  doctrines  of 
civil  liberty.  I  will  read  from  this  litde  book  a  few  sentences  confirma- 
tory of  our  views,  written  by  the  greatest  patron  and  advocate  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  in  the  world!  The  author  of  the  essay  on  toleration;  the 
immortal  philosopher  and  christian,  John  Locke,  the  author  of  the  first 
American  constitution  ever  ferried  over  the  waves  that  part  us  from  the 
father-land.  It  was  he,  as  I  have  somewhere  learned  in  former  years, 
that  wrote  the  constitution  and  bill  of  rights  for  North  Carolina.  But  I 
must  let  you  hear  what  the  pliilosopher  says  on  the  question  now  be- 
fore us. 

"  But  since  men  are  solicitous  about  the  true  church,  I  would  only  ask 
them,  here  by  the  way,  if  it  be  not  more  agreeable  to  the  church  of  Christ 
to  make  the  conditions  of  lier  communion  to  consist  in  such  things,  and 
such  things  only,  as  the  Holy  Spirit  lias  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  declared,  in 
express  words,  to  be  necessary  for  salvation  ;  I  ask,  I  say,  whether  this  be 
not  more  agreeable  to  tiie  church  of  Christ,  than  for  men  to  impose  their 
own  inventions  and  interpretations  upon  others,  as  if  they  were  of  divine 
authority  ;  and  to  establisii  by  ecclesiastical  laws,  as  absolutely  necessary 
to  the  profession  of  Christianity,  such  things  as  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  eith- 
er not  mention,  or  at  least  not  expressly  command  J  Whosoever  requires 
those  things  in  order  to  ecclesiastical  communion,  which  Christ  does  not 
require  in  order  to  life  eternal,  he  may  perhaps  indeed  constitute  a  society 
accommodated  to  his  owJi  opinions  and  his  own  advantage  ;  hut  how  that 
can  be  called  the  church  of  Christ,  which  is  established  upon  laws  that  are 
not  his,  and  which  excludes  such  persons  from  its  communion  as  he  will  one 
day  receive  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  I  understand  not.  But  this  being 
not  a  proper  place  to  inquire  into  the  mark  of  the  true  church,  I  will  only 
mind  those  that  contend  so  earnestly  for  the  decrees  of  their  own  society, 
and  that  cry  out  continually,  the  ciiurcb  !  the  church  !  with  as  much  noise, 
and  perhaps  upon  the  same  principle,  as  the  Ephesian  silversmiths  did  for 
their  Diana  ;  this,  I  say,  I  desire  to  mind  them  of,  that  the  gospel  frequently 
declares  that  the  true  disciples  of  Christ  must  suffer  persecution;  but  that 
the  churcli  of  Christ  should  persecute  others,  and  force  others  by  fire  and 
sword  to  embrace  her  faith  and  doctrine,  I  could  never  yet  find  in  any  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  end  of  a  religious  society,  as  has  already  been  said,  is  the  public 
worship  of  God,  and  by  means  thereof  the  acquisition  of  eternc.l  life.  All 
discipline  ought  therefore  to  tend  to  that  end,  and  all  ecclesiastical  laws  to 
be  thereunto  confined." — A  Letter  concerning  Toleration,  by  John  Locke, 
Esq.,  Paisley,  1790. 

I  am  obliged  to  Mr.  Rice  for  calling  forth  this  document.  It  is  worth 
more  than  the  size  of  this  volume  in  pure  gold.  Such  are  the  views  of 
the  man  that  taught  England  and  the  founders  of  our  republics,  the  true 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  I  ask  every  person  of  reflection 
in  this  community,  whether  this  great  philosopher  and  politician  has  not 
expressed  our  identical  views  in  the  extract  read.  No  man  can  under- 
stand civil  liberty,  who  does  not  understand  religious  liberty — the  rights 
of  conscience. 

An  observation  of  some  consequence  was  made  by  Mr.  Rice,  and  I  am 
glad  to  hear  one  from  him  of  that  sort.  He  did  not,  however,  give  you  a 
correct  definition  of  our  views  of  confessions  of  faith.  We  do  not  say, 
that  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith  are  the  causes  of  all  errors  and  heresies. 


796  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

I  have  never  so  taught  any  where.  Our  proposition  does  not  say,  tha» 
they  are  the  cause  of"  all  heresy — very  different  from  it.  I  could  much 
Avish,  that  Mr.  Rice  had  learned  to  distinguish  more  clearly.  I  teach,  that 
parties  are  older  than  written  creeds;  that  there  were  persons  who  made 
divisions,  before  there  were  written  creeds.  Satan  was  the  first  sectary 
that  ever  lived.  He  made  a  party.  He  is  the  prime  heresiarch,  and  the 
author  of  the  oldest  schism  in  the  universe.  I  could  trace  through  two 
centuries  before  Arius  and  the  council  of  Nice,  other  causes  for  parties 
than  creeds.  But  it  is  important  to  know,  that  whatever  causes  operated 
to  produce  divisions,  the  great  source  of  all  ecclesiastical  division  was  the 
dogmatical  o})inions  of  churches  and  synods.  These  preserved  the  strife  ; 
consolidated  and  perpetuated  the  enterprize,  which,  but  for  them,  had  soon 
spent  its  strength  and  given  up  the  ghost ! 

Although  councils  and  synods  brought  forth  tvritten  creeds  at  last,  there 
was  no  document  of  that  sort,  before  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
fourth  century.  The  Nicene  document  was  the  first  document  of  the 
kind  embalmed  on  the  pages  of  ancient  history.  Its  simplicity  and  brevity, 
in  the  midst  of  its  profound  obscurity,  is  a  good  index  of  the  age  which 
gave  it  birth.  The  dispute  between  Alexander  the  orthodox,  and  Arius 
the  heterodox,  was  indeed  prior  to  the  creed.  Yet  had  it  not  been  for  the 
political  views  and  interference  of  the  great  Constantine,  and  his  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  Arianism  would,  like  all  the  previous  feuds, 
have  lived  its  day  and  died.  But  the  emperor  and  his  party  must  make  a 
great  noise  in  the  world,  and  he  must  give  himself  an  ecclesiastic  renown, 
and  so  they  wrought  up  the  silly  dogmata  of  the  bishop  and  his  presbyter 
into  an  everlasting  document  of  schism  and  partyism. 

The  vagaries  of  these  moon-struck  theologians  were  now  embodied  into 
a  permanent  form,  had  a  habitation  and  a  name,  and  started  on  their  career 
of  schism  and  blood.  The  sword — the  christian  sword  of  proscription, 
was  now,  for  the  first  time,  manufactured  ;  and  the  trumpet  of  a  new  kind 
of  war  was  moulded,  cast  and  polished  at  Nice.  Had  the  bishops  treated 
the  incomprehensible  nothing  with  indifference  in  their  ecclesiastic  func- 
tions, the  echo  of  Arianism  had  never  reached  us.  It  would  have  perished 
with  the  costumes  of  the  age,  and  would  not  have  inflicted  upon  the  world 
and  the  church  so  many  grievous  calamities,  and  such  an  enduring  dis- 
grace ! 

From  that  day  commenced  the  reign  of  creeds.  If  there  be  any  one 
portion  of  human  history,  which  more  than  another  exhibits  the  weakness 
of  the  human  understanding,  and  the  corruptions  of  the  human  heart,  it  is 
the  history  of  creeds  and  their  operations.  But  as  I  have  not  time  to  tell 
much  of  this  story,  I  will  let  you  hear  how  the  idols  grew,  and  the  wor- 
shipers increased,  by  reading  a  few  lines  from  Hilary,  bishop  of  Poic- 
tiers : 

"  Hilary,  bishop  of  Poictiers,  in  Aquitania,  who  flourished  in  the  fourih 
century,  '  blames  Constantius,  the  emperor,  for  the  variety  and  contrariety 
of  those  creeds  that  were  made  after  the  council  of  Nice,'  and  says  to  him : 
'  You  feign  yourself  to  be  a  christian,  and  you  are  the  enemy  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  you  are  become  Anti-christ,  and  have  begun  his  work  :  you  intrude 
into  the  office  of  procuring  new  creeds  to  be  made,  and  you  live  like  a  pa- 
gan.' He  also  says  :  '  It  is  a  thing  equally  deplorable  and  dangerous,  that 
tliere  are  as  many  creeds  as  there  are  opinions  among  men,  as  many  doc- 
trines as  inclinations,  and  as  many  sources  of  blasphemy  as  there  are  faults 
among  us ;  because  we  make  creeds  arbitrarily,  and  explain  them  as 
ARBITRARILY.     And  as  there  is  but  one  faith,  so  there  is  but  one  only  God, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  797 

one  Lord,  and  one  baptism.  We  renounce  this  one  faith,  when  we  make  so 
many  different  creeds;  and  that  diversity  is  the  reason  why  we  have  no  true 
faith  among  us.  We  cannot  be  ignorant,  that  since  the  council  of  nice, 
we  have  done  nothing  but  make  creeds.  And  while  we  fight  against 
WORDS,  litigate  about  new  questions,  dispute  about  equivocal  terms,  com- 
plain of  authors,  that  every  one  may  make  his  own  party  triumph,  while 
we  cannot  agree  ;  while  we  anathematize  one  another,  there  is  hardly  one 
that  adheres  to  Jesus  Christ.  What  change  was  there  not  in  the  creed 
LAST  year  !  The  first  council  ordained  a  silence  on  the  homoousion ;  the 
second  established  it,  and  would  have  us  speak  ;  the  third  excuses  the  fath- 
ers of  the  council,  and  pretends  they  took  the  word  ousia  simply  ;  the  fourth 
condemns  them,  instead  of  excusing  them.  With  respect  to  the  likeness 
of  the  Son  of  God  to  the  Father,  which  is  the  faith  of  our  deplorable  times, 
they  dispute  whether  he  is  like  in  whole  or  in  part.  These  are  rare  folks  to 
unravel  the  secrets  of  heaven.  Nevertheless  it  is  for  these  creeds,  about 
invisible  mysteries,  that  we  calumniate  one  another,  not  for  our  belief  in 
God.  We  make  creeds  every  year  ;  nay,  every  moon  we  repent  of  what  we 
have  done  ;  we  defend  those  that  repent,  we  anathematize  those  that  we  de- 
fended. So  that  we  condemn  either  the  doctrine  of  others  in  ourselves,  or 
our  own  in  that  of  others  ;  and,  reciprocally  tearing  one  another  to  pieces, 
we  have  been  the  cause  of  each  other's  ruin.' " 

We  must  turn  again  to  the  case  of  Arius,  and  draw  from  it  a  lesson. 
Here  we  read  in  plain  terms  the  deplorable  consequences  of  one  false  step 
in  conducting  ecclesiastic  affairs.  It  ought  to  be  an  everlasting  monu- 
ment. The  history  of  the  Arian  creed,  and  its  wars,  political  and  eccles- 
iastical, would  fill  many  volumes.  The  reformation,  of  which  I  have 
been  for  many  years  one  of  the  humble  advocates,  has  derived  important 
advantages  from  the  history  of  such  developments  of  human  nature. 
We  long  since  learned  the  lesson,  that  to  draw  a  well-defined  boundary 
between  f cut  h  and  opinion,  and,  while  we  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith, 
to  allow  perfect  freedom  oi'  opinion,  and  of  the  expression  of  opinion,  is 
the  true  philosophy  of  church  union,  and  the  sovereign  antidote  against 
heresy.  Hence,  in  our  communion  at  this  moment,  we  have  as  strong 
Calvinists  and  as  strong  Arminians,  as  any,  I  presume,  in  this  house — 
certainly  many  that  have  been  such.  Yet  we  go  hand  in  hand,  in  one 
faith,  one  hope,  and  in  all  christian  union  and  co-operation  in  the  great 
cause  of  personal  sanctification  and  human  redemption.  It  is  a  pleasure 
to  see  such  persons  holding  in  abeyance  their  former  opinions,  conclusions 
and  reasonings  ;  the  result  of  an  early  education  and  the  effects  of  youth- 
ful associations  ;  sacrificing  all  their  ancient  predilections  and  partialities, 
for  the  sake  of  the  pure  and  holy  principles  of  a  religion  that  was  fully 
and  perfecdy  taught  and  developed  before  the  age  of  Luther,  of  Calvin,  or 
of  any  of  the  reformers,  of  popery  or  any  other  superstition,  living  or 
dead.  They  see  not  those  specks,  while  heaven's  bright  sun  of  righteous- 
ness and  truth  shines  into  their  souls  in  all  its  glorious  eft'ulgence. 

It  is  not  the  object  of  our  efforts  to  make  men  think  alike  on  a  thous- 
and themes.  Let  men  ihiuk  as  they  please  on  any  matters  of  human 
opinion,  and  upon  "  doctrines  of  religion,"  provided  only  tliey  hold  the 
HEAD  Christ,  and  keep  his  commandments.  I  have  learned,  not  only  the 
theory,  but  the  fact — that  if  you  wisii  opinionism  to  cease  or  to  subside, 
you  must  not  call  up  and  debate  every  thing  that  men  think  or  say.  You 
may  debate  any  thing  into  consequence,  or  you  may,  by  a  dignified  si- 
lence, waste  it  into  oblivion.  I  have  known  innumerable  instances  of 
persons  outliving  their  opinions,  and  erroneous  reasonings,  and  even 
sometimes  forgetting  the  modes  of  reasoning   by  which  they  had  em- 

3x3 


798  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

braced  and  maintained  them.  This  was  the  natural  result  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  letting  them  alone.  In  this  way,  they  came  to  be  of  one  mind 
in  all  points  in  which  unity  of  thought  is  desirable,  in  order  to  unity  of 
worship  and  of  action.  We  have  had  as  much  experience  in  the  opera- 
tion of  these  principles,  having  observed  them  longer  than  perhaps  any 
of  our  contemporaries.  I  feel  myself  authorized  to  say,  that  there  are 
many  persons  in  our  communion  who,  within  ten  or  fifteen  years,  have 
attained  to  more  unanimity  and  uniformity  of  thinking,  speaking  and  act- 
ing upon  all  the  great  elements  of  Christianity,  than  is  usually  found  in 
the  members  of  any  other  community  in  the  country.  I  do  not  think, 
after  all,  that  you,  sir,  could  find  so  much  uniformity  of  sentiment,  cover- 
ing so  many  former  opinions  and  doctrines,  in  so  many  degrees  of  latitude, 
and  amongst  so  many  persons,  as  already  are  united  in  the  ranks  of  re- 
formation. This  we  regard  as  a  matter  so  well  proved  and  documented 
amongst  us,  that  it  has  already  all  the  certainty  of  a  moral  demonstration. 

Mr.  Rice  would,  as  usual,  have  me  calling  upon  Dr.  Beecher  for  proof 
of  my  doctrine,  or  for  help  in  sustaining  it.  Did  I  call  upon  Dr.  Beecher's 
opinions  to  corroborate  mine,  or  to  show  that  his  views  of  the  Westmin- 
ster creed  and  mine  are  the  same  ?  Or  was  it  to  show  that  such  was  the 
obscurity  of  the  creed,  that  men  believing  it  and  teaching  it,  have  come  to 
conclusions  as  diverse  as  are  my  views  of  regeneration  and  those  of  Mr. 
Rice  ?  Did  I  not  show  that  Dr.  Beecher's  views  of  regeneration  through 
the  truth  and  mine  are  the  same ;  and  that,  too,  while  he  advocates 
the  creed  as  teaching  them  ?  This  is  the  proper  view  of  that  case.  It 
is,  therefore,  without  evidence  to  argue  that  Paul,  James,  and  John  are 
less  definite  and  intelligible  than  the  Westminster  divines.  I  envy  no 
man  the  possession  of  such  a  talent  for  making  capital  in  this  way  out  of 
any  thing,  or  every  thing,  or  nothing,  as  suits  his  embarrassments. 

The  gentleman  has  introduced  an  extract  from  my  correspondence  with 
Mr.  Jones  of  London,  touching  upon  communion,  which  demands  an  ob- 
servation or  two.  I  have  more  respect  for  his  imderstanding  than  to 
think  that  Mr.  Rice  does  not  comprehend  this  subject  better.  The  Eng- 
lish Baptists  very  generally  practice  open  communion,  as  they  call  it. 
They  invite  persons  unbaptized  to  participate  with  them  at  the  Lord's 
table.  Now,  the  difference  between  them  and  our  brethren,  in  cases 
where  such  persons  occasionally  commune  with  them,  is  tliis  :  They 
do  not  invite  them,  as  such,  to  commune  in  the  supper  ;  but  some  of  them 
sometimes  say,  that  "  the  table  is  the  Lord's  and  not  theirs ;  and  that, 
though  they  cannot  invite  any  to  partake  of  it,  but  those  visibly  and  os- 
tensibly, by  their  own  baptism,  the  Lord's  people,  still,  not  presuming  to 
say  that  those  only  are  the  Lord's  people,  in  this  day  of  division,  we  debar 
no  consistent  professor  of  the  faith  of  any  party,  who,  itpon  his  oivn  respon- 
sibility, chooses  to  partake  with  us.  Thus  we  throw  the  responsibility 
upon  him,  while  the  English  Baptists,  in  many  instances,  take  it  upon 
themselves.  I  argue  not  the  merits  of  this  question  here.  I  only  exhibit 
it,  in  evidence  that  our  liberality,  as  it  is  called,  goes  beyond  the  most  strict 
sects  of  the  Pedo-baptists — beyond  the  party  represented  by  my  opponent. 

Indeed,  there  is  nothing  strictly  sectarian  in  our  views.  There  is  no 
opinionism  in  our  system  of  operations.  The  facts  we  believe  are  ad- 
mitted ;  the  ordinances  we  practice  are  admitted ;  the  piety  and  the  moral- 
ity we  inculcate,  are  admitted — universally  admitted,  by  all  Christendom 

There  are  none  excluded  from  our  communities  but  those  who  deny 
the  faith,  those  immoral  or  unrighteous,  and  those  who  are  schismatics. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  799 

These  three  classes  are  by  divine  authority  to  be  severed  from  the  faith- 
ful. The  schismatic  is  excluded,  not  for  his  opinion,  but  for  the  unright- 
eous use  he  makes  of  it. 

The  gentleman  rather  ludicrously  speaks  of  our  tyrannizing  over 
those  who  differ  from  us — that  is,  for  repudiating  such  persons  as  one 
Dr.  Thomas,  of  whom  he  speaks,  who,  in  his  mec?ico-theological  specu- 
lations has  made  a  grand  discovery  that  men  have  no  other  souls  than  at- 
mospheric air — that  the  soul  of  a  man  dwells  neither  in  his  head,  nor  in 
his  heart,  but  in  his  lungs  ;  and,  consequently,  giving  up  the  ghost  is  only 
giving  up  his  last  soul,  or  last  inspiration*  Well,  if  that  be  tyranny,  I 
have  deeds  of  tyranny  to  relate  that  would  make  the  whole  affair  of  ty- 
ranny a  matter  of  amusement,  rather  than  of  grave  reprehension.  We 
know  whom  to  exclude.  Amongst  them,  however,  are  none  for  any  par- 
ticular mode  of  interpreting  the  Scripture  ;  but  ybr  the  use  made  of  their 
interpretation  of  it.  Morality  lies  in  that,  and  not  in  the  different  ways 
of  reading  and  interpreting  a  verse.  We  are  told  positively  who  shall 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  such  should  not  dwell  in  any 
church. 

Who  ever  thought  of  a  church  like  Noah's  ark — filled  with  beasts, 
clean  and  unclean?  Is  it  tyrannical  to  exclude  a  drunkard,  a  railer,  or  a 
schismatic?  Are  we  tyrannical  because  we  exact  of  those  who  teach  the 
christian  religion,  that  they  should  teach  the  things  commanded,  and  not 
contradict  the  views  of  aposdes  and  prophets — nor  set  on  foot  a  system 
of  operations  contrary  to  the  express  Word  of  God  ? 

The  gentleman  says  that  Presbyterianism  has  not  changed.  What, 
then,  have  Presbyterians  been  doing  in  their  general  assemblies  and  sy- 
nods in  all  the  world  for  the  last  thirty  years  ?  Is  there  no  change  in 
doctrine,  or  administration  of  any  kind  ?  If  Presbyterians  have  not 
changed,  what  means  this  mighty  movement?  and  all  these  new  and  old 
school  notions,  debates,  strifes,  and  divisions  !  Mr.  Rice,  I  presume,  be- 
longs to  the  old  school,  dyed  in  the  wool,  and  of  course  he  does  not,  nay, 
indeed,  he  cannot,  change.  The  reason  why  he  cannot  plead  for  a  more 
just  and  generous  exposition  of  the  confessional  exponent  of  the  Bible,  is 
his  belief  that  the  old  school  does  not  err,  cannot  err ;  for  they  are  the 
true  blue  of  Calvinism,  which  he  affirms  cannot  change.  A  true  old 
school  Presbyterian,  if  not  infallible,  is  indeed  in  an  awkward  posture ; 
he  cannot  change.  But  is  it  not  a  singular  theory  ?  The  confession  ex- 
plains the  Bible,  and  yet  the  confession  cannot  be  explained  by  those  who 
are  sworn  to  teach  it ;  for  they  explain  it  differently. 

What  is  this  Presbyterian  controversy  about  ?  Both  parties  go  for  the 
same  confession.  But  the  old  school  says  the  new  school  erroneously 
interpret  it;  and  the  new  school  replies  that  the  old  school  never  did  un- 
derstand it.  The  thirty-nine  new  articles,  all  the  speculative  world  be- 
lieve to  be  Calvinistic.  Yet  most  of  those  who  teach  them  are  Arminians. 
The  Earl  of  Chatham  once  truly  said  of  the  Church  of  England  in  his 
day,  that  "  she  had  Calvinistic  articles,  Arminian  clergy,  and  a  popish  li- 
turgy." A  just  but  severe  compliment  to  creeds — a  just  expose  of 
their  power  to  preserve  a  ministry  of  one  faith,  or  of  one  system  of  in- 
terpretation. Elizabeth  made  the  doctrinal  part  popular  in  her  reign,  and 
the  majority  believed  with  the  Queen  ;  but  since  then,  while  the  outworks 
of  the  establishment  are  the  same,  the  doctrine  and  the  spirit  of  that  day 
are  fled. 

Report  says,  the  new  school  Presbyterians  are  for  mediate  influence, 


800  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

the  old  for  immediate.  I  hope  you  will  excuse  me  for  adverting  to  it; 
and  not  take  the  allusion  in  proof  that  I  am  dissatisfied  with  the  debate  on 
spiritual  influence,  and  give  me  another  challenge.  Well,  the  difference 
between  im  and  no  itn  in  the  words  mediate  and  immediate  is  as  valid  as 
the  i  and  the  o  diflference  in  the  Nicene,  to  justify  the  war  between  the 
old  and  the  new  school  Presbyterians.  There  is,  indeed,  a  verv  great  dif- 
ference between  immediate  and  mediate  influence — the  one  brings  naked 
spirits  together,  the  other  places  the  Bible  revelations,  or  the  gospel,  be- 
tween. 1  hope  Mr.  Rice  will  explain  to  us  what  he  understands  is  the 
immutability  of  Presbyterianism.  There  is  some  new  spirit  abroad  in 
the  Presbyterian  church.     What  can  it  be  ? — [Time  expired. 

Thursday,  Nov.  30 — U  o'clock,  Jl.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  third  reply.] 

Mr.  President. — My  friend,  Mr.  C,  goes  against  making  creeds  and 
enforcing  them  on  the  consciences  of  men.  I  am  not  aware,  that  Pres- 
byterians, Methodists,  or  any  Protestant  denomination,  claim  authority  to 
force  or  impose  their  creed  on  any  one.  It  is  a  matter  of  free  choice 
with  every  individual,  whether  he  will  become  a  member  of  our  church, 
or  some  other.  If  on  comparing  our  creed  wiili  the  Scriptures,  he  re- 
gards it  as  supported  by  them,  and,  therefore,  chooses  our  church;  there 
is  no  violence  offered  to  his  conscience.  On  the  contrary,  he  acts  pre- 
cisely according  to  its  dictates.  In  order  to  sustain  his  proposition  the 
gentleman  seems  to  consider  it  necessary  to  oppose  principles  which  we 
do  not  hold,  principles  which  we  condemn  as  decidedly  and  as  strongly 
as  he  does.  So  far  as  force  has  been  employed  in  any  case  to  induce  per- 
sons to  adopt  a  creed,  we  condemn  it.  But  Mr.  C.  also  goes  against 
substituting  creeds  for  the  Bible.  So  do  we;  and  so  do  all  evangelical 
denominations.  His  great  reformation,  therefore,  commenced  with  waging 
an  exterminating  war  against  errors  that  did  not  exist. 

He  charges  me  with  having  indulged  in  invidious  comparisons  in  my 
remarks  concerning  those  who  were  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God  of 
securing  to  our  country  civil  and  religious  liberty.  So  far  as  the  revolu- 
tionary struggle  was  concerned,  I  could  not  institute  a  comparison  be- 
tween two  things,  one  of  which  did  not  then  exist.  His  reformation  is 
a  beardless  youth  about  sixteen  years  of  age!  I  said,  it  had  not  been 
heard  of  in  those  days  of  trial,  and  that  it  should  be  modest  in  boasting 
of  its  zeal  for  liberty  before  it  is  tried.     This,  I  presume,  is  not  invidious. 

I  do  not  object  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Locke,  as  expressed  in  the  extract 
read  by  Mr.  C.  He  is  opposed  to  requiring  of  men  what  the  Scriptures 
do  not  require.  So  am  I ;  and  so  are  all  Presbyterians  and  other  evan- 
gelical churches;  We  do  not  wish  to  require  of  any  human  being,  as  a 
condition  of  membership,  what  the  Scriptures  do  not  require.  He  is 
opposed  to  excluding  from  our  christian  fellowship  those  whom  we  ex- 
pect to  meet  in  heaven.  So  am  I.  I  plead  for  communing  with  those 
who  hold  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

But  the  gentleman  seemed  not  to  see,  that  die  sentiments  of  Locke 
condemn  his  practice.  Locke  was  opposed  to  excluding  from  our  com- 
munion those  we  expect  to  meet  in  heaven.  Yet  Mr.  C.  excludes  many 
whom  he  expects  to  meet  there.  [Mr.  Campbell  denies  the  assertion,] 
The  gentleman  calls  all  churches  but  his  own,  "sects,"  and  represents 
them  as  constituting  Babylon — the  apostasy.  Yet  he  professes  to  be- 
lieve, that  there  are  christians  among  "the  sects,"  as  I  will  prove  from 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  801 

his  Harbinger,  [^r.  Campbell.  Have  we  excluded  them  ?]  I  will 
answer  his  question  presentl_v,  when  I  come  to  speak  of  his  letter  to 
Jones. 

He  says,  he  does  r.ot  contend,  that  creeds  are  tlie  cause  of  all  heresy 
and  division.  Let  him  prove,  that  they  do  at  all  cause  either  heresy  or 
schism.  He  does  not  maintain  simply,  that  erroneous  creeds  produce 
heresy  and  schism,  but  that  all  creeds  necessarily  produce  these  evils. 
Even  a  true  creed,  according  to  his  logic,  is  necessarily  heretical  and 
schismatical ;  and  that  creeds  are  the  great  cause  of  divisions.  All  we 
desire,  is  to  have  this  proved. 

If  there  had  been  no  creed  formed  against  Arianism,  he  says,  it  would 
have  died.  Tliis  is  assertion.  We  desire  the  proof.  There  not  only 
is  no  certain  evidence,  that  such  would  have  been  the  result  of  leaving 
that  heresy  unopposed;  but  there  is  no  probability  of  it.  Weeds  grow 
without  cultivation.  'Die  earth  produces  them  spontaneously.  So  does 
error  flourish  in  the  human  heart.  The  seeds  of  error  there  lind  a  soil  in 
which  they  grow  luxuriantly.  He  says,  let  error  alone,  and  it  will  die. 
The  Scriptures  do  not  teach,  nor  do  they  direct  us  to  let  error  alone. 
On  the  contrary,  Paul  says,  "A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump." 
He  and  Paul  seem  to  have  come  to  opposite  conclusions  on  this  subject. 

He  declaims  earnestly  against  forcing  opinions  upon  men.  Yet  some 
of  his  own  friends — prominent  ministers  in  his  church,  have  said  and 
published,  that  he  does  enforce  his  opinions,  so  as  to  exclude  multitudes 
of  the  most  pious  persons  !  It  does  not  look  well  for  a  man  to  declaim 
against  liis  own  practice — to  condemn  others  for  what  he  himself  is 
doing. 

The  extract  he  read  from  Hilary  may  be  well  enough.  But  the  ques- 
tion before  us,  as  I  have  before  stated,  is  not  whetlier  any  particular  creed 
is  good  or  bad,  true  or  false  ;  but  whether  the  making  of  a  creed — a  true 
creed — involves  the  sins  of  heresy  and  schism.  There  is  one  important 
point  concerning  which  I  desire  some  information.  The  gentleman  ap- 
pears to  attach  great  importance  to  a  distinction  he  makes  between  faith 
and  opinion.  I  desire  to  know  where  faith  ends,  and  opinion  be- 
gins, I  wish  information  on  this  subject  particularly ;  because,  unless  I 
greatly  err,  Mr.  Campbell's  church  are  constantly  acting  in  violation  of 
their  own  principles  in  relation  to  it. 

He  says,  they  have  amongst  them  both  Calvinists  and  Arminians;  I 
am  constrained  to  doubt  whether  they  have  any  real  Calvinists ;  for  a 
true  Calvinist  believes  firmly,  that  the  doctrines,  called  Calvinistic,  are 
taught  in  the  Bible,  and  he,  of  course,  considers  himself  solemnly  bound 
to  propagate  them.  Such  an  one  is  not  likely  to  become  a  member  of  a 
church  that  will  not  permit  him  quietly  to  preach  what  he  believes  to  be 
God's  revealed  truth.  Nor  would  a  conscientious  Arminian  unite  him- 
self with  a  church,  where  he  could  not  preach  what  he  believes.  Doubt- 
less there  are  men  who  will  bind  themselves  to  keep  back  part  of  the 
truth,  as  they  understand  it;  but  I  do  not  admire  their  principles  nor  their 
conscientiousness. 

Mr.  C.  says,  he  quoted  Dr.  Beecher  on  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  to  show 
how  difl'erent  are  his  views  of  the  confession  of  faith  from  mine.  Yet 
he  was  careful  to  state,  very  emphatically,  that  Dr.  B.  agreed  with  him 
on  that  subject !  He  will  take  the  opportunity,  as  often  as  possible,  to 
slip  in  something  in  ihe  way  of  argument  on  the  subjects  already  disposed 
of.  But  we  are  not  discussing  the  question,  whether  Dr.  B.  and  I  agree 
51 


802  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

in  the  interpretation  of  the  confession  of  faith;  nor  whether  the  West- 
minster confession  presents  its  doctrine  clearly ;  but  whether  it  is  lawful 
for  us  to  have  a  creed  at  all.  The  quotation  from  Beecher,  therefore, 
was  out  of  place. 

Mr.  Campbell  attempts  to  make  capital  of  the  fact,  that  the  old  and 
new  school  Presbyterians  differ  in  their  interpretations  of  the  confession 
of  faith.  If  we  are  to  judge  from  what  he  has  said  on  the  subject,  he 
certainly  does  not  understand  it.  I  have  had  occasion  to  examine  the 
differences  between  them  quite  extensively.  The  difference  is  not  so 
much  concerning  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  book,  as  concerning  the  de- 
gree of  strictness  with  which  it  should  be  adopted.  The  old  school 
have  been  disposed  to  require  a  more  strict  adoption  of  the  particular 
doctrines  of  the  confession,  than  the  new  school.  The  latter  were  dis- 
posed to  adopt  it  only  "  lor  substance  of  doctrine ;"  the  former  believe, 
that  such  an  adoption  opened  the  way  for  the  introduction  of  serious 
errors.  This  has  been,  so  far  as  the  present  subject  is  concerned,  the 
principal  ground  of  controversy ;  not  what  the  obvious  language  of  the 
confession  of  faith  teaches,  but  with  what  degree  of  strictness  it  should 
be  adopted.  The  new  school  brethren,  I  doubt  not,  would  consider  them- 
selves misrepresented,  if  charged  with  holding,  that  conversion  is  effected 
not  by  an  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit.  So  far  as  I  know,  they  would, 
as  a  body,  deny  the  charge.  This  is  a  subject,  however,  which  I  am 
not  disposed  now  to  discuss,  as  it  bears  not  on  the  point  at  issue. 

It  would  seem,  from  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman,  that  there  is  in  his 
church  great  unanimity  in  their  views  of  divine  truth.  And  yet,  he  him- 
self has  published  the  fact,  that  they  have  "all  sorts  of  doctrine  preached 
by  almost  all  sorts  of  men."  I  know  they  all  meet  in  the  water,  but  no 
where  else  !  On  all  other  doctrinal  points  each,  it  would  appear,  thinks 
for  himself. 

I  will  now  attend  to  the  gentleman's  statements  about  admitting  unim- 
mersed  persons  to  communicate  with  him,  and  will  answer  his  question 
propounded  a  few  minutes  since.  He  attempts  to  reconcile  the  statement 
made  here  with  that  made  to  Jones,  of  England,  by  saying,  that  his 
church  does  not  invite  unimmersed  persons  to  commune  with  them;  but 
if  they  come  on  their  own  responsibility,  they  do  not  debar  them.  Let 
me  again  read  Mr.  Jones's  question  and  his  reply — (Millen.  Harh.  vol. 
vi.  p.  18.)  '■'■Do  any  of  your  churches  admit  unhaptized  persons  to  com- 
munion; a  practice  that  is  becoming  very  prevalent  in  this  country?" 
Observe,  the  question  is  not,  does  your  church  invite,  but  do  they  ad- 
mit such  persons  to  communion?  To  this  question  Mr.  C.  replies — - 
"Not  one,  as  far  as  known  to  me"!?!  The  gentleman  has  cer- 
tainly given  accounts  of  the  principles  and  the  practice  of  his  church, 
whicli  are  directly  contradictory.  He  has  told  Jones,  and  the  people  in 
England,  that  they  do  not  admit  unimmersed  persons  to  communion; 
that  it  is  decidedly  wrong  to  admit  them  ;  and  he  has  told  us  to-day,  that 
they  do  admit  them,  and  arc  well  pleased  to  have  them  come!  If  he  can 
reconcile  these  opposite  statements,  let  him  do  it.  When  I  see  over  a 
door  "  No  admittance,'^  I  understand,  distinctly,  that  I  am  not  to  enter. 

He  asserts,  that  every  item  of  faith  and  practice,  as  held  by  his  church, 
is  catholic.  This  is  a  great  mistake.  Do  all  agree  that  immersion  is  the 
only  apostolic,  or  christian  baptism  ?  Not  one  in  a  thousand  has  admitted 
it.     This  tenet,  then,  is  far,  very  far,  from  being  catholic. 

He  Justifies  himself  in  attempting  to  exclude  Dr.  'i'homas,  the  mate- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  803 

rialist,  by  telling  us  he  never  plead  for  a  church  like  Noah's  ark — that 
his  church  requires  men  to  teach,  as  (Ud  the  apostles.  That  is  right.  But 
the  question  is,  how  can  he,  on  his  principles,  exclude  any  errorist ?  Who 
is  to  judge  whether  an  individual  preaches,  as  did  the  apostles  ?  Is  Mr. 
Campbell  to  be  the  judge?  Then  he  is  pope.  Is  the  man  himself  to 
judge  ?  Then  you  cannot  exclude  him.  Is  the  church,  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  to  judge?  Then  they  are  to  be  for  him  a  kind  of  creed.  Yes — 
according  to  the  principles  on  which  the  gentleman  and  his  church  pro- 
ceed, any  little  church  of  a  dozen  members,  or  a  smaller  number,  males 
and  females,  girls,  boys,  and  servants,  are  to  set  in  judgment  on  the 
orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  who  happens  to 
have  his  membership  among  them  !  They  may  gravely  decide,  that  he 
is  not  teaching  as  did  the  apostles,  and  excommunicate  him  for  heresy. 
He  is  thus  deprived  of  a  standing  in  the  church  ;  his  character  is  injured ; 
his  usefulness  destroyed ;  and  he  has  no  remedy  ! 

One,  amongst  many  important  differences  between  Mr.  C.'s  church  and 
ours,  is — that  in  his,  a  man  even  of  the  highest  standing  may  be  deprived 
of  his  dearest  rights  and  privileges  by  half-a-dozen  uninformed  or  preju- 
diced persons  ;  whilst  in  ours,  the  humblest  member  cannot  be  finally  de^ 
prived  of  his  standing  until,  if  he  choose  to  appeal,  the  voice  of  the  whole 
church  has  decided  on  his  case.  With  us,  the  strongest  possible  protec- 
tion is  thrown  around  the  reputation  and  the  privileges  of  every  member, 
and  especially  of  every  minister.  The  gentleman's  cliurch  affords  no 
such  protection.  No  man  has  any  more  assurance  that  his  character  will 
not  be  injured,  and  his  privileges  taken  from  him,  than  is  found  in  the  wis- 
dom and  piety  of  the  members  of  the  church,  perhaps  of  a  dozen  mem- 
bers, to  which  he  belongs.  Dr.  Thomas  contended,  that  he  was  teaching 
the  doctrines  taught  by  the  apostles.  Mr.  Campbell  decided  that  he  was 
not,  and  called  on  his  church  to  excommunicate  him,  because  he  differed 
in  his  interpretations  of  the  Bible  from  him  !  But,  according  to  his  prin- 
ciples, how  could  he  attempt  to  exclude  Thomas  ?  He  solemnly  declared, 
that  he  took  the  Bible  as  his  only  infallible  guide,  and  eschewed  all  creeds. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  offer  some  further  arguments,  showing  that  creeds 
are  not  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical.  I  have  already  stated  the 
important  fact,  that  in  Mr.  Campbell's  church,  by  which  all  creeds  are  re- 
pudiated, there  is  more  heresy,  and  more  schism,  than  in  any  Protestant 
church  that  has  a  creed.  The  door  into  it  is  wide  enough  to  admit  all 
who  profess  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  are  wil- 
ling to  be  immersed.  Not  only  Calvinists  and  Arrainians,  some  of  whom 
the  gendeman  boasts  of  having,  but  Arians,  Socinians,  Universalists,  &c. 
&c.  may  enter.  His  foundation  is  broad  enough  for  them  all  to  stand  on. 
There  is  no  error  held  by  any  who  bear  the  christian  name,  that  may  not 
find  a  lodging-place  in  this  reformed  church,  except  that  of  sprinkling  and 
baptizing  infants  !  And  even  Pedo-baptists  cannot  be  excluded,  without 
the  most  flagrant  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  reformation. 
To  prove  to  you,  my  friends,  that  I  am  not  misrepresenting  the  gentle- 
man's principles,  I  will  read  an  extract  or  two  from  his  Christianity  Re- 
stored, (pp.  122,  123:) 

"  I  will  now  show  how  they  cannot  make  a  sect  of  us.  We  will  acknowl- 
edge all  as  christians  who  acknowledge  the  gospel  facts,  and  obey  Jesus 
Christ.  But,  says  one,  will  you  receive  a  Unitarian  1  No  ;  nor  a  Trinita- 
rian. We  will  have  neither  Unitarians  nor  Trinitarians.  How  can  this 
be  I  Systems  make  Unitarians  and  Trinitarians.  Renounce  the  system, 
and  you  renounce  its  creatures.     But  the  creatures  of  other  systems  now 


804  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

exist,  and  some  of  them  will  come  in  your  way  :  how  will  you  dispose  of 
them  ]  1  answer,  we  will  unmake  them.  Again,  I  am  asked,  how  will 
you  unmake  them  ?     I  answer,  by  laying  no  emphasis  upon  their  opinions. 

What  is  a  Unitarian^  One  who  contends  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the 
Son  of  God.  Such  a  one  has  denied  the  faith,  and  therefore  we  reject  him. 
But,  says  a  Trinitarian,  many  Unitarians  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Ch-rist  is 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  of  their  own.  Admit  it.  Then,  I  ask,  how  do 
you  know  they  have  a  sense  of  their  ownl  intuitively,  or  by  their  words'! 
Not  intuitively,  but  by  their  words.  And  what  are  these  words'!  are  they 
Bible  words!  If  they  are,  we  cannot  object  to  them  :  if  they  are  not,  we 
will  not  hear  them,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  we  will  not  discuss  them  at 
all.  If  he  will  ascribe  to  Jesus  all  Bible  attributes,  names,  works,  and  wor- 
ship, we  will  not  fight  with  him  about  scholastic  words.  But  if  he  will  not 
ascribe  to  him  every  thing  that  the  first  christians  ascribed,  and  worship 
and  adore  him  as  the  first  christians  did,  we  will  reject  him  ;  not  because 
of  his  private  opinions,  but  because  he  refuses  to  honor  Jesus  as  the  first 
converts  did,  and  withholds  from  him  the  titles  and  honors  which  God  and 
his  apostles  have  bestowed  upon  him. 

In  like  manner  we  will  deal  with  a  Trinitarian.  If  he  will  ascribe  to 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  all  that  the  first  believers  ascribed,  and 
nothing  more,  we  will  receive  him.  But  we  will  not  allow  him  to  apply 
scholastic  and  barbarous  epithets  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 
If  he  will  dogmatize  and  become  a  factionist,  we  wiU  reject  him  ;  not  be- 
cause of  his  opinions,  but  because  of  his  attempting  to  make  a  faction,  or  to 
lord  it  over  God's  heritage." 

Concerning  these  sentiments  I  have  several  remarks  to  make. 
■  1st.  Mr.  C.  says,  he  will  receive  a  Unitarian  into  his  church,  if  he  will 
ascribe  to  Jesus  all  Bible  attributes,  names,  works,  and  worship ;  but  if 
he  will  not  ascribe  to  him  all  that  the  first  christians  ascribed,  and  wor- 
ship and  adore  him  as  the  first  christians  did,  he  will  reject  him.  Now 
let  me  ask,  who  is  to  determine  whether  the  Unitarian  worships  and 
adores  Jesus  Christ  as  the  first  christians  did?  Is  Mr.  C.  to  judge? 
Then  you  make  him  pope.  Is  each  litde  church  to  judge  ?  Then  you 
make  each  church  an  infallible  council  to  determine  what  its  members  shall 
believe,  and  how  they  shall  worship  Christ.  Is  each  individual  to  judge 
for  himself?  Then  each  will  decide  that  he  does  worship  and  adore  Je- 
sus as  the  first  christians  did.  So  it  all  amounts  to  nothing — the  Unita- 
rian, of  whatever  grade,  must  be  received. 

2d.  But  the  gendeman  says,  he  will  deal  in  like  manner  with  the 
Trinitarian.  He,  too,  must  ascribe  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit, 
all  that  the  first  christians  ascribed,  and  no  more.  Who,  I  again  ask,  is 
to  judge  in  this  case  ?  But  here  I  find  something  truly  remarkable.  He 
says — "  we  will  not  allow  him  [the  Trinitarian]  to  apply  scholastic  and 
barbarous  epithets  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  Who 
is  to  decide  what  epithets  are  barbarous  and  scholastic?  Where  has 
the  Bible  authorized  Mr.  Campbell  or  his  church  to  excommunicate  a 
man  for  using,  in  reference  to  the  Trinity,  any  words  he  may  choose, 
that  convey  no  false  idea  ?  By  what  authority  does  the  gentleman  say, 
we  shall  not  use  such  words  as  he  may  choose  to  call  scholastic  or  barba- 
rous ?  If  here  is  not  a  most  remarkable  exhibition  of  latitudinarianism 
and  tyranny,  I  know  not  what  these  terms  mean  !  Men  are  left  to  judge 
for  themselves,  so  far  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  concerned ;  but 
they  are  to  be  excommunicated  for  using  certain  words  which  God  has 
never  forbidden  them  to  use  ! ! ! 
But  let  me  read  a  little  further. 

"  And  will  you  receive  a  Universalist  too  J    No ;  not  as  a  Univerealist. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  805 

If  a  man,  professing  Universalist  opinions,  should  apply  for  admission,  we 
will  receive  him,  if  he  will  consent  to  use  and  apply  all  the  Bible  phrases 
in  their  plain  reference  to  the  future  state  of  men  and  angels.  We  will  not 
hearken  to  those  questions  which  gender  strife,  nor  discuss  them  at  all.  If 
any  person  say  such  is  his  private  opinion,  let  him  have  it  as  his  private 
opinion,  but  lay  no  stress  upon  it ;  and  if  it  be  a  wrong  private  opinion,  it 
will  die  a  natural  death  much  sooner  than  if  you  attempt  to  kill  it." 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  he  will  receive  a  Universalist ;  but  he  will  not 
receive  him  as  a  Universalist.  Well,  he  is  a  Universalist  and  nothing 
else.  He  will  not  receive  him  as  ivhat  he  is ;  of  course  he  will  receive 
him  as  lohat  he  is  not!  To  illustrate  the  idea,  you  propose  to  sell  a 
sheep  to  a  man.  He  tells  you,  he  will  not  buy  him  as  a  sheep  ;  but  call 
it  a  horse,  and  I  will  take  it !  I  never  read  this  paragraph  without  being 
reminded  of  a  certain  man  of  olden  time,  who  had  the  singular  fortune 
to  be  both  a  duke  and  a  bishop.  One  day  an  acquaintance  heard  him 
using  profane  language,  and  said  to  him  with  much  surprise — "  Do  you, 
a.  bishop,  swear?"  "  O,"  replied  the  dignitary,  "I  do  not  swear  as  a 
bishop :  I  swear  as  a  duke.^''  "  But,"  replied  his  quizzical  friend,  "  when 
the  devil  comes  for  the  duke,  what  will  become  of  the  bishop  ?"  [A 
laugh.]  If  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  should  be  fundamentally  er- 
roneous, let  me  ask,  when  the  devil  comes  for  the  Universalist,  what  will 
become  of  the  reformer  ?     [Continued  laughter.] 

But  my  friend  Mr.  C.  is  quite  strict  just  here.  He  will  receive  a  man 
professing  Universalist  opinions,  only  on  condition  that  "  he  will  consent 
to  use  and  apply  all  the  I3ible  phrases  in  their  plain  reference  to  the  fu- 
ture state  of  men  and  angels."  Of  course,  according  to  this  doctrine,  a 
man  may  be  a  Universalist,  and  yet  use  all  the  Bible  phrases  in  their  plain 
and  obvious  reference  to  future  punishment ! ! !  But  let  me  ask  again, 
who  is  to  determine  whether  the  Universalist  does  so  use  them  ?  All 
Universalists  profess  to  use  the  Bible  words  and  phrases  in  their  plain  and 
obvious  sense.  Now  suppose  one  of  your  reformed  preachers  should,  on 
next  Sabbath,  preach  the  Universalist  doctrine.  You  call  him  before  the 
church  to  try  him  for  heresy.  You  ask  him — '  Do  you  use  these  Bible 
phrases  and  words  in  their  plain  reference  to  the  future  state  of  men  and 
angels  ?'  He  says — '  I  do.'  Now  what  can  you  do  with  him  ?  You 
must  let  him  alone  !  He  will  preach  the  same  doctrine  again  on  the  next 
Sabbath.  What  will  you  do?  How  can  the  gentleman,  on  his  princi- 
ples, exclude  him?  I  assert,  that,  without  an  entire  abandonment  of  his 
principles  he  cannot  exclude  him.  Mr.  Campbell  must  be  made  pope ; 
or  each  lilde  church,  an  infallible  council  to  determine  men's  faith  ;  or 
errorists  of  all  grades  must  be  allov/ed  to  be  members  and  ministers 
amongst  them.  For  the  principle  is — that  each  individual  is  to  go  by  the 
Bible,  not  as  Mr.  C.  or  the  church  understands  it,  but  as  he  understands 
it  for  himself.  Then  his  church  must  be  a  Noah's  ark — full  of  beasts, 
clean  and  unclean,  especially  the  latter!  He  cannot  prevent  it.  All  sorts 
of  doctrine  will  be,  as  they  have  been,  preached  by  all  sorts  of  men.  His 
door  is  wide  enough  to  admit  all ;  and  his  foundation  broad  enough  to 
afford  them  room  to  stand. 

Now  let  me  ask,  did  Jesus  Christ  establish  his  church  on  such  princi- 
ples ?  No — his  truth  he  regarded  as  more  precious  than  gold,  yea,  than 
much  fine  gold  ;  and  his  church  was  to  be  the  light  of  the  w-orld.  Never 
did  he  establish  it  on  such  principles  as  would  admit  to  its  communion 
or  to  its  ministry  all  sorts  of  men  and  all  kinds  of  doctrine. — [Time  ex- 
pired. 

3Y 


806  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

Friday,  Dec.  1 — 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[]mr.  Campbell's  fourth  address.] 

Mr.  President — In  recapitulating  the  details  of  yesterday,  we  must 
first  state  the  proposition,  and  then  the  principal  arguments  and  topics  of 
debate.  The  proposition  in  debate  now  is, — Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of 
union  and  terms  of  communion,  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismat- 
ical.  That  they  are  so,  was  argued  in  our  introductory  address  from  the 
fact  that  they  are  human  and  fallible  productions.  It  was  shown  that 
they  were  wholly  human  expedients  from  two  prominent  facts  ;  1st.  That 
there  were  no  persons  commanded  to  make  them  ;  and,  2d.  That  no 
church  was  commanded  to  receive  them,  both  of  which  would  be  essen- 
tial to  their  authority.  Tliat  they  are  human  and  fallible,  and  wanting  in 
authority,  tending  to  division  in  feelings — -producing  alienation  in  heart, 
and  in  their  overt  fruits  and  results  ulliniating  in  schism  and  all  its  tre- 
mendous train  of  evil  consequences,  was  argued  from  various  other  topics, 
but  especially  from  their  actual  fruits  and  effects,  as  shown  in  their  histo- 
ry from  the  beginning  till  now.  The  history  of  the  operation  of  any  ex- 
pedient is  generally  found  to  be  the  best  exposition  of  the  wisdom  of  its 
inventor.  Tried  by  this  test,  a  very  prolific  topic,  both  of  argument 
and  illustration,  it  appeared  that  their  tendency  to  partyism  and  heresy 
has  been  amply  developed  in  the  fact,  tliat  they  have  always  retained  the 
corrupt  members  of  the  community — the  pliant,  temporizing,  and  world- 
ly professors,  while  in  innumerable  instances,  excluding  those  of  tender 
conscience,  the  virtuous  uncompromising  and  faithful  worshipers  of  God. 
Various  subordinate  topics,  of  which  we  cannot  now  speak  particularly, 
have  been  introduced,  both  in  development  and  confirmation  of  these 
statements.  We  now  immediately  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  objec- 
tions offered  by  Mr.  Rice. 

Kather  in  extenuation  of  their  evil  tendencies,  than  as  an  argument  in 
their  favor,  it  was  alledged  by  him,  that  they  were  not  generally  enforced 
upon  the  whole  community; — that  they  are  enforced  only  on  certain  per- 
sons in  reference  to  particular  places,  offices,  or  obligations.  As  to  his 
meaning  o(  enforcement,  I  know  nothing.  The  term  must  be  used  eccle- 
siastically, in  some  restricted  and  special  sense.  We  should  like  to  have 
it  explained.  They  are  so  far  enforced  as  to  become  instruments  of  ex- 
communication to  all  those  who  publicly  dissent  from  their  dogmata. 
They  make  a  person  worthy  of  excommunication,  because  of  an  opinion, 
or  a  dissent  from  certain  doctrines;  when  these  opinions  and  doctrines 
are  publicly  avowed.  Such,  certainly,  has  been  their  operation  in  times 
past,  and  such  is  now  their  operation  in  some  communities.  I  own,  in- 
deed, that  in  some  societies  they  are  almost  a  dead  letter.  They  are  more 
nominal  than  real.  The  spirit  of  the  age  holds  them  in  abeyance.  Light 
has  gone  forth  into  the  land ;  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  enforced  as  in 
former  times.  Still  they  are  occasionally  enforced,  and  that  so  far  as  to 
excommunicate  men  from  christian  churches,  so  called,  because  of  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  though  their  faith  be  sound  and  their  lives  virtuous. 
This  is  what  I  mean  by  enforcing  them  ecclesiastically.  We  have  this 
term,  however,  authoritatively  explained  in  the  confession,  in  chap.  30, 
one  of  the  mutable  sections  of  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
church : 

"  I.  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  king  and  head  of  the  church,  has  therein  appoint- 
ed a  government,  in  the  hand  of  church  otficers,  distinct  from  the  civil  mag- 
istrate 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  807 

II  To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed  ; 
by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to  retain  and  remit  sins, 
to  shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impenitent  both  by  the  word  and  censures, 
and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners  by  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  by 
absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require." 

This  is  the  highest  species  of  power  spiritual  that  I  know  any  thing 
of.  It  is  chartered  by  the  confession  and  maintained  by  all  the  ecclesi- 
astical courts  of  the  church.  And  so  infallibly  are  the  Scriptures  ex- 
plained in  the  confession,  that  they  are  very  seldom  quoted  in  the  public 
courts  of  that  church.  This  custom  is  so  tenaciously  adhered  to,  that 
sometimes  in  the  longest  and  most  important  trials,  not  one  verse  is  quo- 
ted. Even  in  the  excision  of  a  minister,  a  congregation,  or  a  synod,  the 
confession  is  quoted,  argued,  and  relied  on  for  authority,  without  a  sin- 
gle reference  to  a  text  in  the  Bible.  The  creed,  and  the  practice  under  it, 
as  indicated  in  this  thirtieth  chapter,  exhibit  the  highest  assumptions  of 
power  claimed  by  any  community  in  the  country. 

There  is  a  way  of  extenuating  matters,  and  hiding  them  from  our  own 
eyes,  as  well  as  from  those  of  others.  But,  with  all  the  relaxing  and  lib- 
eralizing views  of  the  age,  in  this  land  of  free,  and  liberal,  and  enlightened 
institutions,  confessions  of  faith  are  still  heretical  and  schismatical.  And 
that,  too,  not  merely  among  the  less  enlightened,  but  of  those  who  claim 
to  be  amongst  the  most  enlightened  of  our  community.  How  has  the 
creed — the  pure,  definite,  perspicuous  and  excellent  Westminster  creed- 
wrought  in  this  community  within  our  own  time — within  the  memory, 
not  of  the  old  men,  but  of  the  young  men  of  this  community  ?  After  some 
ten  or  twelve  years  debating  in  the  synods,  and  in  the  general  assemblies 
of  this  same  Presbyterian  community,  upon  the  true  meaning  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  Westminster  creed,  what  was  the  issue  ?  Did  it  prove 
conservative  or  heretical  ?  Did  it  unite,  harmonize  and  cement  in  one  holy 
communion,  this  educated  and  well-organized  brotherhood?  Tell  it  not 
in  Gath ! — publish  it  not  in  Askelon !  It  only  excommunicated  some 
sixty  thousand  brethren,  andyJue  hundred  ministers  I .'.' 

These,  too,  were  not  infant  members;  they  were  not  minors;  but  ac- 
tual, bona  fide  communicants,  with  all  their  household  members !  Is  not 
this  alone  a  full  demonstration  of  our  proposition,  that  creeds  are  heretical 
and  schismatical? 

The  meaning  of  the  creed — the  interpretation  of  the  symbol,  was  the 
sole  cause  of  this  tremendous  disruption — of  this  new  denomination  of 
Presbyterians.  I  put  one  solemn  and  weighty  question  to  every  consci- 
entious man  in  our  community:  If  a  creed,  such  as  this  innocent  and  un- 
assuming document,  has  power  to  cut  ofi'  sixtj'  thousand  persons  by  one 
single  stroke,  what  move  puissant  cause  of  schism  and  division  could  be 
created  and  sustained  by  any  tribunal  known  to  our  laws  and  customs  ? 
At  present  I  can,  indeed,  expatiate  no  fiirther  on  this  subject.  I  shall, 
however,  read  farther  from  this  document,  illustrative  of  the  powers  of  this 
instrument  to  preserve  unity: — (Beecher's  Trial.) 

"  In  respect  to  the  right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  first  instance,  I 
presume  I  must  have  misunderstood  my  brother  Wilson,  when  he  says,  the 
confession  is  not  to  be  explained.  That  is  popery.  The  papists  have  no 
right  of  private  judgment.  They  must  believe  as  the  pope  and  council  be- 
lieve, and  may  believe  no  otherv.'ise.  They  are  forbidden  to  exercise  their 
own  understanding,  and  must  receive  words  and  doctrines  in  the  sense  pre- 
scribed and  prepared  for  them.  I  cannot  suppose  my  brother  so  holds  ;  but 
that  when  he  subscribes  the  confession,  he  subscribes  to  what,  at  the  time, 


808  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

he  understands  to  be  its  meaning.  Who  else  is  to  judge  for  him  !  Is  the 
pope  to  be  called  inl  Is  he  to  ask  a  general  council  what  the  confession 
means  I  Does  he  not  look  at  it  with  his  own  eyes,  and  interpret  it  with 
his  own  understanding?  But  as  I  understand  my  brother,  he  insists  that 
there  is  to  be  no  explanation  ;  but  that  every  expression  of  doctrinal  senti- 
ment is  to  be  placed  side  by  side  with  the  confession,  and  measured  by  it : 
just  as  you  would  put  two  tables  side  by  side  to  see  if  they  are  of  the  same 
size.  You  are  to  try  the  sermon  and  the  confession  by  the  ear,  and  see  if 
they  sound  alike.  If  they  do  not,  the  sermon  is  heretical,  and  the  author 
a  heretic.     Can  this  be  his  meaning'!     *     *     *     * 

In  joining  the  Presbyterian  church,  each  individual  member,  unless  he 
comes  in  as  an  ignoramus,  without  knowing  what  he  professes,  does  explain 
her  standards  for  himself.  He  must  do  it,  and  he  has  a  right  to  do  it,  un- 
less his  joining  the  church  means  nothing  and  professes  nothing.  If  it  does 
mean  any  thing,  it  must  mean  what  he  intends  it  to  mean  :  and  of  this  he 
must,  in  the  first  instance  be  himself  the  judge.     *     *     *     * 

I  say,  that  each  minister  and  each  member  has  as  good  a  right  to  his  own 
exposition  of  the  common  standard  as  another  has.  *  *  J  have  as  good 
a  right  to  call  you  a  heretic,  because  your  exposition  of  the  confession  does 
not  agree  with  my  view  of  it,  as  you  have  to  call  me  a  heretic,  because  my 
understanding  of  the  confession  does  not  agree  with  yours.  You  say  that  I 
am  a  heretic  according  to  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  our  standards. 
But  your  '  plain  and  obvious  meaning,'  is  not  my  '  plain  and  obvious  mean- 
ing ;'  and  who  is  to  be  umpire  between  us  ]  The  constitution  has  provided 
one      %     ^     %     % 

Dr.  Wilson  says  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  explained  by  Presbyterians  in 
their  controversies  with  each  other,  because  its  meaning  is  explained  in  the 
creeds.  And  he  has  before  insisted  that  the  creed  is  not  to  be  explained. 
What  then,  I  pray,  is  to  be  explained"?  He  and  I  are  not  to  explain  the 
Bible.  Why  .'  Because  he  and  I  agree  in  receiving  the  confession  of  faith. 
But  we  must  by  no  means  explain  how  we  understand  the  confession.  How 
■then,  I  ask  again,  is  any  thing  to  be  understood  between  us"!  Are-we  only 
to  hear  the  sound  thump  on  our  ears,  and  attach  no  meaning  to  it  1  And 
Slow  shall  we  know  tliat  we  attach  the  same  meaning  to  it,  if  we  must  not 
explain  ]  I  do  not  doubt  that  Dr.  Wilson  has  some  meaning  about  the  mat- 
ter which  he  has  not  expressed  ;  but  it  ought  to  have  been  expressed." 

Such  is  the  power  of  the  confession  to  preserve  unity,  and  to  prevent 
discords  amongst  brethren.  If  it  ever  has  operated  more  advantageously, 
I  have  been  misinformed  in  the  records  of  the  past. 

The  gentleman  complains  that  our  foundation  is  too  broad — too  liberal. 
It  is  indeed  broad,  liberal  and  strong.  If  it  were  not  so,  it  would  not  be  a 
christian  foundation.  Christianity  is  a  liberal  institution.  It  was  con- 
ceived in  view  of  the  ruin  of  a  world.  God  looked  upon,  not  the  thousand 
millions  of  one  age,  but  upon  the  untold  millions  of  all  ages.  And  he 
looked,  with  the  inconceivable  compassion  of  a  Divine  Father,  rich  in 
mercy,  and  plenteous  in  redemption.  He  laid  help  for  us  on  the  shoulder 
of  a  Divine  Man,  "  who  meted  out  heaven  with  a  span,  comprehended  the 
dust  of  the  earth  in  a  measure,  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the 
hills  in  a  balance  ;"  the  Great  Philanthropist — whose  wide  charities  and 
lender  compassions  embrace  all  ages,  all  races,  all  generations  of  men. 
He  knows  no  difference  of  castes,  ranks,  dignities.  Before  his  eyes,  kings 
and  their  subjects — the  nobles  of  the  earth  and  their  slaves — the  tyrants 
and  their  vassals,  lose  all  their  difl'erences.  Their  circumstantial  gran- 
deur, and  their  circumstantial  meanness  are  as  nothing.  He  looks  upon 
them  all  as  men — fallen,  ruined  men.  He  made  one  splendid  sacrifice  for 
all ;  and  has  commanded  his  gospel  to  be  preached  from  pole  to  pole — and 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  809 

from  Jerusalem  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  He  bids  all  nations, 
languages  and  tribes  of  men  a  hearty  welcome  to  the  rich  provisions  of  his 
bounteous  table,  made  large  enough,  and  well  supplied  with  the  richest 
provisions  of  his  unwasting  fullness.  Surely,  then,  that  ought  to  be  a 
large  house,  on  a  broad  foundation,  that  has  in  it  a  table  for  saved  men  of 
every  nation  under  heaven. 

He  has  commanded  a  simple  story  to  be  told,  levelled  to  the  apprehen- 
sion of  all.  It  is  expressed  in  plain,  clear  and  forcible  terms.  The  great 
cardinal  principles  upon  which  the  kingdom  rests,  are  made  intelligible  to 
all ;  and  every  one  who  sincerely  believes  these,  and  is  baptized,  is,  with- 
out any  other  instrument,  creed,  covenant  or  bond,  entitled  to  the  rank  and 
immunities  of  the  city  of  God,  the  spiritual  Jerusalem,  the  residence  of  the 
Great  King.  This  is  precisely  our  foundation.  Strong  or  weak,  broad 
or  narrow,  it  is  commensurate  with  the  christian  charter.  It  embraces  all 
that  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  of  all  nations,  sects  and  parties,  and 
makes  them  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Another  objection  noted  on  my  brief:  Mr.  Rice  objects  to  my  issue  in 
the  case  of  Arius.  I  re-atllrm  the  conviction,  that  had  Arius  been  treated 
as  a  man — as  a  human  being — and  his  opinions  left  to  find  their  own  level, 
we  should  have  never  heard  of  him  or  them.  Nine  times  in  ten,  mere 
opinion,  when  let  alone,  will  die  a  natural  death,  or  lead  an  inoffensive 
life.  But  if  you  want  an  opinion  to  live,  gain  power,  make  a  party,  and 
descend  to  after  times,  call  a  council,  get  up  a  debate,  assemble  the  ora- 
tors, and  keep  it  for  a  few  years  before  the  public  mind,  and  then  you  se- 
cure a  party.  I  say,  call  no  council,  make  no  decrees,  excite  not  human 
passions.  Such  are  my  convictions,  and  in  them  I  am  sustained  by  some 
of  the  wisest  and  best  men  who  have  spoken  on  the  Nicene  controversy. 
Had  the  subject  been  let  alone — ecclesiastically  alone — it  would  not  have 
outlived  the  age  which  gave  it  birih. 

But,  sir,  be  it  emphatically  spoken,  that  letting  it  alone  ecclesiastically, 
and  doing  nothing,  are  very  difTerenl  things.  Mr.  Rice  intimated  that 
ray  policy  is  the  letting  alone  policy.  He  dehorts  against  letting  errors 
alone.  I  do  not  so  argue.  It  is  opinions,  and  not  ordinances  nor  faith, 
I  let  alone.  We  may  let  some  things  alone  in  one  sense,  and  not  let  them 
alone  in  another  sense.  There  is  a  diiTerence  between  suing  a  man  at 
law,  and  letting  the  difficulty  alone. 

The  gentleman  has  drawn  a  distinction  between  the  old  school  and  the 
new  school  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  The  old  school  go  for  strict 
construction,  literal  construction,  and  the  new  school,  of  course,  go  for  a 
free,  liberal  translation  of  the  creed.  But  that  is  not  just  the  whole. 
The  substance  is  diflerent.  They  have  the  essential,  and  non-essential 
parts  of  the  creed ;  and,  in  truth,  with  the  two  parties,  there  are  two 
creeds,  made  out  of  one  book,  taken  in  two  senses.  At  all  events,  Mr. 
Rice  must  admit  the  book  is  quite  obscure,  or  they  have  not  clear  heads. 

But  how  often  have  you  heard  the  saying  quoted  by  Mr.  Rice,  that 
"  all  sorts  of  doctrine,  by  all  sorts  of  men,  are  preached  amongst  us." 
This  is  one  of  his  standing  texts,  taken  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger. 
Well,  it  is  not  exactly  quoted.  There  is  one  word  of  much  limitation 
left  out,  "  almost  all  sorts  of  men."  In  saying  this,  I  follow  an  illustrious 
example.  Paul,  in  his  day,  was  just  thus  plain  and  candid.  He  gave 
specifications  of  almost  all  sorts  of  doctrine,  preached  even  while  he  yet 
lived.  Some  preached  that  the  resurrection  was  actually  passed,  and  had 
overthrown  the  faith  of  some.     Some  were,  for  the  sake  of  filthv  lucre, 

3y2 


810  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

f 
preaching  what  they  ought  not.  Some  preached  that  the  world  was  im- 
mediately coming  to  an  end  ;  some  said  the  law  of  Moses  and  circumcis 
ion  should  be  observed  by  gentile  converts,  &c. ;  and  Paul  sent  it  all  ove. 
the  world,  and  for  all  ages  too.  We  are  then  a  good  deal  like  our  grea* 
apostle,  and  a  little  like  the  primitive  church,  too,  in  this  particular! 
Mr.  R.  could  not,  were  he  and  I  both  to  try,  find  as  great  a  variety 
amongst  us,  of  character,  preachers,  and  doctrine,  as  I  can  find  in  the 
New  Testament,  complained  of  by  Paul  and  his  associates.  So  that  the 
argument  is  as  strong  against  Paul  and  the  primitive  church,  as  against 
myself  and  my  brethren. 

He  has  repeated  a  passage  from  Mr.  Jones'  correspondence  with  me. 
I  repeat  it,  also,  that  there  is  not  now,  and  certainly  there  was  not  when 
that  was  written,  any  thing  amongst  us,  strictly  and  literally  construed, 
like  that  which  Mr.  Jones  had  in  his  eye  in  England,  when  that  was 
strictly  and  literally  construed.  We  have  7io  open  communion  with 
us,  and  they  in  England  have.  That  principle  is  not  at  all  recognized 
amongst  us.  In  England  there  are  large  communities  of  free  communion 
Baptists,  who  admit  Pedo-baptists  as  freely  as  they  do  the  baptized :  we 
have  no  such  custom  amongst  us.  There  may  be  ten  or  one  hundred  con- 
gregations amongst  us,  that  have  made  that  matter  a  question  :  the  great 
majority,  as  far  as  I  know,  have  not.  A  few  cases,  such  as  I  have  before 
described,  have  occurred,  and  1  have  witnessed  them  with  some  degree  of 
satisfaction. 

Among  other  curious  arguments  and  objections  against  creeds,  the  gen- 
tleman has  asked,  how  we  get  people  out  of  the  church.  He  says  there 
is  no  way  of  getting  them  out.  We  are  not  like  the  Jews,  who  had  no 
way  of  getting  folks  out  of  their  church  but  by  killing  them.  We,  not- 
withstanding Mr.  Rice  could  not  see  the  door,  have  some  way  of  getting 
them  out.  Every  church  that  has  a  door  into  it,  has  also  one  out  of  it. 
We  let  them  in  by  the  book,  and  put  them  out  by  the  book.  God  has 
given  us  instructions  in  our  creed  book  how  to  manage  these  matters. 
Was  there  ever  any  creed  so  much  slandered  and  opposed  as  ours,  and  by 
the  clergy  too  ? — or  any  community  more  calumniated  than  ours  ?  Is  the 
Bible  so  defective  as  to  give  no  laws  for  the  reception  and  exclusion  of 
members  ?  If  they  are  not  in  the  Bible,  how  got  they  into  the  creed  ? 
If  any  one  would  stand  up  and  preach  amongst  us,  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  not  been  buried,  or  that  he  rose  not  from  the  dead,  v/e  should  find  a 
door  large  enough  for  his  ejection ;  and  for  all  schismatics  and  unright- 
eous persons,  we  have  quite  a  large  and  easy  egress. 

Mr.  R.  says  there  is  more  heresy  amongst  those  who  have  no  creed, 
than  amongst  those  who  have.  Let  him  prove  it,  or  make  an  eflx)rt, 
afid  I  will  reply.  As  yet,  he  has  made  no  such  eilbrt,  and  I  presume 
will  not. 

He  reads  from  my  books,  and  if  the  gendeman  would  always  read  a 
little  more,  I  should  be  still  more  obliged  to  him.  Whenenever  he  reads 
any  thing  from  them,  of  such  doubtful  or  difticult  meaning,  as  to  require 
either  explanation  or  defence,  he  will  find  me  always  forthcoming.  Should 
I  be  convicted  of  any  error,  I  shall  not  only  be  willing  to  retract,  but 
thankful  to  him  who  in  a  good  spirit  points  it  out.  Mr.  Rice  is  not  likely 
to  gain  that  honor. 

Those  desirous  of  examining  the  passages  read,  will  generally  find  that 
the  connection,  or  the  replies  made  to  those  correspondents,  will  meet  all 
the  artificial  difficulties  and  apparent  incongruities  created  by  my  worthy 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS,  811 

opponent.  Some  passages  read  on  yesterday  were  made  to  appear  most 
vulnerable.  Tho«e  touching  the  receiving  of  persons,  supposed  to  be 
very  erroneous  and  heretical,  demand  a  remark  or  two. 

The  question,  for  example,  would  you  receive  a  Universalist — a  Unita- 
rian ?  We  respond,  not  as  such.  Nor  would  we  receive  a  Trinitarian,  as 
such.  With  the  New  Testament  in  our  hands,  we  know  nothing  of  Cal- 
vinist,  Arminian,  Unitarian,  Arian,  &c.  We  ask  the  question,  do  you 
believe  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God  ?  If  any 
man  cordially  respond — Yes,  we  baptize  him.  We  ask,  on  that  subject, 
no  farther  questions.  But  suppose  I  doubted  his  faith,  or  his  intelligence 
in  the  object  of  Christ's  death,  either  before  or  after  his  baptism.  1  ask 
the  question,  do  you  believe  Jesus  died  for  our  sins,  and  rose  for  our 
justification?  He  says,  iVb — perseveringiy  says,A'o.  I  repudiate  him  as 
not  believing  the  gospel  facts  in  their  proper  meaning.  But  does  he  say 
unequivocally.  Yes,  I  suspicion,  I  judge  him  not.  So  long  as  he  loves  and 
honors  the  Messiah,  by  keeping  his  precepts,  so  long  I  love  and  honor 
him  as  a  christian  brother.  But  if  any  one  equivocates  on  any  of  these 
questions  of  fact,  we  simply  say,  he  disbelieves  the  testimony  of  God,  or 
what  is  in  elTect  the  same,  does  he  not  understand  it;  so  of  the  Universa- 
lian,  the  Presbyterian,  the  Methodist. 

In  this  sectarian  age,  good  men  are  found  labelled  with  these  symbols 
of  human  weakness  and  human  folly.  We  can  neither  justify  nor  con- 
demn a  man  for  his  unfortunate  education,  for  his  peculiar  organization, 
or  his  eccentric  opinions.  Treat  him  rationally,  treat  him  humanely, 
and  in  a  christian-like  manner,  and  all  these  opinions  will  evaporate,  or 
die  vvithin  him.  Receive  him  not  as  a  Calvinist,  a  Papist,  a  Baptist,  or  a 
Universalist;  receive  him  as  a  man  and  as  a  christian.  Show  him  that 
you  receive  him  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  upon  his  faith,  his  hope,  and 
love,  and  you  will  soon  allure  him  from  his  false  opinions,  if  he  have  any. 
But  repudiate  and  excommunicate  him  for  an  opinion,  you  wed  him  to  it; 
he  feels  the  attachment  of  a  martyr  to  that  in  which  there  is  no  value,  but 
in  his  suffering  for  it.  It  has  cost  him  something,  and  he  will  not  part 
with  it  for  nothing. 

There  was  a  remark  made  yesterday,  about  one  amongst  us  who  had 
been  a  Universalist  preacher,  approved  now  for  many  years  on  account 
of  his  christian  doctrine  and  christian  demeanor.  He  had  a  companion 
and  fellow-soldier  in  the  cause  of  Universalianism,  who  was  immersed  into 
the  original  gospel.  We  laid  no  stress  upon  their  former  theory.  They 
had  confessed  the  ancient  faith,  and  were  immersed  into  it;  and  I,  for 
one,  said  that  they  ought  now  to  preach  Christ,  and  abandon  the  procla- 
mation of  any  of  these  opinions ;  and  on  a  pledge  to  do  so — to  proclaim  that 
"  Christ  died  for  our  sins,"  and  "  that  he  that  believed  and  was  baptized, 
should  be  saved,  and  that  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  On  this 
agreement  I  gave  them  my  hand  and  my  brotherhood.  I  said,  let  these 
opinions  alone  ;  they  will  certainly  die,  if  you  preach  the  gospel,  and  talk 
no  more  about  them.  The  prediction  has  been  verified  to  the  letter.  So 
perfectly  just  our  reasoning  on  this  subject,  that  they  have  long  since  said 
these  opinions  have  been  dissipated,  they  know  not  whither,  and  the 
very  arguments  that  sustained  them,  have  fled  with  them.  I  once  more 
repeat  it — let  those  opinions  alone.  Preach  faith,  piety,  morality,  and 
the  opinions  contrary  to  these  will,  as  the  vapors  of  the  morning  before 
the  rising  sun,  pass  away. 

I  have  yet  some  other  arguments  to  ofler  on  the  proposition,  though  it 


813  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

appears  I  have  already  submitted  too  many  for  my  opponent.  I  reserve 
one  or  two  arguments  for  a  whole  speech,  and  will,  for  that  half  hour,  at- 
tend to  no  objections.  Meantime,  as  my  minutes  are  almost  numbered, 
I  shall  offer  a  short  argument  from  a  high  source.  It  is  an  apostolic  pre- 
cept; one  that,  in  my  judgment,  positively  inhibits  all  these  documents 
called  creeds.  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  "  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound 
words,  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  in  faith  and  love,  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus;"  2  Tim.  i.  13.  We  all  understand  the  difference  between  the 
form  and  the  substance  of  a  thing.  It  is  form  that  makes  this  a  desk  ; 
the  substance  is  wood,  and  common  to  many  other  things  in  this  house 
These  pews  are  all  of  the  same  material,  and  so  is  the  floor  of  the  church. 
But  it  is  form  that  gives  to  each  its  name,  its  use,  its  character.  To  con- 
tend for  the  form,  then,  is  to  contend  lor  the  tiling  itself.  In  this  case, 
if  you  have  the  form,  you  have  the  thing.  Sometimes,  if  you  have  the 
form  you  have  the  substance — and  this  is  a  case  of  that  sort.  At  other 
limes  you  may  have  the  substance  without  the  form.  The  word  hupo- 
tuposis,  found  here,  and  only  on  another  occasion  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  a  term  that  indicates  pattern,  example.  Paul  uses  it  in  the  first  epis- 
tle, saying  "  that  Jesus  Christ  had  set  him  forth  as  a  pattern,  or  prece- 
dent, to  all  that  should  hereafter  believe  on  him,  to  life  everlasting."  The 
same  idea  is  suggested,  when  Moses  was  commanded  to  make  all  things 
after  the  pattern  shown  to  him  on  the  mount.  We  are,  in  the  same  sense, 
commanded  to  hold  fast  the  exact  form  of  sound  words  delivered  by  the 
aposdes.  Paul  did  not  say,  hold  fast  the  substance,  or  a  synopsis,  or  sum- 
mary of  sound  doctrine  ;  bui,  said  he,  "  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound 
words  which  I  have  given  you,"  &c. — [^Tiine  expired. 

Friday,  Bee.  1—10^  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.   rice's  fourth  reply. 1 

Mr.  President — My  friend,  Mr.  C,  has  undertaken  to  prove,  that 
human  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical — that  wherever 
they  exist,  they  necessarily  produce  heresy  and  schism.  As  poison  ne- 
cessarily produces  disease  and  death,  when  received  into  the  stomach; 
so,  according  to  Mr.  C,  creeds,  wherever  used,  produce  heresy  and 
schism  in  the  church.  Do  facts  sustain  him  in  his  position  ?  They,  on 
the  contrary,  prove  it  untrue;  for  creeds  do  exist,  and  have  long  existed, 
without  causing  either  heresy  or  schism. 

In  making  a  creed,  we  state  in  writing  the  principal  truths  which  we 
understand  the  Bible  to  teach.  Now  let  me  ask  Mr.  C. — can  we  not 
understand  what  the  Bible  teaches  ?  He  will  admit  that  we  can.  Then 
if  we  do  understand  what  it  teaches,  and  commit  it  to  writing,  have  we 
not  a  true  creed — a  creed  in  exact  accordance  with  the  word  of  God  I 
All  say,  we  have.  Yet  this  true  creed,  this  creed  which  is  in  precise 
agreement  with  God's  written  word,  if  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  be  true,  neces- 
sarily produces  heresy  and  schism.  But  if  the  trutlis  of  the  Bible,  when 
embodied  in  a  creed,  necessarily  produce  heresy  and  schism ;  the  Bible 
itself  must  be  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical !  !  ! 

Creeds,  says  the  gentleman,  produce  divisions.  Will  he  deny,  that 
there  have  been  a  number  of  divisions  in  his  own  church  ? — divisions,  1 
mean,  in  particular  churches?  For  there  are  many  particular  churches 
scattered  over  the  country ;  but  the)'  have  no  general  organization — are 
wholly  independent  of  each  other;  and,  therefore,  ihey  cannot  properly 
be  considered  one  ecclesiastical  body,  any  more  than  fifty  independent 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  813 

political  bodies  can  be  called  one  civil  government.  But  in  these  little 
democracies  there  has  been  division  after  division,  with  angry  feelings, 
bickerings  and  confusion.  I  have  very  recently  received  some  pamphlets 
giving  a  deplorable  exhibition  of  the  state  of  things  in  some  of  them. 
These  churches  have  no  creeds  ;  but  they  have  lamentable  divisions.  If, 
then,  we  do  in  fact  find  divisions  and  strife,  where  there  are  no  creeds,  is 
it  not  evident,  that  the  mere  fact,  that  such  evils  sometimes  exist  in 
churches  having  creeds,  does  not  at  all  prove,  that  they  are  caused  by 
creeds  ?  The  evil  effects  are  found,  where  the  cause  to  which  Mr.  C. 
ascribes  them  does  not  exist. 

It  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  support  of  the  gentleman's  proposition, 
that  he  prove,  not  only  that  there  have  been  divisions  where  creeds  were 
used,  but  that  he  produce  clear  evidence,  that  they  were  caused  by  creeds. 
This  he  has  not  attempted  to  prove.  He  has  declaimed  abundantly  about 
schisms,  divisions  and  strifes  ;  but  let  him  prove,  that  creeds  do  produce 
them.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  he  shall  do  this.  Till  he  makes 
this  point  clear  he  has  proved  nothing. 

He  represents  us  as  enforcing  our  views  upon  the  consciences  of  men. 
We  do  no  such  thing.  No  one  joins  our  church,  but  as  a  matter  of 
choice.  All  have  the  opportunity  of  comparing  our  doctrines  with  the 
Bible,  and  of  determining  for  themselves  whether  those  doctrines  are  true, 
and  whether  they  can  be  happy  with  us.  But  he  charges  us  with  ex- 
communicating, for  opinion's  sake,  pious  and  godly  people.  I  deny  that 
we  do  any  such  thing.  Let  the  charge  be  proved.  We  do  suspend  and 
excommunicate  persons  for  denying  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  well  as  for  unchristian  conduct.  If  a  member  of  our  church  de- 
nies the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  we  exclude  him  ;  because  the 
rejection  of  this  doctrine  is  in  effect  the  rejection  of  the  gospel.  But, 
as  I  have  before  distinctly  stated,  the  adoption  of  our  confession  of  faith 
never  was  a  condition  of  membership  in  our  church.  We  have  many 
members  who  have  not  had  time  and  opportunity  to  examine  it.  We  do 
not  expect  the  pupil,  on  entering  the  school,  to  be  as  well  instructed  as 
the  teacher.  We  never  excommunicate  persons  for  errors  not  generally 
considered  by  evangelical  churches  to  he  fundamental. 

The  gendeman  read  from  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  following  pas- 
sage concerning  "  the  power  of  the  keys  :" 

"  To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed  ;  by 
virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  to 
shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impenitent,  both  by  the  word  and  censures  ; 
and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners,  by  tlie  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  by 
absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require." — chap.  30. 

Now  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase — "  kingdom  of  heaven?"  It 
is  the  church  of  Christ.  What  are  the  keys  ?  The  authority  to  open 
and  shut  the  door — to  receive  into  the  church  those  who  give  evidence  of 
possessing  the  scriptural  (qualifications,  exclude  unworthy  members,  and 
to  preach  the  gospel,  oflering  salvation  to  all.  Presbyterians  never 
claimed  authority  literally  to  pardon  or  condemn  men — to  admit  thetn  into 
heaven  or  to  exclude  them  from  it.  Where  now  is  the  claim  of  high 
power  of  which  the  gentleman  speaks  ? 

Let  me  now  inquire  of  him  how  things  are  managed  in  his  church. 
Does  not  every  church  in  his  connection  claim  and  exercise  the  same  au- 
thority ?  Do  they  not  vote  persons  in,  and  vote  them  out  of  the  church 
sometimes  by  wholesale  ?     Every  little  church  of  a  dozen  or  half  a  doz- 


814  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

en  members,  claims  as  high  authority  as  was  ever  claimed  by  the  general 
assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church !  Declamation  against  claims  of 
exorbitant  power  come  with  an  ill  grace  from  Mr.  C;  for  he  and  his  lit- 
tle churches  exercise  the  power  of  the  keys  with  a  vengeance.  The  dif- 
ference between  us  is — that  in  our  church  the  most  obscure  member  can- 
not be  deprived  of  his  privileges,  until  the  general  assembly  has  decided 
on  his  case,  if  he  is  pleased  to  bring  it  before  them.  In  that  body,  com- 
posed of  representatives  from  the  whole  church,  little  neighborhood  jea- 
lousies and  party  feelings  cannot  prejudice  his  cause.  But  how  is  it  in 
the  gentleman's  church  ?  In  any  particular  church  a  few  influential  or 
intriguing  persons,  or  families,  may  gain  over  to  their  notions  a  majority 
of  the  members;  and,  if  they  choose,  they  may  excommunicate  any  mi- 
nority, however  respectable ;  and  though  ever  so  unjustly  deprived  of 
their  rights,  they  can  appeal  to  no  higher  tribunal  under  heaven  !  Which 
of  these  churches,  I  emphatically  ask,  aflfords  the  greatest  security  against 
the  arbitrary  exercise  of  power?  In  which  are  the  rights  of  private 
members  and  of  ministers  best  protected  ? 

The  gentleman  repeats  the  assertion,  that  our  confession  of  faith  has 
been  changed ;  and  he  specifies  the  article  concerning  the  authority  of 
the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion.  But  he  ought  to  have  known, 
that  our  church  never  did  adopt  that  article.  When  the  Westminster  con- 
fession was  adopted  by  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States,  it 
was  expressly  excepted.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  we  have  changed 
our  doctrines. 

But  he  tells  us,  that  he  has  rarely  heard  the  Scriptures  quoted  in  the 
meetings  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  The 
reason,  I  presume,  is — that  he  has  rarely  attended  their  meetings,  and 
knows  very  little  about  their  proceedings.  I  never  in  my  life  attended  one 
of  our  church  courts,  when  any  important  question  was  discussed,  with- 
out hearing  appeals  constantly  made  to  the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  of  practice.  It  is  true,  we  do  not  consider  it  ne- 
cessary to  discuss  anew  every  subject  as  often  as  we  are  called  to  act 
upon  it.  We  have,  on  mature  examination,  agreed  that  the  confession 
of  faith  contains  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  its  principles  of  church  government  are  agreeable  to  the  inspired 
Word.  We,  therefore,  often  proceed  upon  these  admitted  principles.  I 
presume,  the  gentleman  himself  would  scarcely  think  it  necessary  in  one 
of  his  churches  to  enter  into  protracted  arguments  to  prove,  that  immer- 
sion is  necessary  in  order  to  admission  to  membership ;  or  that  an  indi- 
vidual baptized  by  sprinkling  would  not  be  admitted. 

My  friend  Mr.  C.  has  been  for  years  an  editor  and  a  reformer,  and,  as 
we  have  a  right  to  conclude,  has  carefully  noted  passing  events.  Yet  it  is 
rather  strange — that  concerning  some  of  the  most  important  of  them,  he 
is  very  imperfecdy  informed.  How  happened  it,  he  asks,  that,  a  few 
years  since,  sixty  thousand  members  and  ministers  Avere  excommunicated 
from  the  Presbyterian  church  ?  I  answer,  such  an  event  never  did  hap- 
pen. Many  years  ago  a  plan  of  union  was  adopted  by  the  general  assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  church  and  the  Congregational  association  of 
Vermont,  the  design  of  which  was  to  unite  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists,  in  destitute  settlements,  where  neither  was  strong  enough  to 
sustain  themselves  alone.  In  process  of  time  many  churches  were  thus 
organized,  and  also  presbyteries  and  synods.  The  provisions  of  the  plan 
were  such,  that  Congregationalists  might  exercise  a  controling  influence 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  8Jt6 

on  our  cnurch  courts,  without  being  themselves  subject  to  our  laws  and 
regulations.  In  1837,  our  general  assemby,  seeing  great  evil  arising  from 
this  state  of  things,  resolved,  that  only  Presbyterians  could  be  permitted 
to  belong  tc  our  church,  and  to  vote  in  our  ecclesiastical  courts.  Those 
bodies  formed  on  the  aforesaid  plan  being  thus  excluded  from  our  church, 
many  ministers  and  churches,  dissatisfied  with  the  action  of  the  assembly, 
withdrew.  None  of  them,  however,  tvere  excommunicated.  We  still 
acknowledge  them  as  christian  brethren,  and  as  churches  of  Christ.  We 
have  never  pronounced  them  heretics ;  for  they  have  not  rejected  the  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  Christianity. 

But  what  caused  this  division?  It  was  not  caused  by  the  fact  of  our 
having  a  creed,  but  by  our  failing  to  adhere  to  its  wise  provisions  and 
regulations.  Still  no  real  Presbyterian  was  designed  to  be  excluded 
from  our  church ;  nor  were  others  excommunicated  nor  ecclesiastically 
censured.  We  simply  resolved,  that  those  who  take  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  our  church,  must  submit  to  be  governed. 

The  gentleman  says,  I  complain  of  his  church  for  being  too  liberal; 
and  he  informs  us,  that  Christianity  is  a  liberal  thing.  He  is  mistaken. 
I  do  not  complain  that  they  are  too  liberal,  or  that  they  are  liberal  at  all. 
I  find  fault  with  their  latitudinarian  principles  and  practice ;  and,  let  me 
say,  there  is  a  very  great  difference  between  latitudinarianism  and  liber' 
ality.  I  find  fault  with  his  church,  because  it  is  too  much  like  Noah's 
ark :  it  has  a  door  wide  enough,  and  a  platform  broad  enough,  to  receive 
error  of  every  grade.  It  compromises  God's  glorious  truth.  Our  Savior 
laid  no  such  foundation,  and  taught  no  such  principles. 

We  require  those  who  seek  membership  in  our  church  to  profess  their 
faith  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity.  But  what,  I  ask,  are 
the  fundamental  doctrines  required  to  be  received  in  order  to  membership 
in  Mr.  C.'s  church?  What  are  the  cardinal  principles  of  which  he  speaks? 
Will  he  please  to  enlighten  us  on  this  subject? 

He  has,  once  and  again,  asserted,  that  if  Arianism  had  been  let  alone 
ecclesiastically,  it  would  speedily  have  died.  All  we  ask  of  him,  is  to 
prove  that  such  errors,  if  not  disturbed,  will  die.  I  am  curious  to  know 
how  he  has  ascertained  that  such  would  be  the  result  of  letting  them 
alone. 

Once  more,  he  has  brought  up  that  troublesome  question  about  his  ad- 
mitting unimmersed  persons  to  communion.  He  says,  he  does  noi  invite 
them  ;  but  if  they  come  on  their  own  responsibility,  he  will  not  debar 
them.  But  Mr.  Jones  asked  him,  do  you  admit  them  ?  Mr.  C.  replied, 
we  do  not  admit  them.  When  I  see  over  a  door  "  no  admittance,"  I  un- 
derstand distincdy,  that  I  am  not  to  enter  there.  After  all,  what  is  the 
amount  of  the  gendeman's  liberality,  of  which  he  has  so  much  boasted  ? 
Why,  if  unimmersed  persons  will  go  and  commune  with  him  without  an 
invitation,  he  will  not  refuse  to  let  them  do  it.  If  they  enter  his  taberna- 
cle, he  will  not  drive  them  out !  Or,  more  properly,  he  does  not  admit 
them,  as  he  said  to  Jones  ;  and  yet  he  does  admit  them ! ! ! 

Well,  I  am  happy  to  find  him  becoming  more  liberal.  He  is  even  now 
more  liberal,  it  would  seem,  than  his  churches ;  for  they,  he  says,  have 
not  adopted  the  plan  of  admitting  unimmersed  persons  to  commune.  It 
is  to  be  hoped,  however,  they  will  be  influenced  by  his  good  example. 
But  ought  he  not  to  write  to  England,  and  let  his  friends  there  know,  that 
he  has  changed  his  opinion  since  he  wrote  to  them  on  this  subject? 

I  have  said  and  proved,  that  the  genUeman  cannot  exclude  from  his 


816  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

church  any  evrorist  of  any  grade  without  violating  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  his  reformation.  He  evidently  feels  the  difficulty.  But  he  says, 
if  they  should  go  against  the  Bible,  they  exclude  them.  But  I  ask  again, 
if  you  bring  a  man  before  the  church,  cliarged  with  preaching  dangerous 
error,  who  is  to  judge  whether  the  doctrines  he  has  propagated  are  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures?  Is  Mr.  Campbell  to  be  the  judge?  No;  for 
then  he  would  be  instead  of  a  creed.  Is  the  church  of  which  he  is  a 
member  to  judge?  Certainly  not;  and  for  the  same  reason.  Is  the  in- 
dividual to  decide  in  his  own  case  ?  Then,  of  course,  he  is  clear.  The 
gentleman  cannot  exclude  him  without  abandoning  his  published  prin- 
ciples. 

Observe,  Mr.  C.  teaches,  that  no  church  has  the  right  to  require  as  a 
condition  of  membership  any  thing  more  than  the  professed  belief  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  immersion.  When  a  man  applies  for  mem- 
bership, he  is  asked,  whether  he  believes  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God.  On  answering  this  one  question  in  the  affirmative,  and  submitting 
to  immersion,  he  is  a  member  in  good  and  regular  standing.  Now,  Dr. 
Thomas,  the  Materialist,  professed  firmly  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  so  zealous  was  he  for  immersion,  in  order  to  remis- 
sion of  sins,  that  he  actually  immersed  again  those  who  came  to  him  from 
the  Baptists.  He  had  not  violated  either  of  the  conditions  on  which  he 
entered  the  church.  He  still  professed  to  take  the  Bible  as  his  only  guide. 
He  contended,  that  he  was  not  teaching  error;  but  Mr.  C.  said  he  was, 
and  called  on  his  church  to  exclude  him.  In  doing  so,  however,  he  dis- 
regarded his  own  principles. 

He  will  receive  a  Unitarian  into  his  church,  he  tells  bs,  if  he  will  take 
the  words  of  Scripture  relative  to  the  character  and  works  of  Christ,  in 
iheir fair  construction.  Here  we  meet  the  old  difficulty,  fflio  is  to  de- 
termine ivhat  is  the  fair  construction?  Everyman  will  say,  that  he 
does  take  the  fair  construction.  Is  Mr.  C.  to  judge  ?  Or  is  the  church 
to  judge?  Or  is  each  individual  to  judge  for  himself?  One  of  your 
preachers,  for  example,  is  found  preaching  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  creature, 
and  that  he  died  only  as  a  martyr.  You  table  charges  against  him  ;  and 
he  appears  before  the  church.  They  ask  him — "  Do  you  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ?"  He  answers  in  the  affirmative.  They 
ask  him  again — "  Do  you  believe  that  he  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree  ?"  He  answers  affirmatively.  You  are  forced  to  acquit  him. 
But,  next  Sabbath,  he  again  preaches  the  same  doctrine.  You  try  him 
again,  and  with  the  same  result.  How,  I  ask  again,  can  Mr.  C.  exclude 
such  a  man  ?  I  say,  he  can  do  it  only  by  a  flagrant  departure  from  his 
own  principles. 

Whether  I  have  produced  contradictions  in  Mr.  Campbell's  writings  I 
cheerfully  leave  the  audience  to  judge.  He  expresses  the  hope  that  I 
will  read  much  more  from  them.  If  it  will  be  any  comfort  to  him,  I  as- 
sure him  that  I  expect  to  abound  in  quotations  from  his  books. 

The  gentleman  has  a  singular  method  of  destroying  error.  He  tells 
us  of  a  man,  once  a  Universalist  preacher,  who  has  not  only  forgotten  his 
former  doctrine,  but  does  not  even  remember  the  arguments  by  which  he 
defended  it.  Only  let  Universalism  alone,  he  says,  and  it  will  die  a  nat- 
ural death.  Well,  if  he  would  let  creeds  alone,  perhaps  they  would  die 
too.  And  if  he  and  his  friends  would  not  disturb  Pedo-baptism,  would 
not  it  also  die  ?  If  one  error  will  die  by  being  let  alone,  why  not  an- 
other?    The  gentleman  has  been  engaged  most  assiduously  and  zealously 


ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  817 

for  thirty  years,  laboring  to  destroy  what  he  considers  errors ;  and  now  he 
has  made  the  remarkable  discovery,  that  some  of  the  very  worst  of  them 
will  die  soonest  by  being  let  alone !  I  very  much  wish,  that  he  would 
inform  us  what  particular  errors  will  die  by  being  neglected,  and  which  it  is 
necessary  to  destroy  by  opposition;  for  I  have  no  wish  to  spend  time  and 
strength  in  making  war  upon  errors  that  will  die  sooner  if  not  disturbed. 

Universalism,  which  he  has  been  so  willing  to  admit  into  his  church, 
is  in  its  tendency  one  of  the  most  demoralizing  errors  that  has  cursed  the 
world.  An  old  and  shrewd  German  blacksmith  once  heard  a  Universalist 
preach  in  his  neighborhood.  He  became  resdess  under  the  sermon ;  and 
so  soon  as  the  congregation  was  dismissed,  he  approached  the  preacher 
and  said  to  him — "If  dis  doctrine  bees  true,  be  sure  you  must  not  preach 
it  any  more."  "Why  not?"  inquired  the  preacher.  "  Because,"  said 
the  Dutchman,  "  one  of  my  neighbors  has  already  stole  one  half  my 
smit  tools ;  and  if  he  does  find  dis  out,  he  will  have  all  de  rest." 
The  Dutchman  saw  the  tendency  of  the  doctrine.  Yet  this  is  one  of  the 
errors  Mr.  C.  is  willing  to  allow  to  place  in  his  church  till  it  will  die  !  I 
am  not  disposed  to  treat  it  so  leniently.  It  may  do  great  mischief  before 
its  death. 

Mr.  Campbell  has,  at  last,  given  us  his  law  prohibiting  creeds.  It  is 
Paul's  exhortation  to  Timothy — "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words." 
That  is,  take  the  Bible  just  as  it  is.  We  do  so  take  it,  and  hold  it  fast.  But 
does  this  scripture  forbid  us  to  write  down  what  we  understand  the  form  of 
sound  words  to  mean  ?  The  gentleman  has  himself  published  a  book  of 
some  size,  called  "The  Christian  System."  This  book  is  divided  off  in- 
to chapters  and  sections  just  as  our  creed  ;  and  in  each  chapter  it  profess- 
edly explains  some  doctrine  taught  in  that  "  form  of  sound  words."  If  a 
single  individual  may  write  a  book,  expounding  the  doctrine  of  sound 
words,  as  he  understands  it;  I  cannot  see  why  a  body  of  professing 
christians  who  agree  in  their  views,  might  not  be  permitted  to  do  the  same 
thing.  This  argument  certainly  will  not  prove,  that  "  creeds  are  necessa- 
rily heretical  and  schismatical."  The  gentleman  must  look  for  another. 
I  have  called  on  him  to  produce  a  solitary  passage  that  directly  or  indi- 
rectly forbids  the  use  of  creeds.     Where  is  there  one  ? 

I  wish  now  to  make  some  farther  remarks  on  Mr.  Campbell's  plan  of 
receiving  Universalists.  I  have  proved,  that,  according  to  his  principles, 
Unitarians  of  any  grade,  Arians  or  Socinians,  Universalists  and  errorists 
of  every  grade,  may  become  members  of  his  church  ;  and  I  now  assert, 
that  they  may  be  preachers  as  well  as  members.  This  I  will  prove  by 
Mr.  C.  himself— 

"  A  christian  is  by  profession  a  preacher  of  truth  and  righteousness,  both 
by  precept  and  example.  He  may  of  right  preach,  baptize,  and  dispense 
the  supper,  as  well  as  pray  for  all  men,  when  circumstances  demand  it." — 
Christian  System,  p.  85. 

This  is  not  mere  theory  with  Mr.  Campbell.  He  has  shown  his  faith 
by  his  works,  as  I  will  prove  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  vol.  i.  p.  147. 
Mr.  Raines,  now  of  Paris,  formerly  a  Universalist  preacher,  was,  some 
years  since,  immersed  by  the  reformers.  He  appeared  at  the  Mahoning 
association.  Some  of  the  brethren  were  not  quite  prepared  to  receive  him 
as  a  preacher  among  them.  Mr.  Raines  stated  distinctly  that  he  still  held 
Universalist  sentiments,  which  quite  alarmed  some  of  the  fraternity. 
Whereupon  the  difficulty  was,  by  Mr.  C.'s  influence,  settled  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner : 

52  3Z 


818  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

"  Whether  he  held  these  views  as  matters  of  faith,  or  as  pure  matters  of 
opinion,  was  then  propounded  to  him.  He  avowed  them  to  be,  in  his  judg- 
ment, matters  of  opinion,  and  not  matters  of  faith  ;  and,  in  reply  to  another 
question,  averred  that  he  would  not  teach  them,  believing  them  to  be  mat- 
ters of  opinion,  and  not  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  Although  a  majority  of 
the  brethren  were  satisfied,  still  a  number  were  not  reconciled  to  this  decis- 
ion. It  was  repeatedly  urged  that  it  mattered  not  what  his  private  opin- 
ions were  on  this  subject,  provided  he  regarded  them  only  as  matters  of 
opinion,  and  held  them  as  private  property." 

I  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  on  this  singular  proceeding,  only  part  of 
which  I  shall  have  time  to  make  at  present.  Mr.  Raines,  of  whom  I  do 
not  intend  to  speak  disrespectfully,  was  a  preacher  of  Universalism — a 
doctrine  which  is  admitted  to  be  erroneous  and  demoralizing.  He  was 
received  as  a  preacher  in  Mr.  C.'s  church,  without  any  change  in  his  sen- 
timents. He  distincdy  stated,  that  they  were  not  changed ;  that  he  still 
believed  that  all  men  would  be  saved.  But,  though  his  belief  was  un- 
changed, he  consented  to  give  it  a  new  name.  Hiilierto  he  had  held  Uni- 
versalism as  a  doctrine — a  matter  oi  faith.  He  now  agreed  to  call  it  an 
opinion;  and  it  became  at  once  perfecUy  harmless!  Arsenic,  if  you  call 
it  poison,  will  kill  you  ;  but  call  it  food,  and  it  will  become  nourishing! 
So  Universalism,  if  you  call  it  faith,  is  ruinous ;  but  only  name  it  opiri' 
ion,  and  all  is  well ! ! ! 

I  have  called  on  the  gentleman  to  tell  us  the  precise  difference  between 
faith  and  opinion — where  faith  ends,  and  opinion  begins.  I  am  particu- 
larly desirous  of  definite  information  on  this  point ;  and  I  insist  that  Mr. 
Campbell  should  afibrd  it,  because  I  have  propounded  the  question  to 
more  than  one  of  the  proclaimers  in  his  church,  and  they  could  not  an- 
swer it.  I  incline  to  think,  that  in  their  theology,  it  is  a  distinction  with- 
out a  difference.  Here  we  find  the  old  error  still  held  under  a  new  name ; 
and  the  name  seems  to  possess  a  charm  that  destroj-s  all  its  evil  effects ! 
Perhaps  the  giving  it  a  new  name,  caused  the  gentleman  to  forget  the  ar- 
guments by  which  he  was  accustomed  to  defend  it !  We  need  informa- 
tion on  this  subject.- — [Time  expired, 

Friday,  Dec.  1 — 1 1  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  fifth  address.] 
Mr.  President — Before  I  sat  down,  I  promised  a  consecutive  argu- 
ment, or  two,  that  should  occupy  half  an  hour,  without  turning  aside  to 
notice  objections.  Before  doing  this,  I  must  add  a  few  remarks  to  the  ar- 
gument introduced  at  the  close  of  my  last  speech.  I  had  just  placed  be- 
fore you  a  divine  precept,  authoritatively  commanding  the  holding  fast  of 
the  inspired  form  of  sound  words,  delivered  by  the  aposdes.  Now,  a 
confession  of  faith  is  not  "  the  form  of  sound  7Vords,"  but  only  the  form 
of  the  construction  put  upon  them  by  uninspired  men.  Nothing  is  more 
latitudinarian  than  the  word  substance,  if  I  might  exemplify  by  the  last 
two  discourses  of  Mr.  Rice.  This  notion  of  holding  fast  the  substance  is 
a  perfect  delusion ;  and  more  especially,  when  we  hold  fast  that  substance 
through  a  printed  book,  called  a  confession  of  faith,  or  a  summary  of 
christian  doctrine.  In  all  such  cases,  we  have  two  summaries,  two  con- 
fessions, and  two  forms  of  the  constructive  sense  of  Paul's  form  of  sound 
words.  We  have  first  the  written  form — the  printed  confession;  we 
have,  again,  our  mental  form  of  that  confession — that  is,  our  ideas  of  the 
ideas  expressed  in  the  book.  Our  views  of  the  Bible  on  this  mode  of  pro- 
cedure, are  but  our  views  of  certain  men's  views  of  the  Bible.     This  is  a 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  810 

■demonstrable  fact.  Here  is  Paul's  form  of  sound  words.  There  is  the 
confession,  or  the  form  of  construction  of  the  sense  of  Paul's  form  of 
sound  words;  and,  in  my  mind,  are  my  views,  or  the  mental  form  of  the 
confession.  The  Bible  is  the  first  form  ;  the  confession  the  second  form  ; 
and  my  own  views  of  the  last  book,  the  third  form,  of  the  same  idea. 
There  is  the  form  ;  the  Bible  ;  there  is  a  view  of  that  form  ;  the  confes- 
sion ;  and  there  is  my  view  of  the  confession — which  is  to  me  the  influen- 
tial form.  Nothing,  then,  is  more  silly  deceptive;  and  yet,  when  can- 
vassed to  the  bottom,  nothing  is  more  glaringly  delusive,  than  to  represent 
a  confession  as  a  final  expression,  or  our  own  individual  expression  of  our 
views  of  the  Bible.  When  you  tell  your  views  of  the  Bible  to  A,  he 
forms  his  views  of  your  words  and  interpretations,  and  then,  through 
these,  he  comes  to  certain  conclusions  concerning  the  book.  But  his  con- 
clusion is  the  third  version  of  the  matter,  and  not  the  second.  You  may 
imagine  that  it  is  the  same  in  substance  with  the  second ;  but  suppose  it 
were — it  is  a  neiv  form.  Some  say  to  us,  you  have  your  views  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  Bible  too — and,  therefore,  you  have  a  confession  of  faith. 
Grant  it,  then,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  and  follows  it  not,  that  he  has 
two  confessions — the  written  one,  and  the  mental  one  ? 

In  Scotland,  the  Burgher  and  the  Anti-bnrghcr  Presbyterians  wrote 
their  testimony,  expressive  of  some  of  their  views  of  the  confession. 
Now  have  they  not,  being  founded  on  this  testimony,  a  different  founda- 
tion from  other  Presbyterians?  and  if  so,  they  are  a  distinct  commu- 
nity. So  are  the  Presbyterians  built  upon  the  confession,  different  from 
those  builded  on  the  Bible.  Should  Mr.  Rice  write  his  views,  and  some 
one  write  his  views  of  Mr.  Rice's  views,  and  another  write  his  views  of 
the  reviewer's  views,  what  would  be  the  color  of  the  mind  that  receives 
the  last,  compared  wi(h  the  mind  that  receivexl  the  first  ?  As  various 
often  his,  who  listens  to  the  creeds  and  catecliisms  explanatory  of  the  Bi- 
ble. I  prefer  the  fountain  to  the  muddy  stream  ;  and,  therefore,  take  the 
original  document,  and  place  my  mind  direcdy  upon  it. 

Along  with  this  precept  from  Paul,  I  must  plead  one  from  Jude  :  "  Con- 
tend earnesdy  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Jude  wrote  his 
short  and  comprehensive  episde  near  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age.  He 
saw  an  approaching  defection,  and  enjoined,  in  these  words,  an  antidote 
against  the  early  workings  of  the  mystery  of  iniquity.  He  saw  the  efforts 
to  introduce  new  things  by  the  converted  Jews  and  pagans,  incorporated 
in  the  christian  family,  and  in  the  midst  of  these  efforts  v/rote  his  epistle. 
Such  a  precept,  emanating  from  such  circumstances,  is  equivalent  to  a 
positive  prohibition  of  every  thing  but  the  faith,  the  truth,  the  identical 
words  commended  b}''  aposdes  and  prophets,  as  the  foundation  of  the 
christian  temple,  and  the  constitution  of  the  christian  church.  The  gen- 
tleman asks  for  precepts  authorizing  the  book  alone  I ! 

Mr.  Rice  has  told  us,  indeed,  that  the  confession  of  faith  is  not  the  con- 
stiiution  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  But,  with  its  form  of  discipline  and 
church  government,  it  is  the  identical  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
church.  And,  with  these  words  before  me,  allow  me  to  introduce  another 
view  of  the  subject. 

In  this  universe,  there  are  numerous  and  various  constitutions,  both 
celestial  and  terrestrial.  But  of  all  these  documents  and  things  called  con- 
stitutions, there  are  three,  of  which  God  is  himself  die  author  and  the 
finisher.  He  has  bestowed  on  man,  and  probably  on  angels,  too,  the  right 
of  making  for  themselves  a  sort  of  bye-law  constitution,  in  reference  to 


\iQ  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

their  social  intercommunications.  But  neither  to  angel  nor  to  man,  has 
he  given  the  liberty  of  making  a  constitution  for  the  universe,  a  constitu- 
tion for  the  human  body,  nor  a  constitution  for  the  church  of  God. 

Good  and  valid  reasons  can  be  given,  why  man  should  not  have  been 
entrusted  with  the  draft  of  a  constitution  for  the  universe,  and  why  he 
should  not  have  been  permitted  to  form  a  constitution  for  his  own  body. 
All  will  find  in  his  utter  incompetency,  many  good  reasons  why  he  should 
not  have  been  entrusted  with  such  an  undertaking.  To  my  mind  he  is 
just  as  incompetent  to  perform  the  last,  as  either  of  the  other  two.  Had 
any  man  a  tolerably  distinct  and  accurate  view  of  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ — of  that  mysterious  and  sublime  institution,  the  church  of  the 
living  God,  he  would  feel  himself  as  wholly  inadequate  to  the  task  of 
forming  for  it  a  constitution  as  he,  physically,  intellectually,  and  morally 
is,  for  his  own  body  or  the  whole  universe  of  God. 

The  church,  the  true  church,  of  the  true  Redeemer,  is  a  glorious  insti- 
tution ;  and  hence  it  was  decreed  before  the  christian  age  began,  and  fore- 
told by  one  of  Israel's  sweetest  and  most  seraphic  bards,  the  evangelical 
Isaiah  :  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born ;  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  gov- 
ernment shall  be  on  his  shoulder,  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonder- 
ful, Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Founder  of  the  Everlasting  '^ge, 
the  Prince  of  Peace."  He  is  then,  the  Wonderful  Founder  of  the  gospel 
institution,  the  Everlasting  Age.  The  noblest  and  most  august  titles  in  the 
•universe  surround  his  mitre  and  his  crown  !  Among  these  is  one,  to 
us,  of  ineffable  interest,  "  the  author  and  the  founder  of  the  faith." 
"  Of  man's  miraculous  mistakes,  this  bears  the  palm" — that  he  should 
presume  to  draft  a  constitution  for  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ!  He  could 
as  easily  make  one  for  the  hierarchies  of  heaven,  or  for  the  universe  of  God. 

When  the  Messiah  began  to  prepare  himself  for  this  glorious  work  di- 
vine, the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  him  without  measure.  All  knowledge, 
wisdom,  eloquence  and  power,  were  bestowed  upon  him  as  the  human 
and  divine  head  of  this  mighty  assembly  of  saints.  What  a  community 
the  christian  family  is — spread  over  the  whole  earth  in  some  periods  of 
its  history,  and  commensurate  with  all  time,  embracing  all  lands,  lan- 
guages and  nations ;  all  ranks  and  degrees  of  men — the  learned  and  the 
rude,  the  sage  and  the  child :  all  varieties  of  man — the  noblest  and  most 
gifted  of  earth's  mightiest  spirits,  the  giant  intellects  of  humanity !  To 
make  for  such  an  association  a  constitution  ? — what  a  task  !  Had  a 
council  of  the  heavens  been  called ;  had  Gabriel,  Raphael,  Uriel,  and  all 
the  sons  of  light  and  celestial  fire  been  convened  to  deliberate  for  an  age, 
they  could  not  have  made  a  constitution  for  Christ's  church.  They  could 
not  have  sketched  a  system,  even  had  it  been  adopted  to  the  letter,  that 
could  have  united,  cemented,  coalesced,  and  harmonized,  in  everlasting 
peace  and  amity,  a  society  like  that  of  which  we  speak.  Hence  the  Lord 
Messiah  was  made  "  the  covenanf''  and  the  leader,  the  lawgiver,  the  author 
and  the  finisher  of  the  christian  constitution.  On  that,  and  that  alone,  can 
the  church  be  built.  Take  that  constitution,  then,  and  make  it  the  basis, 
the  only  basis  of  a  christian  society.  Let  his  oracles,  decisions,  and  gov- 
ernment be  first,  last,  and  midst,  the  alpha  and  the  omega ;  then  all  chris- 
tians of  all  nations,  ages,  and  conditions,  can  form  one  grand,  holy,  and 
happy  community. 

We  have  made  an  experiment  under  circumstances  not  the  most  propi- 
tious, in  the  midst  of  many  conflicting  and  rival  institutions,  to  lay  again 
the  same  well  tried  old  corner-stone — the  primitive  confession  on  which 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  821 

the  church  was  built — the  stone  which  the  Master  laid  at  Caesarea  Phil- 
ippi,  on  which  to  build  his  church,  in  first  commending  it  to  the  notice  of 
the  world,  promising  most  solemnly  to  build  his  church  of  all  nations 
and  ages  upon  it.  The  experiment  for  the  time  has  been  most  success- 
ful. Probably  not  less  than  two  hundred  thousand  persons  of  all  the 
creeds,  and  parties,  and  various  associations  around  us  ;  persons  of  all 
sorts  and  varieties  of  mind,  education,  and  circumstances  in  Christendom, 
as  well  as  those  from  the  ranks  of  scepticism,  in  its  various  forms,  have 
united  in  making  the  same  confession,  and  have  associated  upon  the 
same  grand  fundamental  constitutional  principles.  They  are  found,  too, 
in  all  the  states  of  this  immense  union  and  its  territories.  They  are 
found  in  the  Canadas,  and  in  all  northern  America.  They  are  found  in 
England,  Ireland,  Scotland,  and  Wales ;  and,  without  any  other  bond 
of  union  than  the  new  and  everlasting  constitution,  signed,  sealed,  and 
delivered  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  through  his  holy  apostles.  United  in  this, 
and  builded  on  this  foundation,  we  still  maintain  unity  of  spirit  in  the 
bonds  of  peace.  Still,  Mr.  Rice  expresses  his  astonishment  that  we 
should  hang  together  at  all,  asking,  meantime,  how  we  keep  out  here- 
tics and  offenders !  His  imagination  at  one  time,  has  us  excluding 
whole  masses  ;  at  another  time,  not  able  to  induce  one  to  enter.  Now, 
we  cannot  take  in  one ;  again,  we  cannot  exclude  one  ! 

And  what  is  the  character  of  all  these  communities  1  I  presume  I  will 
have  credit,  even  with  our  adversaries  themselves,  in  saying  that  they  are, 
as  congregations,  at  full  par  value,  in  all  proper  points  of  comparison, 
with  the  same  number  of  persons  and  communities ;  whether  in  London, 
Edinburgh,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or  in  this  city.  They  will  compare 
with  other  denominations  in  good  sense,  in  a  fair  reputation  for  medium 
talent  and  learning;  for  staid,  good  habits,  and  all  the  social  virtues. 
Now,  we  argue,  that  if  so  many  persons  of  all  those  varieties,  before  men- 
tioned, can  meet,  unite  and  co-operate  in  faith,  hope  and  love,  on  this 
foundation,  under  this  new  constitution ;  all  the  world — all  who  know, 
believe,  and  love  the  same  Savior,  might.  It  is  broad  enough  and  strong 
enough  for  them  all.  What  other  demonstrations  of  its  practicability  and 
adequacy  can  be  demanded  ?  And,  if  any  one  ask  the  reason  of  all  this 
success  and  co-operation,  I  present  the  charter,  the  confession  of  our  faith, 
the  creed,  the  constitution,  if  you  please,  under  which  we  are  incorpor- 
ated. The  strength,  however,  of  the  whole  edifice,  is  in  its  foundation; 
and  the  still  more  interior  secret  of  the  strength  of  our  system  is,  that  it 
IS  DIVINE.  It  is  the  foundation  which  God  has  laid  in  Zion.  It  is  not 
both  divine  and  human.     It  is  wholly  divine. 

Does  any  one  ask  me,  what  it  is  ?  I  wish  I  had  a  summer's  day  and 
my  wonted  strength,  to  develop  its  glorious  features  to  your  view.  A 
full  revelation  of  it  would  disarm  our  opponents,  and  take  from  them 
more  than  half  their  arguments.  I  tell  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  the  chris- 
tian faith  is  quite  a  simple,  but  most  comprehensive  and  potent  document. 
The  five  books  of  Moses,  together  with  the  prophets,  compose  the  Jew's 
religion.  The  christian  believes  all  these  too,  and  studies  them  well  ; 
but  Christianity  was  born  after  Christ.  There  were  Jews  and  gentiles 
innumerable  before  Christ  was  born.  But  we  speak  not  of  the  Jewish  nor 
of  the  patriarchal  ages.  The  Harbinger  had  done  his  work.  He  prepared 
a  people  for  the  Lord,  and  introduced  the  sublime  and  glorious  age  of 
Messiah  the  Prince — but  Christianity  is  more  than  John  preached.  The 
principles  of  Christianity,  like  the  grand  laws  of  nature,  are  simple  and 

3z2 


822  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

few,  but  omnipotent  to  all  the  ends  of  its  author.  What  sublime  and 
awful  wonders  are  revealed  in  heaven  to  the  eye  of  the  philosopher,  by 
the  operation  of  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces !  Silently  and  un- 
obtrusively these  laws,  for  ages,  have  swayed  creation's  ample  bounds, 
kept  the  universe  to  its  place,  and  guided  all  the  mighty  masses  in  their 
unmeasured  circuits  of  miles  unnumbered,  through  all  the  fields  of  occu- 
pied space.  That  regularity,  harmony,  beauty,  and  beneficence  spread 
over  those  empyreal  regions,  where  the  march  of  revolving  worlds  over- 
whelms the  adoring  saint,  and  fills  his  soul  with  admiration  of  the  Divine 
author  of  the  universe — all  spring  from,  and  are  the  mysterious  result  of, 
the  happy  combination  of  these  two  stupendous  principles. 

So  is  it  in  our  most  holy  faith.  There  are  but  two  grand  principles  in 
Christianity — two  laws  revealed  and  developed,  whose  combination  pro- 
duces similar  harmony,  beauty,  and  loveliness  in  the  world  of  mind  as 
in  the  world  of  matter.  But,  leaving  the  development  of  these  for  the 
present,  I  must  at  once  declare  the  simplicity  of  this  divine  constitution 
of  remedial  mercy.  It  has  but  three  grand  ideas  peculiar  to  itself;  and 
these  all  concern  the  King.  I  am  sorry  that  this  mysterious  and  sublime 
simplicity  does  not  appear  to  those  who  set  about  making  constitutions 
for  Christ's  kindom.  This  confession  of  omnipotent  moral  poAver,  be- 
cause the  offspring  of  infinite  wisdom  and  benevolence,  must  be  learned 
from  one  passage,  Matt.  xvi.  "  Who  am  I,  do  men  say  ?"  We  must  ad- 
vance one  step  farther — who  am  I,  do  yoii  say  ?  Peter,  in  one  moment- 
ous period,  expressed  the  whole  afiair — Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  the  Living  God.  The  two  ideas  expressed,  concern  the  person 
of  the  Messiah  and, his  office.  The  one  implied,  concerns  his  character; 
for  it  was  through  his  character,  as  developed,  that  Peter  recognized  his 
person  and  his  Messiahship.  Now  let  us  take  ofl"  the  shoes  from  off  our 
feet,  for  we  stand  on  holy  ground ;  and  let  us  hear  him  unfold  to  Peter 
his  intentions — "  Blessed  art  thou  Simon,  son  of  Jonas  !  Flesh  and  blood 
has  not  revealed  this  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I 
say  unto  thee,  tliou  art  Peter,  (a  stone,)  and  on  this  rock  /  ivill  build 
MY  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell,  (hades,)  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 
It  will  stand  forever.  "  I  will  give  unto  thee,  (thyself  alone,  Peter,)  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  (my  church,)  and  whose  sins  soever  you 
remit,  they  are  remitted ;  and  whose  sins  soever  you  retain,  they  shall  be 
retained."  Here,  then,  is  the  whole  revelation  of  the  mystery  of  the 
christian  constitution — the  full  confession  of  the  christian  faith.  All  that 
is  peculiar  to  Christianity  is  found  in  these  words  ;  not  merely  in  embryo, 
but  in  a  clearly  expressed  outline.  A  clear  perception,  and  a  cordial  be- 
lief of  these  two  facts  will  make  any  man  a  christian.  He  may  carry 
them  out  in  their  vast  dimensions  and  glorious  developments,  to  all  eter- 
nity. He  may  ponder  upon  them  until  his  spirit  is  transformed  inta  the 
image  of  God ;  until  he  shines  in  more  than  angelic  brightness,  in  all 
the  purity  and  beauty  of  heavenly  love.  Man  glorified  in  heaven,  gifted 
with  immortality,  and  rapt  in  the  ecstacies  of  infinite  and  eternal  blessed- 
ness, is  but  the  mere  result  of  a  proper  apprehension  of,  and  conformity  to, 
this  confession.  I  am  always  overwhelmed  with  astonishment  in  observing 
how  this  document  has  been  disparaged  and  set  at  nought  by  our  builders 
of  churches.  It  seems  still  to  be  a  "  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of 
offence."  Yet  Jesus  calls  it  the  rock.  It  is  in  the  figure  of  a  church  or 
a  temple,  the  foundation,  the  rock.  When  all  societies  build  on  this  one 
foundation,  and  on  it  only,  then  shall  there  be  unity  of  faith,  of  affection, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  823 

and  of  co-operation ;  but  never,  never  till  then.  Every  other  foundation 
is  sand.  Hence  they  have  all  wasted  away.  Innumerable  parlies  have 
perished  from  the  earth ;  and  so  will  all  the  present,  built  on  any  other 
foundation  than  this  rock. 

I  again  say,  that  every  denomination  built  on  any  other  foundation  than 
this  rock — on  this  simple  confession  of  faith  in  the  fair,  just,  and  well  de- 
fined meaning  of  its  words,  will  as  certainly  perish  from  the  earth  as  man 
does.  They  may  have  much  truth  in  their  systems,  but  they  have  so  much 
mortality  with  it,  that  perish  they  must  as  sects,  parties,  and  denomina- 
tions. Their  doom  is  written — "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shall 
return."  They  may  pass  through  many  changes  in  the  progress  of  de- 
composition ;  for  the  Presbyterians  of  the  16th  and  17th  centuries  are  not 
just  those  of  the  18th  and  19th,  as  the  sequel  may  yet  show. 

Whenever  any  man  discovers  this  rock,  and  is  willing  to  build  on  it 
alone ;  whenever  he  sees  its  firmness,  its  strength,  and  is  willing  to  place 
himself  upon  it  for  time  and  for  eternity,  and  on  it  alone,  I  say  to  him — 
Give  me  your  hand,  brother,  you  must  come  out  and  pass  through  the  cer- 
emony of  naturalization  ;  you  must  be  born  of  water  as  well  as  of  the 
Spirit,  and  enter  into  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant;  you  must  as- 
sume the  name  of  tlie  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  On 
that  simple  confession  with  the  lips,  that  he  believes  in  his  heart  this  glo- 
rious truth,  he  is,  by  the  authority  of  the  heavens,  constituted  a  christian; 
and  he  that  treats  him  unkindly,  treats  his  Lord  and  Master  so.  Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay,  that  will  endure ;  nor  any  one  which,  while 
it  does  endure,  can  receive  the  family  of  God. 

We  can  neither  in  reason  nor  in  conscience,  ask  this  person  to  sub- 
scribe twenty-five,  thirty-three,  or  thirty-nine  articles.  He  is  but  a  new- 
born child.  We  expect  him  to  groiv.  We  will  not  put  him  upon  the  iron 
bedstead  of  Procrustes  and  stretch  him  up  to  thirty-nine  articles.  We 
will  place  him  in  the  cradle  of  maternal  kindness,  and  feed  him  with  the 
sincere  milk  of  the  Word,  that  he  may  grow  thereby.  Nor  will  we,  at 
any  time,  say  to  him,  Brother,  you  must  never  grow  beyond  the  thirty- 
ninth  article.  If  you  go  to  i\\e.  fortieth,  we  will  cut  you  down  or  send 
you  adrift.  If  hou  live  three-score  years  and  ten,  remember,  you  must 
never  think  pf  the  fortieth  article.  You  must  subscribe  them  all  now  at 
your  birth  ;  and  subscribe  no  more  at  your  death.  If  you  should  attain 
to  the  knowledge,  the  gifts,  and  the  graces  of  the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel, 
you  must  never  think  of  transcending  those  nine  and  thirty,  or  those  three 
and  thirty  articles  of  belief. 

My  objection  to  these  documents  is  not  merely  that  they  are  summa- 
ries ;  but  that  they  are  summaries  made  ready  to  our  hands,  by  the  aids 
of  orthodoxy — hereditaments  of  ancestral  acquisition.  God  designed  no 
summary.  He  could  have  made  one  by  Paul,  or  all  of  the  apostles,  but 
he  would  not  have  such  a  thing.  He  intended  us  all  to  commune  with 
him  through  his  blessed,  soul-illuminating,  sanctifying,  saving  truth.  He 
would  have  us  dig  in  the  mines  of  knowledge,  for  ourselves.  He  would 
have  us  become  intellectually  and  morally  rich,  by  our  own  labors.  He 
would  have  us  to  «ipply  our  minds  to  the  truth,  as  we  place  an  instrument 
on  a  stone,  to  sharpen  and  polish  it.  By  pressing  that  instrument,  and 
holding  it  for  a  long  time  on  that  stone,  by  continual  attrition,  it  becomes 
bright  and  sharp.  So  by  the  continual  attrition  of  the  word  of  God  upon 
our  hearts,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God  upon  onr  spirits,  they  become 
more  discriminating  in  the  things  of  God,  as  well  as  shine  with  the  bright- 


824  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

nes8  and  beauty  of  holiness.  I  never  knew  any  one  converted  or  sancti- 
fied by  reading  one  of  these  summaries.  These  confessions  of  faith  have 
been  long  in  the  world.  Has  any  one  been  converted  by  them  ?  Among 
all  the  published  reports  of  converted  persons,  by  numerous  and  various 
instrumentalities,  I  never  knew  of  man,  woman,  or  child,  having  been 
converted  by  reading  articles  of  faith,  or  books  of  discipline. 

But  they  have  been  roots  of  bitterness,  causes  of  division ;  have  made 
numerous  sects,  and  preserved  and  upheld  those  that,  but  for  them,  had 
long  since  perished  from  the  earth.  They  are  unsanctified  documents. 
Pardon  me  for  saying,  they  are  unholy  things.  They  were  not  made  by 
the  authority  of  God,  but  in  contravention  of  it;  and. in  opposition  to  his 
own  confession,  given  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Matthew.  They  are 
opposed,  without  intending  it,  to  the  last  oracle  we  have  heard  from  hea- 
ven, from  the  holy  mount — "  This  is  my  Son,  the  beloved,  in  whont  I 
delight ;  hear  him."  Moses  and  Elijah  came  from  heaven  to  do  him 
honor.  They  laid  their  commissions  at  his  feet.  Heaven  recalled  them, 
and  left  him  with  us,  as  the  Messenger  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  with 
the  solemn  and  final  precept,  hear  him. 

It  has  been  hearing  him  that  has  made  the  prophets  of  Greece,  and 
Rome,  and  Geneva,  and  Westminster,  children  in  my  eyes.  I  once 
looked  up  to  them;  but  thank  my  Lord,  I  now  look  down  upon  them,  not 
in  contempt  for  them,  but  as  teachers  of  no  authority  with  me.  Over  me 
they  have  no  more  authority  than  the  dreams  of  my  childhood,  or  the 
fancy  sketches  of  our  modern  poets.  I  stand  upon  higher,  holier,  stronger 
ground,  than  upon  such  a  paper  platform  as  they  have  reared. 

This,  sir,  is  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church — this  volume  in 
my  hand,  manufactured  two  hundred  years  ago,  and  from  time  to  time 
amended  in  some  points.  Such  documents  men  ca)i  make.  For  such 
churches  they  can  make  constitutions.  But,  sir,  this  book  is  not  the  con- 
stitution of  Christ's  church.  They  call  these  '■'branch''''  churches,  branches 
of  Christ's  church.  But  these  are  words  not  found  in  the  Bible.  Jesus 
Christ  has  not  said  one  word  about  these  branch  institutions.  It  is,  then, 
from  the  very  name  itself,  heretical  and  schismatical.  It  makes  a  branch. 
The  Methodists,  and  Baptists,  &c.,  are  branches  too,  made  by  such  her- 
etical substitutes  for,  or  appendages  to,  the  christian  Scriptures.  The 
more  our  brethren  in  these  branch  institutions  are  ensnared  and  capti- 
vated by  such  designations,  and  fallacious  titles,  the  more  are  they  false 
to  the  great  catholic,  all-absorbing,  and  soul-redeeming  principles.  The 
very  fact,  that  this  document  is  the  constitution  of  this  denomination, 
makes  it  both  heretical  and  schismatical ;  for  it  is  not  a  constitution  of 
Christ's  body,  it  is  a  rival  of  it.  Such,  then,  is  the  argument  which  1 
would  draw,  and  which  I  would  delight  to  fill  up,  on  the  fact  and  figure 
of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  church.  The  sum  of  the  whole  matter, 
then,  is  this — we  have  a  divine  constitution  for  the  whole  kingdom  of 
Jesus  Christ,  adapted  to  the  genius  of  humanity,  the  circumstances  of  the 
human  race,  the  churches'  relations  to  worlds  unseen,  to  the  whole  uni- 
verse of  God ;  and  hence  every  other  one  is  essentially  and  perpetually 
heretical  and  schismatical. 

Hence,  then,  we  are  not  only  commanded  to  hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words,  but  to  '■'contend  earnestly  for  the  faith,  once  delivered  to 
the  saints."  I  have  shewn  that  this  faith  is  that  of  which  Jesus  Christ 
is  both  the  author  and  the  finisher ;  consequently,  he  is  neither  the 
author  nor  the  finisher  of  the  Westminster,  nor  of  any  other  confession 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  825 

in  the  world.  So  place  we  ourselves  before  this  community,  and  in  this 
attitude  I  desire  to  place  myself  before  earth  and  heaven ;  as  now  con- 
tending for  that  faith,  and  that  faith  only,  delivered  by  the  great  Func- 
tionary of  the  universe  to  us,  fallen  men,  by  the  holy  apostles  and  pro- 
phets.— [_Ti7ne  expired. 

Friday,  Bee.  1 — II5  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  fifth  reply.] 

Mr.  President. — I  think  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  is  rising  to-day 
in  his  powers  of  declamation  and  exhortation — both  of  which  are  useful 
in  their  proper  place.  There  was,  however,  one  great  misfortune  attend- 
ing his  last  speech,  which,  by  the  way,  was  quite  handsomely  delivered. 
The  whole  foundation  will  be  swept  away  by  the  correction  of  a  strange 
error  into  which  he  has  fallen.     I  will  attend  to  that  matter  presently. 

He  seems  really  to  believe,  that  we  cannot  "  hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words,"  if  we  venture  to  commit  to  writing  what  we  understand 
the  Scriptures  to  teach !  The  moment  we  write  what  we  understand  to 
be  the  meaning  of  that  form  of  sound  words,  we  have  abandoned  it ! ! 
Yet  Mr.  C.  can  write  and  publish  in  his  Christian  System  what  he  under- 
stands it  to  teach,  and  still  hold  it  fast!  He  claims  the  right  to  do  what 
the  whole  Presbyterian  church  does  not  attempt;  and  that  which,  when 
done  by  us,  amounts  to  apostasy  and  deserves  excommunication,  becomes 
perfectly  harmless,  when  done  by  him  !  We  greatly  sin,  if  we,  as  a 
body,  agree  in  our  views  of  the  Bible,  and  commit  them  to  writing,  re- 
quiring our  ministers  to  teach  them;  but  Mr.  C.  can  write  what  he 
pleases,  and  it  is  no  sin!  I  have  long  known,  that  Presbyterian  sins 
were,  in  certain  quarters,  considered  the  greatest  of  all  sins.  Many 
things  which  in  them  are  unpardonable,  are  in  others  quite  venial.  But 
I  call  for  the  passage  of  Scripture  that  condemns  the  use  of  creeds. 

The  Westminster  confession,  he  says,  must  be  very  obscure,  because 
in  Scotland  they  have  written  explanations  of  it,  and  even  explanations  of 
explanations.  Let  us  have  the  proof.  When  I  state  facts,  I  prove  them ; 
and  I  shall  expect  him  to  do  the  same.  Let  us  have  the  documents ;  and 
they  shall  be  attended  to.  I  have  not  seen  any  of  the  explanations  of 
explanations.     I  hope  he  will  let  us  see  one  of  them. 

But,  says  Mr.  C,  why  not  go  to  the  fountain  head,  the  Bible,  for  our 
faith  ?  Did  you  ever  hear  a  Presbyterian  minister  preach,  who  did  not 
urge  his  hearers  to  go  to  the  fountain  head  ?  Do  not  our  ministers  uni- 
versally preach  the  general  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  only  rule  of 
faith  ?  I  venture  to  assert,  that  at  this  day,  notwithstanding  all  the  elo- 
quent declamations  of  Mr.  C.  and  his  friends  concerning  the  excellence 
of  the  Bible,  Presbyterians  are  more  accustomed  to  read  and  study  it, 
than  his  church.  An  agent  for  the  Bible  Society  has  stated,  that  in  his 
journeyings  to  and  fro,  he  has  found  many  families  connected  with  it, 
without  a  Bible  !  Very  few  Presbyterian  families,  if  any,  can  be  found 
in  such  a  situation.  You  may  find  them  destitute  of  the  conveniences 
and  even  of  the  necessaries  of  life  ;  but  rarely  indeed  can  you  find  them 
without  a  Bible.  There  is  not  on  earth  a  body  of  professing  christians 
who  read  it  more,  or  more  constantly  urge  others  to  read,  or  prize  it  more 
highly  as  the  "  lamp  to  their  feet  and  the  light  to  their  path,"  than  Pres- 
byterians. 

And  where,  let  me  ask,  can  the  gentleman  find  a  class  of  men  who 
have  more  zealously  promoted  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  without 
note  or  comment,  at  home  and  abroad,  in  civilized  and  in  pagan  lands, 


826  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

than  the  clergy  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  Or  where  can  be  found  a 
body  of  people  who  have  more  generally  or  more  liberally  contributed 
of  their  means  to  give  the  Bible  to  the  destitute?  And  what  has  been  the 
course  pursued  by  Mr.  C.  and  his  church  in  relation  to  the  efforts  to  cir- 
late  the  Scriptures  without  note  or  comment?  For  years  he  stood  up  in 
opposition  to  all  Bible  societies,  and  did  as  much  as  any  other  man  to 
cripple  their  operations.  I  am  truly  pleased  to  learn,  that  his  views,  so 
strangely  wrong,  have  become  changed  on  this  subject.  But  what  have 
his  people  done  toward  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  of  which  he  speaks 
in  terms  so  exalted  ?  He  has  himself  published  the  fact,  that  they  have 
done  almost  nothing ;  that  very  few  of  them  have  given  any  thing  to  this 
noble  and  philantliropic  cause  !  Is  it  not  most  marvelous,  that  the  very 
people  who  profess  to  be  more  zealous  than  all  others  for  the  Bible,  and 
the  Bible  alone,  have  either  opposed,  or  done  little  or  nothing  to  promote 
its  general  circulation  ;  whilst  the  very  churches,  clergy  and  people,  Pres- 
byterians and  others,  whom  they  condemn  as  establishing  creeds  for  the 
Bible — as  making  the  Word  of  God  of  non-effect  by  their  traditions — as 
afraid  of  the  light — are  zealously  and  liberally  contributing  time,  talents 
and  money  in  placing  the  Bible,  without  note  or  comment,  in  the  hands  of 
all  the  human  family  ? !  These  facts  are  worth  more,  infinitely  more,  to 
place  this  subject  in  its  true  light,  than  all  the  pretty  declamations  of  the 
gentleman  since  the  commencement  of  the  debate.  We  show  our  faith 
by  our  works.     Let  our  friends  do  the  same. 

The  gentleman  has  found  a  second  passage  of  Scripture  which,  as  he 
supposes,  prohibits  the  use  of  creeds.  It  is  in  the  epistle  of  Jude — 
"  Earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 
The  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  consists  of  the  doctrines  and  truths 
taught  in  the  Scriptures.  For  these,  Presbyterians  do  contend  earnesdy. 
But  does  Jude  forbid  us  to  write  out  a  brief  outline  of  these  truths,  and 
to  say  to  all  men — thus  we  understand  the  Bible  ?  The  gentleman  has  not 
ventured  to  deny  the  fact  stated  in  my  first  speech,  that  you  cannot  know 
in  detail  what  any  man  believes,  from  the  fact,  that  he  professes  to  have 
no  other  creed  but  the  Bible.  This  difficulty  arises  not  from  any  obscu- 
rity attending  the  instructions  of  the  inspired  writers,  but  from  the  indis- 
putable fact  that  men  have  perverted  its  language,  attaching  to  it  ideas 
never  intended  to  be  communicated  by  them.  The  genUeman's  far- 
fetched inference  from  Jude's  language,  is  wholly  illegitimate. 

I  now  come  to  sweep  away  the  foundation  on  which  my  friend's  beau- 
tiful speech — the  best  he  has  made — was  based.  There  are  three  things, 
he  tells  us,  for  which  men  cannot  make  constitutions — the  universe,  man, 
and  the  church.  Presbyterians,  he  would  have  you  believe,  have  had  the 
presumption  to  attempt  to  make  a  constitution  for  the  church  of  Christ. 
Now,  the  truth  is,  the^  confession  of  faith  is  not  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  church.  The  word  constitution,  it  is  true,  is  used  in  va- 
rious senses  ;  and  in  one  sense  the  confession  of  faith  may  be  called  the 
constitution  of  our  church.  But,  in  the  sense  of  original  legislation,  we 
do  not  admit,  that  it  is  the  constitution.  We  hold,  that  the  Bible  is  the 
constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  We  hold  no  doctrine  nor  prin- 
ciple as  obligatory,  which  we  do  not  believe  to  be  inculcated  in  the  Sacred 
Word.  The  confession  of  faith  itself  affords  the  best  refutation  of  the 
gentleman's  charge.  I  will  read  in  our  Form  of  Government,  chap.  i. 
sec.  7 : 

"  That  all  church  power,  whether  exercised  by  the  body  in  general,  or  in 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  827 

the  way  of  representation  by  delegated  authority,  is  only  ministerial  and 
DECLARATIVE ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of 
FAITH  AND  MANNERS  ;  that  110  chuvch  judicatory  ought  to  fretend  to  make 
laws  to  bind  the  conscience,  in  virtue  oj"  their  own  authority;  and  that  all 
their  decisions  should  be  founded  upon  the  recorded  will  of  God.  Now 
though  it  will  be  easily  admitted,  that  all  synods  and  councils  may  err, 
through  the  frailty  inseparable  from  humanity  ;  yet  there  is  much  greater 
danger  from  the  usurped  claim  of  making  laws,  than  from  the  right  of 
judging  upon  laws  already  made,  and  common  to  all  who  profess  the 
GOSPEL  ;  although  this  right,  as  necessity  requires  in  the  present  state,  be 
lodged  with  fallible  men." 

Here,  you  observe,  is  :in  explicit  declaration,  that  all  church  power  is 
simply  ministerial  and  declarative,  not  legislative — that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  Here  is  a  distinct  renuncia- 
tion of  all  power  to  7nake  laws  to  bind  the  consciences  of  men,  and  a  de- 
claration, as  strong  as  language  can  make  it,  that  church  courts  must  found 
all  their  decisions  on  the  Word  of  God — that,  instead  of  usurping  the 
claim  to  make  laws,  they  can  only  judge  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Bi- 
ble, which  are  common  to  all  who  profess  the  gospel. 

Now  what  becomes  of  the  gentleman's  charge,  that  the  Presbyterians 
have  attempted  to  make  a  constitution  for  the  church  of  Christ?  What 
have  they  done?  They  have  given  in  a  few  chapters  a  brief  statement 
of  the  great  doctrines  and  principles  of  church  government  taught  in  the 
Bible,  and  especially  in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  have  referred  to  the 
chapter  and  verse  in  the  Bible  which,  as  they  believe,  sustains  every  arti- 
cle and  every  important  principle.  How  essentially  different  this  from 
usurping  legislative  power,  and  attempting  to  make  a  constitution  for  the 
church!     So  the  gentleman's  beautiful  speech  evaporates. 

But  we  are  not  the  only  people,  in  these  latter  days,  who  might  be 
charged  with  making  constitutions  for  the  church.  The  gentleman  him- 
self, notwithstanding  his  eloquent  declamation,  has  actually  tried  his  hand 
at  this  work  !  If  we  were  to  judge  by  what  he  has  said  during  this  dis- 
cussion, we  should  believe,  that  no  man  on  earth  confines  himself,  in  his 
faith  and  practice,  so  closely  to  the  Bible  as  he.  He  goes  by  the  book. 
Yet  he  has  been  telling  his  people,  for  two  years  past,  that  their  church 
is  unorganized,  overrun  with  ruinous  error,  and  likely  to  be  rent  in  pieces  ; 
and  that  they  must  get  up  an  organization.  For  the  purpose  of  securing 
this  important  object,  he  submitted  to  them  a  constitution,  which  I  will 
read.  For  the  sake  of  illustrating  his  principles,  he  supposes  a  number 
of  churches  in  the  island  of  Guernsey,  in  council  assembled,  and  about 
to  form  an  organization,  with  the  following  constitution  :  {^Millen.  Harb., 
New  Series,  Vol.  vii.  No.  2,  pp.  85,  86.) 

"■  1st.  That  they  should  act  as  one  body,  regarding  all  the  existing  con- 
gregations of  the  island,  and  any  others  that  might  be  formed  by  their  in- 
strumentality or  that  of  others  laboring  under  their  auspices,  and  thus  con- 
nected with  them,  as  constituent  and  component  communities  of  one  body; 
but  holding  in  their  private  capacities,  as  christian  familes,  certain  reserv- 
ed and  untransferrable  rights,  duties  and  privileges,  which  are  individual 
and  private,  and  not  to  be  interfered  with  by  the  body  as  such.  [Amongst 
these  they  enumerated  the  election  and  appointment  of  their  congregational 
otRcers  :  That  each  church  should  have  its  own  eldership  and  deaconate, 
and  at  least  one  president  elder,  whose  whole  time  shall  be  sacred  to  the 
calls  and  supervision  of  the  church  ;  for  which  services  he  shall  be  supported 
by  the  brethren,  so  far  as  his  needs  require  and  their  abilities  allow.] 

2nd.  That  every  individual  community  shall  respect  the  private  acts  and 
rights  of  every  other  community,  and  not  at  all  interfere  with  them. 


828  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

3rd.  That  in  all  cases  where  public  officers,  such  as  messengers  of  any 
public  character,  and  especially  evangelists,  who  are  to  be  regarded  as  offi- 
cers of  the  whole  body,  a  concurrence  of  a  plurality  of  churches  by  their  offi- 
cers be  regarded  as  necessary,  if  not  to  empower  them  to  discharge  official 
duties  in  a  single  congregation,  at  least  necessary  to  give  them  general  ac- 
ceptance, and  to  constitute  them  public  and  responsible  agents  of  the  whole 
body. 

4th.  That  when  any  community  shall  have  any  case  of  great  difficulty 
beyond  its  ability  satisfactorily  to  dispose  of,  reference  may  be  had  to  oth- 
er communities  for  a  council  or  committee  to  assist  in  such  case  ;  whose 
decision  shall  be  final, — an  end  of  all  farther  litigation  or  debate  on  the 
premises. 

5th.  That  whenever  any  great  question  of  finance,  as  the  means  of  suc- 
cessfully prosecuting  any  public  object,  or  any  other  event  of  great  public 
interest  shall  require  it,  a  special  general  meeting  of  messengers  from  all 
the  congregations  shall  be  called  by  the  person  who  presided  at  the  last 
general  meeting  ;  and  that  the  eldership  and  deaconates  of  all  the  congrega- 
tions, or  so  many  of  them  as  can  attend,  shall  always  be  at  least  a  portion 
of  the  messengers  who  attend  on  such  occasions. 

6thi  Finally,  that  all  the  public  duties  of  the  christian  church  shall  be 
attended  to  as  though  it  were,  what  it  is  in  fact,  one  body,  under  the  Head — 
the  Messiah  ;  and,  therefore,  arrangements  and  provisions  shall  be  always 
made  in  general  meetings  for  the  most  faithful,  prompt  and  satisfactory  dis- 
charge of  all  these  duties. 

The  above  outline  is  offered  to  the  examination  of  the  brethren,  as  em- 
bracing much,  if  not  every  thing,  that,  in  our  judgment,  is  wanting  to  a 
complete  and  perfect  organization.  We  shall  be  happy  to  receive  any  sub- 
stantial objections  to  it  from  our  brethren,  and  shall  give  them  a  faithfiil, 
patient,  and  full  consideration.  A.  C." 

Here  I  find  a  plan  of  organization — a  constitution  containing  six  ar- 
tides,  offered  to  the  gentleman's  church  for  their  adoption,  in  order  to  a 
complete  organization.  And,  which  is  remarkable,  there  is  in  this  con- 
stitution not  one  reference  to  the  Scriptures !  Now  I  had  thought 
that  the  gentleman  gloried  in  the  fact  that  the  New  Testament  is  their 
constitution,  the  all-sufficient  constitution  of  his  church.  But  what  do  I 
see  here?  A  constitution  of  six  articles,  without  one  reference  to  the  New 
Testament — a  constitution  to  which  he  intimates  some  additions  may  be 
necessary  ! ! !  On  this  constitution  of  six  articles,  and  such  as  may  be 
added,  his  church  is  to  be  organized!  He  is  declaiming  against  "  the 
sects  "  in  general  and  the  Presbyterians  in  particular,  for  having  done  the 
very  thing  he  is  now  attempting  to  do,  though  in  a  very  imperfect  man- 
ner!  He  abuses  all  constitutions  of  churches  made  by  man,  and  yet 
seeks  to  make  one  !  If  the  New  Testament  is  his  constitution,  as  he  pre- 
tends, why  does  he  not  go  by  it?  Why  offer  these  six  articles  to  the 
churches  as  necessary  to  a  complete  organization  ?  When  a  man's  con- 
duct is  directly  at  war  with  his  words,  or  when  he  is  found  at  different 
times  advocating  principles,  the  most  contradictory,  and  condemning  in 
others  what  he  allows  in  himself,  we  cannot  but  see  that  something  is 
wrong — radically  wrong. 

But,  after  all,  the  evil  is  —  that  Mr.  Campbell's  brethren  have  not 
agreed  to  receive  his  constitution,  and  his  church  yet  remains  in  its  un- 
organized and  confused  state. 

The  gentleman  has  again  made  quite  an  imposing  exhibition  of  the 
numbers  who  have  united  with  his  church — about  two  hundred  thousand 
persons.  So  many  have,  from  time  to  time,  joined  his  church  ;  but  how 
many  have  apostatized,  he  does  not  inform  us.     Many,  as  I  have  proved 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  829 

since  the  commencement  of  this  debate,  have  turned  again  to  the  world 
or  to  "the  sects."  It  is  not  exactly  fair  to  count  all  who  have  become 
members,  without  discounting  those  who  have  turned  back. 

I  am  more  than  doubtful  whether  there  is  ground  of  boasting  or  of  ar- 
gument in  the  fact,  that  Mr.  C.  has  succeeded  in  collecting  such  a  multi- 
tude of  men  and  women  of  all  kinds  in  one  unorganized  mass,  with  all 
kinds  of  notions  and  opinions.  He  has  told  us,  that  in  his  church  he  has 
Calvinists  (and  one  of  his  prominent  preachers  has  attempted  to  prove, 
that  Calvinism  is  tantamount  to  Atheism)  and  Arminians ;  and  has  Uni- 
tarians, Universalists,  Materialists — all  sorts  of  men  preaching  all  kinds  of 
doctrine,  and  of  course,  all  sorts  of  members.  It  is  of  such  an  unorgan- 
ized, incoherent,  confused  multitude,  that  the  gentleman  boasts  !  In  his 
vain  attempt  to  organize  them  in  one  body  he  has  offered  them  a  constitu- 
tion, consisting  of  six  articles,  and  not  a  text  of  Scripture  !  They  have 
not  received  it,  and,  I  presume,  they  never  will. 

Error,  he  has  truly  said,  often  gains  converts  more  rapidly  than  truth; 
and  yet  he  boasts  of  his  rapid  increase  of  numbers,  as  evidence  conclusive 
that  his  principles  are  correct!  His  argument  would  prove  the  Mormons 
right.  I  do  not  institute  a  comparison  between  the  Mormons  and  the 
gentleman's  church;  but  certainly,  they  have  increased  more  rapidly. 
They  commenced  their  operations  only  a  few  years  ago ;  and  now  see 
what  multitudes  of  converts  they  have  made,  and  how  much  more  com- 
plete and  efficient  their  organization,  than  that  of  his  church.  Amongst 
them,  we  hear  of  no  clashing  in  doctrine  or  in  practice;  and  only  occa- 
sionally of  an  apostate.  If,  then,  the  argument  turns  on  the  rapid  increase 
of  numbers  irrespective  of  their  religious  views  and  character,  it  proves 
too  much  for  my  friend.  Sidney  Rigdon,  formerly  one  of  his  most  pop- 
ular preachers,  and  his  right-hand  man  in  the  debate  with  McCalla,  has 
sworn  allegiance  to  Joe  Smith,  and  now  looks  back  with  compassion  on 
his  quondam  friend  and  leader,  as  yet  in  Babylon.  Sidney  has  finally 
reached  the  point  of  perfect  unity  of  faith,  and  fancies  that  he  walks  the 
streets  of  the  New  Jerusalem !  The  gentleman's  argument  proves  too 
much. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  Peter  made  a  good  confession,  when  he  said — 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ;"  and  it  is  true,  that  it 
embraces  two  great  points — the  character  and  office  of  Christ.  But  what 
is  that  character?  He  is  God  as  well  as  man.  He  "  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God."  Mr.  C,  I  believe,  professes  to  believe  in 
the  true  and  proper  Divinity  of  Christ.  But  if  we  ask  Barton  W.  Stone, 
a  prominent  preacher  in  the  same  church,  concerning  his  character,  he 
will  tell  us,  that  the  Son  of  God  existed  before  the  creation  of  the  world, 
but  not  from  eternity;  and  consequently  he  makes  him  only  an  exalted 
creature.  If  Mr.  C.  believes  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  there  is  an  infi- 
nite difference  between  his  faith  and  that  of  Mr.  Stone.  There  is  no  com- 
parison between  finite  and  infinite,  between  the  most  exalted  creature  and 
the  eternal  God.  Both  these  gentlemen  call  Christ  the  Son  of  God  ;  and 
both  profess  to  build  on  the  rock;  but  if  Mr.  C.  is  on  the  rock,  Mr, 
Stone  is  on  the  sand.     Yet  they  are  both  in  the  same  church ! 

Again.  What  is  the  office  of  Christ,  the  second  point  embraced  in 
Peter's  confession?  If  I  understand  Mr.  C,  he  believes,  that  Christ 
bore  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins  on  the  cross.  But  if  we  ask  Mr. 
Stone,  he  will  tell  us,  that  Christ  sufljered  only  that  by  being  made  ac- 
quainted with  what  he  endured,  the  hearts  of  wicked  men  might  relent, 

4A 


830  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

and  that  they  might  be  induced  to  turn  to  God.  He  denies,  that  Christ 
bore  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins.  This  amounts  to  a  denial  of  the 
most  important  part  of  his  work.  There  is  an  infinite  difference  between 
the  faith  of  Messrs.  Stone  and  Campbell  concerning  the  character  and 
work  of  Christ.  Yet  both  are  on  the  rock  !  ! !  Now  let  me  ask  em- 
phatically, what  kind  of  a  church  is  this,  made  up  of  materials  so  discord- 
ant, embodying  differences  so  radical  ? 

It  is  true,  as  Mr.  C.  says,  that  his  creed  is  a  short  one.  All  he  re- 
quires is,  that  persons  desiring  to  enter  the  church,  say  they  believe  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  He  inquires  not  whether  they  understand  the 
language  they  adopt,  or  what  meaning  they  attach  to  it.  The  Arian,  who 
makes  the  Savior  an  exalted  creature,  and  the  Socinian,  who  makes  him  a 
mere  man,  alike  profess  to  believe  the  proposition ;  and  both  are  received 
as  christian  brethren ;  though  both  deny  both  the  true  character  and  the 
work  of  Christ,  and  rob  him  of  his  glory!  Of  what  use  are  words,  un- 
less they  convey  definite  ideas  ?  Of  what  advantage  is  it  for  a  person  to 
say,  "  I  believe  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ;"  unless  he  understands 
what  ideas  the  inspired  writer  intended  to  convey  by  these  words  ?  He 
who  rejects  the  true  meaning  of  Bible  words  and  phrases,  rejects  the 
Bible.  Unless,  then,  we  ask  men  what  they  understand  by  the  language 
of  Scripture,  we  must  receive  the  Arian,  the  Socinian,  every  body. 

After  all,  the  gendeman's  creed  is  not  always  so  short.  It  is  some- 
times short,  and  sometimes  long.  He  says,  he  asks  those  who  apply  for 
membership,  only  to  profess  to  believe  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God. 
But  ask  a  Pedo-baptist  that  question — "Do  you  believe  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  ?"  He  will  answer,  Yes.  Now  will  the  gendeman  receive 
him  ?  No — he  must  have  a  confession  from  him  about  his  faith  in  im- 
mersion, and  about  the  baptism  of  infants.  Thus  it  will  become  tolerably 
long ! 

But  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  is  much  uniformity  either  in  faith  or 
practice  in  the  churches  of  the  reformers  ;  for  it  appears,  that  they  are  en- 
tirely independent  of  each  other.  My  worthy  friend,  Dr.  Fishback,  in  a 
letter  to  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  gave  a  brief  confession  of  faith,  or  state- 
ment of  the  faith  of  the  church  that  worships  in  this  building;  in  which 
he  remarks  as  follows  : 

"  Permit  me,  however,  to  say,  that  the  church  [in  Lexington]  is  indepen- 
dent in  her  constitution  and  government  of  all  other  churches,  and  sustains 
no  connection  with  any  church  or  denomination  of  christians,  that  author- 
izes them  to  make  a  creed  for  her,  or  which  subjects  her  to  their  legislation 
or  government,  or  that  makes  her  responsible  for  any  error  that  may  be  im- 
puted to  them." — Christian  Joiumal,  Oct.  28,  1843. 

Here  we  have  a  church  actually  independent  of  all  others,  in  no  sense 
accountable  to  any  for  its  errors,  nor  in  any  degree  responsible  for  the 
doctrines  of  others.  If  the  other  churches  are  equally  independent  of 
each  other,  they  do  not  constitute  one  body,  but  are  just  so  many  per- 
fectly independent  democracies,  no  one  of  which  is  responsible  for  any 
thing  believed  or  done  by  the  others.  Such  is  the  boasted  reformation  of 
the  nineteenth  century ! 

The  gendeman  professes  to  eschew  all  creeds ;  but  he  says,  he  is  willing 
at  any  time,  to  give  his  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  But  why 
should  he  give  them  ?  Are  not  his  views  well  expressed  by  the  inspired 
writers  ?  Why  not  refer  all  who  wish  to  know  his  views,  to  the  New 
Testament?     His  sentiments  and  his  conduct  are  strangely  contradictory. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  831 

As  an  argument  against  creeds,  the  gentleman  says,  he  never  heard  of 
any  one  converted  by  reading  a  confession  of  faith.  He  seems  to  forget, 
that  a  great  many  important  and  interesting  things  happen  in  this  world, 
of  which  he  never  hears.  A  brother  has  just  informed  me  that  a  lady  in 
his  congregation  had  her  attention  turned  to  the  subject  of  religion  by 
reading  the  Westminster  confession,  who  recently  died  in  the  triumphs  of 
faith.  She  doubtless  read  the  Scriptures,  which  are  abundantly  quoted  in 
that  excellent  book ;  for  I  suppose,  that  two-thirds  of  the  doctrinal  part 
of  it  consists  of  quotations  from  the  Bible.  But  did  he  ever  hear  of  any 
one  being  coverted  by  reading  his  "Christian  System?"  I  certainly 
never  did.  Creeds  are  not  designed  particularly  to  effect  the  conversion 
of  the  wicked;  nor  is  his  Christian  System.  He  tells  us,  that  it  is  de- 
signed to  give  a  condensed  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  his  church,  to 
rectify  certain  extremes,  and  to  furnish  means  of  defence  to  his  preach" 
ers.     (page  10.) 

Mr.  C.  speaks  quite  slightingly  of  our  church — claiming  only  to  be  a 
branch  of  the  church  of  Christ.  He  and  Gregory  XVI.  both  claim  for 
their  respective  communities  the  high  honor  of  being  the  church! 
These  claims  no  doubt,  are  equally  valid.  But  I  rejoice  that  the  Pres- 
byterian church  has  ever  recognized  as  brethren  all  who  hold  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  gospel.  And  let  me  remark,  all  such  are  nearer  to 
us  in  their  faith,  than  the  leading  men  in  Mr.  C.'s  reformation  are  to  each 
other — much  more.  He  has  repeatedly  magnified  his  charity  and  liber- 
ality, since  the  commencement  of  this  discussion ;  but  now  look  at  it. 
His  church  is  the  church.  So  says  Gregory,  as  he  sets  in  St.  Peter's 
chair  ! 

I  will  now  offer  a  few  more  remarks  concerning  the  reception  of  the 
Universalist  preacher  into  Mr.  C.'s  church.  He  was  received,  as  I  stated, 
without  a  change  of  sentiment;  only  his  former  faith  he  agreed  to  call 
an  opinion.  The  Bible  teaches  with  perfect  plainness,  that  the  wicked 
shall  be  eternally  punished.  Mr.  Raines'  opinion  was,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  was  not  true.  Again — If  he  believed  that  all  will  be  saved, 
he  must  have  believed  that  this  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  How 
then  could  he  call  it  an  opinion?  Did  the  inspired  writers  propagate 
mere  opinions  ?  Here  we  have  an  exhibition  of  their  christian  union. 
Mr.  Campbell's  faith  was — that  the  wicked  would  be  eternally  pun- 
ished; and  Mr.  Raines'  opinion  was,  that  Mr.  C.^s faith  was  not  true'. 
Yet,  although  Mr.  Raines'  opinion  contradicted  Mr.  Campbell's  faith , 
we  are  to  believe  that  their  faith  was  precisely  the  same  ! 

But  Mr.  Raines,  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  was  bound  to  declare  to 
men  the  "  whole  counsel  of  God."  His  opinion  was,  that  the  Bible  teach- 
es Universalism.  How,  then,  could  he  promise  not  to  preach  it?  How 
could  he  lend  himself  to  keep  back  a  part  of  what  he  believed  to  be  the 
truth  of  the  Bible  ?  And  is  this  the  plan  of  christian  union  devised  by 
Mr.  C?  Does  he  require  men,  as  a  condition  of  being  proclaimers  in  his 
church,  to  promise  not  to  preach  truths  they  conscientiously  believe  to  be 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  ?  Never,  so  long  as  life  lasts,  will  I  promise  any 
man,  or  body  of  men,  that  I  will  not  preach  the  whole  taith ;  nor  will  I 
have  any  thing  to  do  with  a  plan  of  union  which  requires  me  to  disregard 
the  conviction  of  my  conscience. — [T'ime  expired. 


992  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

Friday,  Dec.  1 — U  o'clock,  P.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  sixth  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  regret,  sir,  to  have  to  discuss  so  many  frivolous 
matters;  when,  however,  small  things  become  great,  by  the  force  of  cir- 
cumstances, or  great  things  small,  it  becomes  more  necessary  to  attend  to 
them.  An  infinitely  small  issue  is  now  being  made  on  the  subject  of  pub- 
lishing books — a  singular  issue,  growing  out  of  the  proposition  before  us! 
I  have  published  a  book  called  "  the  Christian  System,  in  Reference  to 
the  Union  of  Christians,"  (fee. ;  and  the  Presbyterian  church  has  pub- 
lished a  book  called  "  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,"  Sic.  The  one,  on  my  part,  is  offered  to 
the  world  as  a  matter  alike  addressed  to  every  human  being — obligatory 
on  no  one — the  offspring  of  one  mind,  without  any  previous  understanding 
or  agreement.  And  here  is  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
published  and  ratified  by  the  general  assembly,  at  their  sessions  in  May, 
1821,  and  amended  in  18.33!  !  Need  I  do  more  than  read  the  titles  of 
the  two  books  ?  The  whole  matter  is  irrelevant.  According  to  the  laws  of 
the  land,  and  the  freedom  of  the  press,  every  man  may  publish  what  he 
pleases.  But,  sir,  the  matter  before  us  is  not  the  publication  of  a  book, 
but  the  use  made  of  it  when  published.  Did  I  make  any  book  that  I  have 
published  a  bond  of  union — a  constitution  for  our  church — then,  indeed,  I 
would  be  justly  censurable  by  all  the  intelligences,  celestial  and  terrestrial. 
Heaven  and  earth  would  condemn  me.  Strange  that  a  person  of  so  much 
intellectual  sagacity,  can  so  confound  things  in  his  mind,  as  to  compare 
matters  in  their  use  and  application,  as  opposite  as  the  zenith  and  nadir — 
as  ourselves  and  our  antipodes. 

The  next  great  matter,  was  my  reference  to  different  expositions  and 
books,  on  the  doctrines  of  the  confession  of  faith,  made  symbols  of  by  new 
Presbyterian  associations.  Has  not  Mr.  Rice  read  of  the  questions  and 
debates,  which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  three  new  kinds  of  Presbyte- 
rians in  Scotland,  two  of  which  are  still  existing  here.  I  allude  to  the 
Burgher  and  Anti-burgher  churches,  and  to  the  Relief  Presbyterians,  pe- 
culiar to  Scotland.  The  Burghers  are  known  in  this  country  as  Union- 
ists;  and  the  Anti-burghers  as  Seceders.  I  presumed  my  friend  was 
conversant  with  their  various  publications,  acts  and  testimonies  against 
each  other.  Surely,  the  gentleman  does  not  expect  me  to  carry  with  me 
a  library  for  his  information — or,  does  he  plead  ignorance  of  matters 
so  public  and  notorious,  to  consume  time  in  discussing  them  ?  I  have 
heard  all  these  parties  preach,  and  am  acquainted  with  much  of  their  his- 
tory, but  cannot  waste  time  in  edifying  him  on  these  subjects. 

But  thus  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  would  escape  from  the  charge  of  making 
a  rent  in  the  American  Presbyterian  church,  by  the  excommunication  of 
only  sixty  thousand  good  orderly  professors,  and  five  hundred  pastors. 
But  they  did  not  cast  them  out !  I  presume  he  means,  they  did  not  open 
the  door  and  unguibus  ef  pedibus,  violently  seize  and  lead  them  out. 
They  politely  showed  them  the  door,  and  invited  them  to  walk  out;  and 
lliat  for  sensible  and  sensitive  men  is  a  hint  sufficiently  operative.  Assu- 
redly he  will  not  argue,  that  the  sixty  thousand  drove  out  the  majority. 
I  repeat,  that  this  innocent  and  harmless  document,  called  "  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  church,"  only  cast  out,  at  one  impulse,  some  six- 
ty thousand  members  of  as  fair  moral,  intellectual,  and  literary  reputa- 
tion, as  those  who  excluded  them,  by  making  terms  of  submission  to 
which  they  could  not  succomb.     When  I  see  a  Lord's  table  spread  and 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  833 

furnished  with  the  memorials  of  a  Savior's  love,  and  licdr  the  members 
of  the  same  community  say  to  their  brethren — on  certain  conditions  you 
may  partake  with  us  to-day ; — on  reflecting  upon  the  past,  we  now  say 
to  you,  that  on  these  terms  only  can  we  recognize  and  treat  you  as  wor- 
thy participants  here.  When  again  these  terms  and  conditions  are  mere 
interpretations  of  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  may  we 
not  say,  that  the  minority  are  driven  out  of  the  church  upon  grounds  of 
interpretation,  when  they  are  thus  refused  a  crumb  of  bread  but  upon  the 
principle  of  conformity  ?  So  I  understand  the  new  scheme  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  But  still,  to  call  them  christians  and  brethren,  only 
makes  the  matter  worse.  It  is  indeed  acknowledging  the  sin  while  com- 
mitting it.  To  admit  them  to  be  actual,  bona  tide,  members  of  Christ's 
church,  and  then  refuse  them  a  brother's  blessing,  a  right  to  eat  at  the  fam- 
ily table,  is  much  more  provoking  to  heaven  and  earth  than  to  cast  them 
out  as  heathen  men  and  publicans. 

When  Mr.  Rice  affirmed  that  there  was  no  such  document  as  the  "con- 
stitution of  the  Presbyterian  church,"  and,  in  reply,  I  read  the  title  page 
of  the  book  in  my  hand,  which  reads — "The  Constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,"  &c.,  he  seizes,  by  way  of  offset,  a  number  of  the  Mil- 
lenial  Harbinger,  and,  holding  it  before  you,  reads  some  overtures  by  way 
of  illustrating  a  principle — a  few  resolutions  oflered  in  a  parabolic  scene — 
and,  with  an  air  of  profound  wisdom,  presumes  that  these  resolutions, 
relative  to  a  system  of  co-operation  among  particular  communities,  alrea- 
dy in  existence,  is  just  such  a  thing  as  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  !  Mr.  Rice  says  there  is  no  such  book  as  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America.  How  shall  I 
dispose  of  such  an  opponent,  who  presumes  to  deny  the  very  title  page 
in  my  hand,  printed  in  capitals  ! 

But  here  are  two  Presbyterian  ministers,  over  the  signatures  of  Calvin 
and  Philo,  arguing,  in  the  Protestant  and  Herald,  the  grave  question, 
whether  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  has  in  it  any  principle 
or  law  authorizing  its  amendment.  The  one  affirming,  that  in  the  con- 
stitution there  is  no  redeeming,  recuperative  principle  ;  that,  if  it  take  sick, 
a  doctor  need  not  be  called,  for  it  cannot  be  mended.  The  other  admit- 
ting its  liability  to  disease,  and  the  possibility  of  a  remedy — bnt'then  so 
far  off,  and  so  difficult  of  application,  that  it  might  almost  as  well  have 
been  without  it.  It  was,  indeed,  wisely  decided,  that  the  constitution 
may  endure,  inasmuch  as  the  principle  of  self-preservation  and  of  recu- 
peration is  in  it,  whether  or  not  it  can,  if  ever,  be  applied.  It  is,  however, 
conceded  on  all  hands,  that  it  is  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  that  it  has  in  it  the  principle  and  power  of  self-preservation, 
and  even  of  improvement ;  that  the  principle  has  been  formerly  applied, 
and  that  it  worked  well,  and  that  it  is  in  the  bounds  of  possibility  that  it 
may  be  applied  again,  should  circumstances  so  require. 

Mr.  Rice  endeavors  to  relieve  himself,  by  showing  that  I  am  in  the 
mud,  if  he  be  in  the  mire.  Well,  two  wrongs  will  not  make  one  right,  as 
the  adage  goes.  And  suppose  I,  in  proposing  resolutions,  relative  to  a 
system  of  co-operation,  (no  faith  nor  morality  being  in  the  question,)  had 
erred,  will  that  excuse  his  making  a  confession  of  faith,  a  form  of  church 
gOTernm.ent,  and  of  church  discipline — an  entire  constitution  for  Christ's 
kingdom,  as  he  imagines,  a  politico-ecclesiastic  constitution,  as  it  may  be 
denominated? ! 

This,  however,  is  the  first  time  that  I  have  heard  it  assumed,  that  if  one 
53 


834  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

profess  to  believe  in  the  Bible,  he  must  never  offer  a  single  resolution  on 
any  subject  whatever,  concerning  any  temporal  or  circumstantial  office 
connected  with  the  operations  of  christian  benevolence,  or  any  other 
subject,  calling  for  the  co-operation  of  the  whole  community.  I  do  not 
ascribe  these  modes  of  reasoning  to  the  obtusity  of  Mr.  Rice,  but  to  his 
too  great  perspicacity.  He  sees  but  too  keenly  the  tendency  or  course  of 
an  argument  or  fact,  and  sets  out  to  meet  it  in  advance.  In  arguing  against 
manufacturing  a  a'eed,  that  is  faith,  no  one  says  that  resolutions,  and 
records,  and  exhibits,  written  and  printed,  may  not  be  given  to  the  church 
or  the  world.  This  is  a  morbid  state  of  feeling  to  which  no  sensible 
jnan,  of  sound  judgment  and  discretion,  is  ever  subjected.  We  are  dis- 
cussing creeds,  terms  and  conditions  of  communion ;  constitutions  of 
churches  made  by  men — and  not  the  printing  of  books,  tracts,  or  news- 
papers— I  offer  to  any  community,  rules  of  decorum,  of  co-operation, 
in  any  matter,  in  the  form  of  resolutions.  They  may  receive,  reject, 
amend,  &;c. ;  but  out  of  these  they  never  can,  while  memory  reigns,  and 
language  retains  its  meaning,  form  a  creed.  These  pretend  to  no  author- 
ity, usurp  no  power,  affect  not  conscience.  But  according  to  Mr.  Rice, 
a  single  resolution  offered,  is  tantamount  to  forming  a  creed !  Such  ia 
his  logic  on  this  occasion.  But  we  charge  upon  him  the  maintenance  of 
a  human  constitution  for  Christ's  church  ! ! ! 

I  regret  to  condescend  to  a  species  of  logic  unworthy  of  so  grave  an  occa- 
sion, and  of  so  dignified  a  theme,  as  the  constitution  of  Christ's  church. 
When  Scripture,  reason,  history,  and  even  the  faculty  of  invention,  fail  to 
furnish  Mr.  R.  with  something  to  say  in  favor  of  the  utility  of  creeds,  he 
turns  in  to  upbraid  us  with  Morraonism  and  Sidney  Rigdon.  And  what 
has  Sidney  Rigdon  or  Mormonism  to  do  with  our  creed  question  ?  Mor- 
monism  has  a  creed,  and  Rigdon  is  an  apostate  from  our  society.  Can 
the  gentleman,  from  these  two  facts,  draw  an  argument  in  favor  of  creeds? 
But  Mormons  have  increased,  and  we  have  increased,  and  Presbyterians 
have  increased — and  i(  i?icrease  proves  us  right,  it  proves  all  right.  We, 
indeed,  neither  argue  from  increase  nor  decrease,  that  any  proposition  of 
a  moral  or  religious  character,  is  true.  I  neither  appeal  to  antiquity,  nor 
to  numbers,  nor  to  sincerity,  as  tests  of  truth.  But  there  was  something 
more  than  all  this  in  the  allusion  to  Rigdon  and  Mormonism.  But  is  it 
an  argument  against  us  as  a  denomination,  that  Rigdon  was  once  a  mem- 
ber of  our  church  ?  Then  is  it  not  an  argument  against  Presbyterianisra, 
that  Kentucky  Shakerism,  and  its  founders,  went  out  of  the  bosom  of  that 
community  ?  I  mention  this  as  a  mere  sample  of  the  ease  with  which  re- 
prisals of  that  category  can  be  made  every  where ;  for,  from  the  days  of 
Simon  Magus  till  now,  apostates  have  emanated  from  the  best  societies. 
I  did  not  expect  to  have  such  rhetoric  to  dispose  of,  on  this  grave  sub- 
ject. I  did  expect  a  more  manly,  dignified,  and  rational  argument  and 
opposition  than  this.  But  so  long  as  Mr.  R.  has  nothing  better  to  offer, 
perhaps  we  ought  to  blame  the  cause,  rather  than  its  advocate. 

It  seems  as  though  we  did  not  use  the  term  church  alike.  The  term  is 
nsed  by  us  as  it  is  commonly  used  by  Congregationalists.  By  Mr.  R.  it  is 
used  as  Presbyterians  generally  use  it.  We  speak  of  particular  churches 
or  congregations — the  church  at  Rome,  Lexington,  Paris,  Frankfort,  &c. 
the  churches  of  Kentucky,  not  the  church  of  KentuckJ^  We  cannot 
discuss  all  these  matters.  In  modern  times  we  read  of  the  church  of 
England,  the  church  of  Scotland,  &c. ;  in  old  times,  the  churches  of  Ju- 
dea,  the  churches  of  Galatia.  &c.     We  have  neither  national,  provincial, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  835 

nor  sectarian  church.  We  have  many  clmrches,  but  no  church.  Nor  do 
we  desire  a  church,  in  that  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  true,  the  apos- 
tles speak  of  the  church,  not,  however,  of  the  church  of  any  nation,  but 
of  Christ.  Tliese  parochial  institutions  called  churches,  built  upon  such 
constitutions  as  we  have  been  discussing,  are  rivals  of  each  other,  and  ri- 
vals, in  the  aggregate,  of  the  churches  builded  on  Christ's  constitution. 

If  there  be  on  earth  a  society  that  could  admit  of  all  the  orderly  and  obe- 
dient disciples  of  the  Messiah,  that  is  just  such  an  institution  as  the  Messiah 
built,  and  it  is  just  such  a  one  as  he  would  recognize  were  he  now  to  re- 
return  to  the  earth.  Whatever  society,  then,  has  a  constitution  commen- 
surate with  all  the  children  of  God,  who  are  visibly  and  manifestly  follow- 
ing the  Lord  in  obedience,  that  society  is  apostolic  and  Divine,  and  no  other 
one.  Can  any  one  think,  were  the  Lord  to  revisit  this  world  just  now, 
that  he  would  recognize  any  of  the  numerous  churches  of  the  nations  as 
his,  built  upon  the  policies,  opinions  and  rivalries  of  earth!  Would  he  call 
any  one  his,  who  has  taken  another  name  ?  I  repeat  it,  if  there  be  on  earth 
a  community  that  he  v/ould  recognize  as  his,  it  would  be  that  single  com- 
munity that  builds  precisely  upon  the  foundation  which  he  himself  project- 
ed at  Cesarea  Philippi ;  and  on  which  the  aposdes  builded  the  societies, 
called  churches,  in  the  old  cities  and  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire.  He 
has  bound  himself  by  every  law  in  this  new  constitution  to  do  so.  He 
might,  indeed,  have  reason  to  upbraid  some,  yea,  very  many,  of  the  Lao- 
dicean sin  of  lukewarmness,  still  he  would  recognize  them  as  on  the  right 
foundation. 

Mr.  Rice  seems  to  take  pleasui-e  in  his  supposed  ingenious  dissertations 
upon  the  alledged  discrepancy  between  our  opinions  and  our  doctrine, 
and  in  setting  them  in  array  against  each  other.  This  is  of  that  species  of 
logic  in  which  he  most  abounds,  usually  addressed  to  the  supposed  pre- 
judices, or  want  of  discrimination  of  the  audience.  It  is  called  ad  captan- 
(bnn,  because  it  would  seem  to  be  designed  to  inveigle,  or  catch  the  un- 
thinking and  the  unwary.  He  perfectly  comprehends,  as  I  suppose,  why 
we  affirm,  that  sects  among  christians  are  wholly  inadmissible  ;  wholly 
unauthorized,  and  obnoxious  to  the  indignation  of  heaven.  He  under- 
stands why  christians  may,  in  the  aggregate,  be  a  sect,  in  contrast  with 
Jews  and  pagans,  and,  on  that  account,  be  most  acceptable  to  the  Lord ; 
while  any  schism,  sect  or  party  amongst  them  is  intolerable.  I  say,  with 
Paul,  "  A.fter  the  way  which  they  call  a  sect,  (a  heresy,)  so  worship  I  the 
God  of  my  fathers,  believing  all  things  in  the  law,  and  in  the  prophets." 
Yet  that  same  Paul  could  not  endure  the  appearance  of  a  sect  among  the 
Corinthians — "  While  one  says,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  another,  I  am  of  Apol- 
los ;  and  another,  I  am  of  Cephas;  and  another,  I  am  of  Christ :  are  you 
not  carnal  and  walk  as  men  ?"  A  sect  amongst  christians,  in  Paul's  eyes, 
was  a  solecism,  an  intolerable  incongruity. 

Now  these  sects  are  all  founded  on  opinions,  and  not  on  faith.  Every 
society  in  Christendom  admit?  the  same  faith,  or  builds  on  all  the  same 
grand  evangelical  facts ;  though,  indeed,  by  their  opinions  and  traditions, 
some  of  diem  have  made  the  faith  of  God  of  none  effect.  But  having 
written  so  largely  on  the  difference  between  faith,  knowledge  and  opinion, 
I  deem  it  unnecessary,  on  this  occasion,  to  descant  upon  them.  For  the 
sake  of  some,  however,  who  may  not  have  read  or  examined  this  subject, 
I  will  make  a  remark  or  two.  With  us,  then,  faith  is  testimony  believed } 
knowledge  is  our  own  experience ;  and  opinion  is  probable  inference 
Whenever  we  have  clear,  well  authenticated  testimony,  we  have  faith. 


836  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

and  this  faith  is  always  in  the  ratio  of  the  testimony  we  have,  or  in  oul 
apprehension  of  its  truth  and  certainty.  Our  personal  acquaintance  with 
men  and  fhing:S  constitutes  our  knowledge  ;  of  which,  different  individu- 
als, according  to  their  discrimination  and  capacity,  have  various  propor- 
tions. But,  in  the  absence  of  our  own  personal  acquaintance,  observa- 
tion and  experience,  and  in  the  absence  of  good  and  well  authenticated 
testimony,  we  have  mere  opinion.  So  I  define  and  use  these  terms. 
Some  of  our  dictionaries  are  not  clear,  in  marking  their  respective  boun- 
daries. But  all  men  have  a  right  to  define  in  what  sense  they  use  leading 
and  important  terms,  as  signs  of  their  own  ideas.  If  I  may  explain  by  a 
single  example,  I  will  say,  I  believe  that  Julius  Caesar  was  assassinated  in 
the  Roman  senate-liouse,  at  the  statue  of  Pompey ;  I  know  that  the  sun  is  the 
source  of  our  light  and  heat ;  and  I  am  of  opinion,  that  Saturn  is  inhabited. 

Now,  as  diverse  in  religion  as  in  nature,  are  these  terms  and  their  asso- 
ciations. In  religion,  we  have  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
body,  one  spirit,  one  hope,  and  one  God  and  Father.  But  we  have  many 
opinions.  The  church,  then,  may  have  opinions  by  thousands,  while 
her  faith  is  limited  to  the  inspired  testimony  of  aposdes  and  prophets  : 
where  that  testimony  begins  and  ends,  faith  begins  and  ends.  In  faith,  then, 
all  christians  may  be  one;  though  of  diverse  knowledge  and  of  numerous 
opinions.  In  faith  we  must  be  one,  for  there  is  but  one  christian  faith  ; 
while,  in  opinions,  we  may  differ.  Hence  we  are  commanded  to  receive 
one  another,  without  regard  to  differences  of  opinion,  Rom.  xv.  1,  2. 

The  grand  error  in  Presbyterianism  is,  that  it  seems  never  to  recognize 
where  faith  ends,  and  where  opinion  begins  ;  nay,  it  very  often  confounds 
faith  and  opinion,  and  lays  full  as  much  emphasis  upon  right  opinions, 
as  upon  right  faith  ;  and,  in  some  instances,  places  opinion  above  faith. 
Our  faith,  then,  and  our  opinions,  do  not  clash,  for  we  never  have  both 
faith  and  opinion  on  the  same  subject. 

Mr.  Rice  has  made  some  allusions  to  a  document  written  by  Dr.  Fish- 
back.  It  is,  however,  in  my  opinion,  so  distorted  that  no  one  can  be  impo- 
sed on  by  his  remarks.  The  whole  connection  shows  it  to  be  so.  I  do  not 
know  what  view  he  has  of  church  foundations  ;  but  permit  me  to  say,  that 
each  of  our  communities  is,  in  every  thing  concerning  itself,  perfectly  in- 
dependent of  every  other  congregation  in  the  world.  All  our  communi- 
ties build,  indeed,  on  one  and  the  same  foundation — Apostolic  and  Di- 
vine— but  they  have  their  own  by-laws  and  arrangements,  and  in  these 
they  are  independent  of  each  other.  None  of  them  sustain  any  ecclesi- 
astical connection  with  any  other  church,  or  connection,  or  set  of  chris- 
tians who  authorize  or  use  any  formula  of  faith,  called  a  creed. 

We  are,  my  fellow-citizens,  what  is  called  Congregational  communi- 
ties. Every  one  of  our  congregations  regards  itself  as  a  church  of  Jesus 
Christ:  having  over  them  no  other  government  under  Christ  but  their 
own  immediate  eldership.  They  are  amenable  to  no  foreign  court,  called 
a  classic  presbytery,  synod,  or  general  or  national  assembly,  conference, 
or  council,  local  or  fficumenical.  We  believe  that  wherever  two  or  three 
are  assembled  in  any  one  place,  Jesus  the  Lord  of  christians,  the  King  of 
saints,  is  there ;  and  he  is  no  more  than  present,  if  he  ever  be  present  at 
all — he  is  no  more  than  present  in  a  synod  or  general  assembly.  We 
have  the  King  and  his  Statute  Book  in  our  congregations.  Why,  then, 
should  we  go  abroad  for  either  the  one  or  the  other  ? 

As  respects  civil  authorities,  there  ought  to  be  inferior  and  superior 
courta      But  with  us,  we  have  the  same  Judge  always  upon  the  bencb. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  837 

We  do  not  commence  our  suits  in  the  cellar,  and  then  ascend  to  the  mid- 
dle story,  and  then  to  the  upper  story  of  Christ's  house.  Few  men  see 
the  absurdities  of  carrying  up  doctrinal  points  in  controversy  and  cases  of 
conscience,  as  they  try  civil  or  criminal  pleas,  because  the  whole  matter 
of  ecclesiastical  politics  is  hid  in  the  mists  and  fogs  of  theological  max- 
ims, causes  and  precedents.  There  is  no  end  of  the  appeal  system,  if  once 
you  transcend  a  single  committee  of  umpires.  When  you  commence  in 
the  court  system,  you  must  ascend,  step  by  step,  till  you  find  a  pope,  a 
vicegerent,  a  demi-god.  Thei'e  is  even  in  questions  of  miney  and  thi- 
ney,  more  safety  at  home  than  abroad.  The  parties  and  the  circumstan- 
ces can  be  better  appreciated,  and  justice  secured,  somewhere  nigher  home 
than  at  Rome  or  Constantinople.  I  am  now  prepared  for  another  argu- 
ment. I  may  probably  occupy  the  remainder  of  this  address  and  the 
whole  of  my  next,  without  any  special  reply  to  Mr.  Rice.  Indeed,  there 
is  little  or  nothing  in  all  these  litde  matters,  advanced  by  him,  bearing 
upon  the  main  issue  before  us.  I  value  them  only  as  affording  me  an  op- 
portunity to  define  our  position. 

But  here  comes  a  notice  from  a  brother,  requesting  it  to  be  stated  that, 
in  some  allusions  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Rice,  he  has  been  misrepresented, 
as  having  said  that  Calvinism  is  Atheism.  He  solemnly  denies  ever  hav- 
ing so  said,  or  so  believed;  and  it  is  but  an  act  of  justice  due  him  to  state 
thus  publicly,  as  he  has  been  publicly  assailed,  that  he  disavows  the  allega- 
tion as  wholly  unfounded  on  fact.  As  he  cannot  speak  for  himself  here, 
in  his  own  person,  I  judge  I  am  authorized  to  say  this  much  for  him. 

Before,  then,  I  sit  down,  I  shall  affirm  another  argument  in  support  of 
my  position  against  human  creeds.  I  prove  them  heretical  from  the  fact 
that,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  churches'  unity — say  from  150  to  200 
years  after  Christ — they  had  no  written  documents  of  any  authority  what- 
ever, but  the  inspired  documents.  Ask  Mosheim,  Du  Pin,  Waddington, 
(fee,  and  they  will  tell  you,  that  before  creeds  were,  unity  was  ;  after  them, 
divisions  and  sects  and  parties  were.  The  reasons  why,  are  given  in  exten- 
so  by  Waddington,  and  Mosheim,  and  Neander,  and  others.  I  shall  give 
one  extract  from  Waddington — the  Episcopalian  Waddington: — 

"  The  first  christians  used  no  written  creed  :  the  confession  of  faith,  which 
was  held  necessary  to  salvation,  was  delivered  to  children  or  converts  by 
word  of  mouth,  and  entrusted  to  their  memory.  Moreover,  in  the  several 
independent  churches,  the  rule  of  faith  was  liable  to  some  slight  changes, 
according  to  the  opinion  and  discretion  of  the  bishop  presiding  in  each. 
Hence  it  arose,  that  when  the  creeds  of  those  numerous  communities  came 
at  length  to  be  written  and  compared  together,  they  were  found  to  contain 
some  variations.  This  was  natural  and  necessary.  But  when  we  add  that 
those  variations  were  for  the  most  part  merely  verbal,  and  in  no  instance 
involved  any  question  of  essential  importance,  we  advance  a  truth  which 
will  seem  strange  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  angry  disputations  of 
later  ages.  But  tlie  fact  is  easily  accounted  for.  The  earliest  pastors  of 
the  church  drew  their  belief  from  the  Scripture  itself,  as  delivered  to  them 
by  writing  or  preaching,  and  they  were  contented  to  express  that  belief  in 
the  language  of  Scripture.  They  were  not  curious  to  investigate  that  which 
is  not  clearly  revealed,  but  they  adhered  faithfully  to  that  which  they  knew 
to  be  true  ;  therefore  their  variations  were  without  schism,  and  their  differ- 
ences without  acrimony.  The  creed  which  was  first  adopted,  and  that  per- 
liaps  in  the  very  earliest  age,  by  the  church  of  Rome,  was  that  which  is 
now  called  the  apostles' creed  ;  and  it  was  the  general  opinion,  from  the 
fourth  century  downwards,  tliat  it  was  actually  the  production  of  those 
blessed  persons,  assembled  for  that  purpose.     Our  evidence  is  not  sufficient 


838  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

to  establish  that  fact,  and  some  writers  very  confidently  reject  it.  But 
there  is  reasonable  ground  for  our  assurance  that  the  form  of  faith,  which 
we  still  repeat  and  inculcate,  was  in  use  and  honor  in  the  very  early  propa- 
gation of  our  religion." — Waddington'' s  Church  History,  pp.  45,  46. 

The  same  view  of  the  matter  is  reported  by  Mosheim,  and  the  more 
modern  German  historians,  Neander,  Geseller,  &c.  When  they  came  to 
baptism,  they  all  made  the  same  confession,  and  werebuilded  together  upon 
the  same  foundation  ;  and  having  only  the  apostolic  writings,  easily  main- 
tained unity  of  spirit  by  the  bonds  of  peace.  They  had  no  formula  of 
doctrine  as  yet,  other  than  the  apostolic  formula,  which  we  still  have  in  the 
living  oracles  of  the  New  Testament.  I  presume  it  is  always  a  safe  ar- 
gument, that  the  same  cause  will  always  produce  the  same  effect.  If, 
then,  we  take  the  divinely  authenticated  and  authorized  creed  of  the  sacred 
writings,  and  allow  for  differences  of  opinion,  not  properly  called  the  faith, 
we  might  all  unite  on  the  same  foundation,  and  enjoy  the  same  peace  and 
harmony.  We  are  making  the  same  experiment  now,  and  so  far  it  proves 
itself  to  be  as  divinely  effectual,  as  in  the  first  and  second  centuries.  It 
has  been  tried  in  different  nations,  and  works  well  both  in  the  old  world 
and  in  the  new.  From  the  history  of  former  times,  and  from  our  own  ex- 
perience, as  well  as  from  the  doctrines  delivered  in  the  book,  we  have  the 
fullest  assurance  of  its  perfect  adaptation  to  society,  and  of  its  ultimate 
triumph  over  all  rival  systems  in  the  world.  The  church  was  once  uni- 
ted and  happy  on  the  apostolic  writings,  and  it  will  be  so  again. — [Time 
expired. 

Friday,  Dec.  1—12^  o'clock,  F.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  sixth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — It  is  a  happy  thing  for  the  cause  of  my  friend,  Mr. 
C,  that  he  does  not  feel  bound  to  enlighten  us  on  the  subject  of  church 
history.  I  called  for  some  proof  of  his  assertion,  that  in  Scotland  it  had 
been  deemed  necessary  to  write  not  only  explanations  of  the  confession 
of  faith,  but  explanations  of  explanations;  but  he  does  not  feel  bound  to 
give  it.  It  is  one  of  the  easiest  things  imaginable  to  make  assertions, 
and  to  prove  them,  as  the  gentleman  does,  by  saying — every  body 
knows  it! 

He  has  undertaken  to  prove,  not  only  that  creeds  are  unlawful,  but  that 
tliey  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismadcal.  I  have  stated  distinctly 
the  design  of  a  creed.  It  is  a  public  declaration  of  the  principal  doc- 
trines and  truths  which  we  understand  the  Bible  to  teach,  made  in  order 
that  those  who  desire  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ,  may  compare 
it  with  the  Bible,  and  determine  whether  thej^  can  conscientiously  and 
cordially  unite  with  us.  And  it  is  a  standard  of  ministerial  qualifications, 
that  the  church  may,  with  uniformity,  require  those  who  seek  the  office 
of  the  ministry,  or  who  are  to  be  ruling  elders  or  deacons,  to  possess  the 
scriptural  character  and  attainments.  Where  is  the  law  against  a  creed 
for  such  purposes  ?  We  are  now  near  the  close  of  the  second  day's  dis- 
cussion on  this  proposition  ;  and  yet  we  have  had  not  a  passage  produced, 
tliat  even  looks  that  way. 

To  prove,  that  creeds  produce  schisms,  Mr.  C.  mentions  the  Burghers 
and  anti-Burghers  of  Scotland.  It  is  true,  they  divided ;  but  the  ques- 
tion is — did  the  creed  cause  the  schism?  We  have  heard  of  the  Burgh- 
ers and  Anti-burghers  ;  and  we  have  also  heard  of  divisions  in  Mr.  C.'s 
church.  Now  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  him,  if  he  would  sustain  his 
proposition,  not  only  to  prove,  that  there  have  been  schisms,  but  that  they 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  839 

were  caused  by  creeds — that  they  necessarily  result  from  the  mere  fact  of 
having  a  human  creed  of  any  kind.  There  has  recently  been  a  division 
in  the  church  of  Scotland ;  but  it  was  not  caused  by  their  confession  of 
faith,  but  by  a  difficulty  growing  out  of  their  political  relations  as  an  es- 
tablished church. 

Concerning  the  Burghers  and  Anti-burghers,  I  will  read  a  short  article 
in  the  Encyclopoedia  of  Religious  Knowledge. 

"  Burghers.  A  numerous  and  respectable  class  of  seceders  from  the 
church  of  Scotland,  originally  connected  with  the  Associate  Presbytery  ; 
but  some  difference  arising  about  the  lawfulness  of  the  Burgess  oath,  a 
eeparation  took  place  in  1739,  and  those  who  refused  the  oath  were  called 
Anti-burghers;  but  as  these  sects  have  been  lately  happily  united,  it  is  not 
now  necessary  to  enter  into  the  merits  of  the  dispute." 

Now  if,  as  Mr.  C.  takes  for  granted,  their  creed  caused  the  division,  I 
presume  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  it  also  healed  it.  It  is,  indeed,  some- 
what remarkable  that  it  should  have  operated  in  opposite  ways.  It  divi- 
ded them,  it  would  seem,  and  afterwards  united  them  !  Certainly  creeds 
cannot  necessarily  be  heretical  and  schismatical ;  or  when  they  were  once 
divided,  their  creed  would  have  kept  them  separate.  If  the  gentleman  can 
prove,  that  creeds  have  caused  division,  I  can  prove,  by  evidence  quite 
as  conclusive,  that  they  have  brought  together  individuals  and  bodies  that, 
but  for  them,  would  never  have  united. 

Mr.  C.  still  harps  upon  the  alledged  fact,  that  the  new  school  were 
cut  off  from  our  church.  Has  he  forgotten  his  efforts  to  have  Dr.  Thom- 
as, one  of  his  most  gifted  preachers,  excommunicated,  because  he  differ- 
ed from  him  ?  It  is  true,  he  did  afterwards  most  inconsistently  become 
reconciled  to  the  Doctor,  without  any  change  having  taken  place  in  his 
views.     Still  he  di<l  what  he  could  to  exclude  him. 

It  is  a  principle  universally  recognized  in  all  well  organized  govern- 
ments, civil  and  ecclesiastical,  that  those  who  enjoy  common  rights  and 
privileges,  must  sustain  common  responsibilities.  It  would  be  a  strange 
proceeding  in  the  congress  of  these  United  States  to  permit  representa- 
tives from  the  Canadas  to  become  members  of  that  body,  and  to  deliber- 
ate and  vote,  and  then  to  return  and  be  subject  to  their  own  laws,  not  to 
those  they  had  aided  in  making  for  us.  Could  such  a  thing  be  tolerated? 
Suppose  several  members  of  this  church  in  Lexington  should  go  to  Beth- 
any, Va.,  and  claim  the  rigiit  to  deliberate  and  vote  in  the  business  pro- 
ceedings of  Mr.  C.'s  particular  church;  would  he  permit  it?  Would  he 
not  request  them  to  return  home,  and  attend  to  their  own  affairs  ?  And 
what  would  he  think  of  them,  if  they  should  charge  him  with  having 
excommunicated  them  ?  And  mark  the  fact — there  is  this  day  as  close  a 
union  between  those  churches  and  ministers,  whom  he  represents  as  hav- 
ing been  excommunicated,  and  our  church,  as  there  is  between  Mr.  C.'s 
church,  at  Bethany,  and  the  church  in  Lexington ;  or  as  there  is  between 
the  hundreds  of  particular  churches  claimed  by  the  gentleman. 

The  church  in  Lexington,  as  Dr.  Fishback  has  informed  us,  is  "inde- 
pendent in  her  constitution  and  government  of  all  other  churches,"  and  sus- 
tains no  responsibility  to  any  other  churches,  that  makes  it  accountable 
either  for  their  legislation  or  for  their  errors.  The  government  of  the 
United  States  is  independent  of  all  other  civil  governments.  Would  it, 
then,  be  true  to  say,  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  that  of 
England,  constitute  one  political  body  ?  No  more  do  the  thousand  par- 
ticular churches  scattered  over  this  country,  which  are  claimed  by  Mr. 


(540  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

C,  constitute  one  ecclesiastical  body.  He  acknowledges  the  church  in 
Lexington  as  a  church  of  Christ,  and  its  members  as  christian  brethren. 
So  do  we  acknowledge  the  new  school  churches  and  their  members  and 
ministers  as  christian  brethren.  The  decision  of  our  general  assembly 
amounted  to  this — that  none  could  be  permitted  to  vote  in  our  ecclesiasti- 
cal bodies,  who  would  not  submit  to  our  laws ;  that  if  they  were  Pres- 
byterians in  name,  and  in  privileges  and  rights,  they  must  be  Presbyteri- 
ans in  fact  and  in  their  responsibilities.  But  the  gentleman  has  said,  they 
were  excommunicated.  This  is  not  true.  No  ecclesiastical  censure  was 
passed  upon  those  synods  which,  as  bodies,  were  excluded  from  a  stand- 
ing in  our  church.  We  simply  said  to  them — do  your  business  in  your 
own  way  ;  and  we  will  do  ours.  Would  not  Mr.  C.  say  the  same  thing 
to  members  of  the  church  in  Lexington,  should  they  attempt  to  exert  a 
coutroling  influence  in  the  church  at  Bethany  ?  Why  does  he  blame  us 
and  denounce  our  creed,  because  we  acted  on  a  principle  recognized  by 
himself  and  by  all  men  ? 

The  gentleman,  to  prove  the  charge  against  Presbyterians  of  attempt- 
ing to  make  a  constitution  for  the  church  of  Christ,  triumphandy  exhib- 
ited before  the  audience  the  title-page  of  our  confession  of  faith — "  The 
Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church,"  &c.  I  anticipated  his 
course ;  and  whilst  he  was  preparing  his  paper,  I  turned  to  some  remarks 
of  his  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  (New  Series,  vol.  ii.  p.  471,)  concerning 
his  Christianity  Restored.  He  says,  "  I  have  long  intended  to  apologize 
for  the  title  of  the  book  called  '  Christianity  Restored  ;'  and  intend,  on  a 
new  edition  of  it,  which  is  now  called  for,  to  find  a  shorter  and  more  ap- 
propriate name  for  the  cover,  as  well  as  the  title-page."  He  acknow- 
ledges that  the  title-page  of  his  book  is  faulty,  and  conveys  an  erroneous 
idea.  Now  I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  charge  on  him  the  sentiment 
expressed  by  his  title-page,  as  he  has  to  charge  on  us  what  he  supposes  to 
be  expressed  on  ours.  The  general  assembly,  I  presume,  did  not  de- 
termine, precisely,  what  the  title-page  should  be,  but  left  that  matter  to 
the  publishing  committee. 

But,  for  argument  sake,  I  will  admit  that,  strictly  and  properly,  the 
confession  of  faith  may  be  called  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  ;  but,  I  say,  it  is  not  a  constitution  of  our  manufacture.  The 
framers  of  that  book  collected  into  a  small  space,  and  arranged  systemati- 
cally, the  doctrines  taught,  and  the  principles  of  church  government  in- 
culcated throughout  the  Bible  ;  for  every  article  of  faith,  and  for  every 
important  principle  of  action,  they  have  referred  to  the  chapter  and  verse 
where  it  is  taught.  To  make  a  constitution,  is  to  originate  something 
which  did  not  before  exist.  To  collect  together,  in  chapters  and  sections, 
existing  laws,  admitted  to  be  as  binding  before,  as  after  their  being  thus 
arranged,  is  an  entirely  different  matter.  The  former,  as  our  confession 
says,  would  be  usurpation ;  the  latter  is  lawful  and  right.  The  former 
we  did  not  do ;  the  latter  we  did. 

But  Dr.  Fishback,  in  his  confession,  says,  the  church  in  Lexington  is 
"  independent  in  her  constitution  and  government,  of  all  other  churches  ;*' 
and  it  certainly  embraces  one  very  important  doctrine,  to  which  many  of 
them  would  by  no  means  subscribe.  I  mean  the  doctrine  of  total  hered- 
itary depravity.     He  says : 

"  Her  whole  system  of  religion  is  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, which  comprehend,  as  we  understand  the  Scriptures,  the  original 
creation  of  man  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God ;  his  fall  and  the  loss  of 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  841 

that  image,  together  with  the  loss  of  union  and  communion  with  God  ;  and 
that  by  sin  man  became  involved  in  pollution  and  death  ;  as  by  it  all  his 
posterity  have  begun  to  exist  out  of  fellowship  with  God,  and  have  come 
into  the  world  without  the  knowledge  or  love  of  Him,  and  without  power, 
moral  or  natural,  to  relieve  themselves  from  that  state  of  ignorance,  car- 
nality, and  death.  This  is  what  we  call  total  depravity,  (and  which  I  would 
call  '■^hereditary  depravity .-")  all  that  makes  man  to  differ  from  this  state  for 
the  better,  is  owing  to  the  interposition  and  effect  of  divine  grace  and 
mercy." 

This  doctrine,  which  forms  a  prominent  part  of  the  creed  of  the  church 
in  Lexington,  is  pronounced  by  Mr.  Raines,  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  cho- 
sen committee,  a  libel  on  human  nature!  Whilst  discussing  the  design 
of  baptism,  I  read  an  extract  from  an  article  written  by  Dr.  Fishback, 
and  published  in  the  Harbinger,  showing  that  the  Doctor  does  not  believe 
in  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  of  baptism  in  order  to  remission  of  sins — that  he 
pronounces  it  an  exclusive  and  sectarian  dogma  !  Here  we  have  a  most 
striking  exhibition  of  the  unit}'  of  faith  amongst  the  leading  ministers  in 
the  gentleman's  church  !  Mr.  Campbell,  Dr.  Fishback,  and  Mr.  Raines — 
three  of  this  committee  of  war,  contradict  and  denounce  some  of  the  most 
prominent  points  in  each  other's  creed  ! 

But  I  proved  that,  whilst  Mr.  C.  is  denouncing  Presbyterians  and 
other  denominations,  for  attempting  to  make  a  constitution  for  the  church, 
he  is  laboring  to  accomplish  the  very  same  thing!  What  is  his  reply  ? 
He  says,  that  offering  a  series  of  resolutions  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  making  a  constitution.  When  a  man  offers  a  series  of  resolutions, 
embodying  principles  designed  to  be  the  basis  of  the  organization  of  a 
body,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  he  does  what  he  can  to  form  a  constitution. 
If  Mr.  C.  has  not  succeeded  in  making  a  constitution  for  his  churches, 
the  fault  is  not  his.  He  has  done  all  that  he  can.  He  has  drafted  the 
resolutions,  the  articles,  and  offered  them  for  the  consideration  and  adop- 
tion of  the  churches.  The  only  reason  of  his  failure  is  the  fact,  that  they 
have  not  been  willing  to  adopt  his  constitution. 

But  why  did  he  offer  those  articles  to  the  churches  ?  If  his  people  be- 
lieved what  he  taught  them,  how  could  they  adopt  them  ?  He  has  taught 
thera  to  glory  in  having  the  New  Testament  as  their  only  constitution. 
Now  he  teaches  them  principles  precisely  opposite,  and  urges  them  to 
adopt  his  constitution  !  !  ! 

The  gentleman  appears  to  be  rather  in  an  ill  humor  at  the  remarks  I 
made  concerning  the  rapid  increase  of  members  in  his  churches.  He 
tells  you,  he  desires  sound  argument — he  is  not  willing  to  turn  aside  for 
every  trifle.  The  audience  know  perfectly  well,  that  I  was  only  replj^ing 
to  an  ad  captandum  argument  which  he  had  urged.  He  boasted  of  the 
unprecedented  increase  of  his  numbers.  1  replied,  that  he  had  himself 
said,  that  error  often  travels  faster,  and  gains  more  converts,  than  truth  ; 
that  the  Mormons  have  increased  in  numbers  faster  than  his  churches; 
and  that  if  we  were  to  judge  of  the  goodness  of  a  cause  by  the  rapid  in- 
crease of  converts,  the  weight  of  argument  would  be  against  him.  He 
now  tells  us,  this  is  all  irrelevant ;  and  he  desires  that  I  would  not  answer 
his  popular  appeals  !  At  one  time  he  charges  me  with  not  following  him  ; 
and  at  another,  he  complains  of  my  pressing  upon  him  too  closely.  I 
cannot  please  him. 

But  he  asks,  whence  came  the  Shakers  ?  And  he  would  have  you  be- 
lieve, that  our  creed  made  them.  I  answer,  they  were  great  reformers. 
Like  Mr.  C,  thev  gained  a  wonderful  amount  oi  new  light,  and  denounced 

4B 


842  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

all  the  world  as  groping  in  midnight  darkness,  blind-folded  by  a  designing 
clergy.  One  part  of  these  reformers,  called  New  Lights,  headed  by  Bar- 
ton W.  Stone,  who  discovered  that  Jesus  Christ  was  only  a  creature,  are 
now  quite  orthodox  members  of  Mr.  C.'s  church  !  About  the  year  1801, 
they  proclaimed  that  the  Millenium  had  commenced — that  the'  true  light 
had  gone  forth  among  the  people  !  And  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  their  claim 
to  be  reformers,  and  to  constitute  the  church,  was  about  as  valid  as  that 
of  my  friend,  Mr.  C.  Some  of  those  who  denied  the  old  and  tried  doc- 
trines of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  gloried  in  their  new  light,  reformed 
rather  too  much,  and  became  dancing  Shakers  !  The  work  of  reformation 
is  sometimes  hazardous.  Reform  is  the  watchword  of  every  demagogue 
and  of  every  fanatic. 

Mr.  Campbell  is  confident,  that  if  our  Savior  were  to  visit  the  earth,  he 
would  not  acknowledge  a  church  that  has  a  wrong  name.  His  churches 
have  found  it  somewhat  difficult  to  determine,  whether  they  would  be 
called  Disciples  or  Christians.  I  believe,  however,  they  have  pretty  ge- 
nerally agreed  on  the  latter.  We  are  told,  that  the  followers  of  Christ 
were  first  called  Christians  at  Antioch ;  but  whether  the  name  was  assu- 
med by  themselves,  or  given  them  in  reproach  by  their  enemies,  is  a 
mooted  question.  I  do  not  say,  that  names  are  wholly  unimportant ;  but 
I  have  learned,  as  well  from  the  history  of  the  past,  as  from  occurrences 
in  our  day,  that  the  more  destitute  persons  are  of  that  which  commands 
the  approbation  or  the  respect  of  men,  the  more  solicitous  they  are  about 
the  name.  Persons  who  claim  descent  from  noble  families,  but  retain  in 
their  character  few  or  no  traces  of  nobility,  rarely  neglect  an  opportunity 
of  speaking  of  their  ancestry.  Papists,  who  possess  less  of  true  catholi- 
city than  any  people  on  earth,  are  most  offended,  if  you  refuse  to  call 
them  Catholic.  The  less  men  have  of  a  desirable  thing,  the  more  noise 
they  make  about  the  name.  It  is  a  universal  weakness  of  human  nature. 
The  Savior  and  his  apostles  attached  great  importance  to  things,  not  to 
names. 

But  the  Presbyterian  church  has  a  scriptural  name — a  name  certainly 
given  by  inspiration.  In  the  New  Testament  we  read  both  of  Presbyters 
and  Presbyteries ;  we  do  not  find  the  word  Reformer — a  name  to  which 
our  friends  do  not  seriously  object — applied  to  Christ's  disciples.  Now 
what  is  a  Presbyterian  church,  but  a  church  having  Presbyters  and  Pres- 
byteries ?  We  have  a  Bible  name.  So  far,  then,  we  are  up  with  our 
friends  ! 

My  friend  Mr.  C.  manifests  some  impatience  at  my  calling  on  him  to 
define  the  boundaries  between  faith  and  opinion.  He  tells  you,  that  I 
know  the  diff'erence  perfectly  well.  I  desired  him  to  tell  us  the  diff'erence, 
because  I  intended  to  prove,  so  soon  as  he  did  so,  that  he  and  his  church 
have  practically  disregarded  their  own  principles  on  this  subject.  He 
has  given  us  his  explanation.  He  says,  where  there  is  testimojiy,  there 
is  faith  ;  where  there  is  no  testimony,  there  is  no  faith.  Every  point, 
then,  concerning  which  the  Scriptures  give  us  testimony,  is  a  matter  of 
faith,  not  of  opinion.  Now  let  me  ask  the  gentleman,  do  the  Scriptures 
give  us  testimony  concerning  the  future  state  of  the  wicked — whether 
they  are  to  be  finally  saved  or  eternally  lost?  He  admits  that  they  do; 
and  in  a  long  discussion  with  a  Universalist,  he  proved  it.  This,  there- 
fore, is  a  matter  oi'  faith.  How,  then,  I  emphatically  ask,  could  he  re- 
ceive Mr.  Raines,  who  did  not  believe  this  article  of  faith,  but  was  avow- 
edly a  Universalist  in  sentiment?     And  how  could  he  consistently  call  on 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  8-13 

him  to  state  whether  he  held  Universalism  as  a  matter  oi  faith,  or  only 
as  an  opinion?  How  could  he  receive  him,  when  he  declared  his  disbe- 
lief of  this  cardinal  doctrine  of  tlie  Bible  ?  He  goes  for  agreement  in 
faith,  liberty  in  opinion  ;  and  yet  he  receives  a  man  as  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  who  avows  his  disbelief  of  a  very  important  doctrine,  concerning 
whicli  the  Scriptures  very  distinctly  testify  !     Is  this  union  in  faith  ? 

Again — Do  the  Scriptures  give  us  testimony  concerning  the  character 
of  Christ — whether  he  is  a  creature,  or  God  equal  with  the  Father  ?  The 
gentleman  admits  that  they  do  give  us  clear  testimony  on  this  point. 
Then,  according  to  his  principles,  it  is  a  matter  o^  faith,  not  of  opinion. 
How,  then,  could  he  unite  with  Barton  W.  Stone,  who  boldly  denies  the 
true  and  proper  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God?  As  I  have  before  remarked, 
between  the  published  faith  of  Mr.  Campbell,  and  of  Mr.  Stone,  on  this 
cardinal  doctrine,  there  is  an  infinite  diflerence — a  ditference  as  great  as 
between  the  words  finite  and  infinite — creature  and  creator.  The  one 
makes  him  a  creature ;  the  other  believes  him  to  be  the  mighty  God. 
What  an  immeasurable  difference  between  the  foundations  on  which  they 
professedly  build !  Here  is  a  difference  vast  as  eternity  between  these 
two  gentlemen,  concerning  a  point  of  faith — one  of  the  most  important 
points  presented  in  the  Bible.  Yet  they  have  united  in  one  church — pro- 
fessedly having  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism!  Now  I  ask  yon, 
my  friends,  what  sort  of  christian  union  is  this  ? 

My  friend,  Mr.  C,  tells  us,  that  in  his  church  they  do  not  carry  up  ap- 
peals from  one  court  to  another.  He  may  now  consider  this  an  excellence 
in  his  church  government;  but  our  civil  government,  the  very  best  in  the 
world,  is  managed  on  very  different  principles.  I  presume  no  intelligent 
citizen  of  these  United  States  would  be  willing  to  give  up  his  right  of 
appeal.  All  consider  their  rights  better  secured  by  the  right  of  appeal 
from  the  county  court  to  the  court  of  appeals.  And  Mr.  C  himself, 
though  he  formerly  occupied  different  ground,  has  recently  been  contend- 
ing for  the  right  of  appeal.  I  will  read  a  brief  extract  from  the  Millenial 
Harbinger,  (New  Series,  vol.  v.  p.  54,)  hoping  to  read  more  on  this  point 
hereafter : 

"  The  right  of  prayer  is  not  more  natural,  nor  necessary,  than  the  right 
of  appeal.  There  is  no  govei-nment,  or  state,  or  family,  that  can  subsist 
without  it.  It  was  a  part  of  every  religious  institution  before  the  christian  ; 
and  if  it  be  no  part  of  it,  it  is  a  perfect  anomaly  in  all  social  institutions." 

The  right  of  appeal  is  here  declared  to  be  both  clear  and  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  the  existence  of  the  church ;  but  the  difficulty  in  the  gentle- 
man's church — the  insuperable  difhculty,  is,  that  there  is  no  ecclesiastical 
tribunal  to  which  their  members,  when  suffering  injustice,  can  appeal. 
To  what  body  can  they  appeal?  We  have  church  courts  from  the  ses- 
sion, composed  of  the  pastor  and  elders  of  a  particular  church,  to  the  ge- 
neral assembly  of  the  whole  church.  His  church  has  none.  They  en- 
joy not  the  right  of  appeal,  though  as  clear  as  the  right  of  prayer,  and 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  church !  What  would  be  the  condition 
of  our  country,  if  the  right  of  appeal  were  admitted ;  and  yet  there  were 
no  courts  above  that  of  the  magistrate?  In  Mr.  C.'s  church,  there  is  a 
difference  of  opinion  on  this  important  subject — some  contending  earnest- 
ly for  the  right  of  appeal,  as  clearly  scriptural,  and  others  denying  it  alto- 
gether. Hence  they  are  not  likely  very  soon  to  have  any  thing  of  the 
nature  of  courts  of  appeal ;  though  Mr.  C.  considers  the  right  essential 
to  the  very  existence  of  the  church. 


844  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

Dr.  Pinkerton,  the  gentleman  says,  denies  having  said  that  Calvinism 
is  atheistic.  If  he  will  give  a  copy  of  his  lettei*  to  me,  containing  a  chal- 
lenge to  a  public  discussion,  I  will  prove  that  one  of  the  points  he  under- 
took to  establish,  was,  that  the  confession  of  faith  teaches  what  is  tanta- 
mount to  AtheisTU.  And  if  Calvinism  is  tantamount  to  Atheism,  pray 
what  is  the  difference  between  it  and  Atheism  ?  How  much  better  is  it 
than  Atheism?  I  would  not  give  a  farthing  for  the  difference.  I  am  not 
in  the  habit  of  stating  facts  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  prove. 

I  must  now  notice  another  argument  of  the  gentleman,  against  creeds. 
He  states  that,  during  the  first  two  hundred  years  of  the  christian  era,  there 
was  no  written  creed.     To  this  argument  I  reply : — 

1st.  During  those  two  hundred  years,  the  church,  as  he  told  you  the 
other  day,  was  overrun  with  errors  of  all  kinds.  Nay,  he  asserted  that 
almost  all  the  errors  of  popery  originated  during  that  period.  Though  I 
do  not  admit  it  was  so  corrupt  as  he  has  represented  it,  it  is  certain  that 
many  injurious  errors  had  marred  its  beauty  and  impaired  its  strength. 
Thus  we  see  how  the  church  prospered  without  creeds.  Now,  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years,  the  Presbyterian  church  has  preserved  her  sound- 
ness of  faith  and  purity  of  practice.  She  is  not  by  any  means  so  corrupt 
as  the  church  had  become  at  the  close  of  the  second  century.  She  is  as 
pure  as  when  she  threw  off  the  shackles  of  popery,  and  took  the  Bible 
alone  as  her  infallible  guide.  Without  a  creed,  she  would  doubtless  have 
long  since  been  overrun  with  errors  of  all  kinds.  We  may,  therefore, 
learn,  from  the  early  corruption  of  the  church,  how  important  it  is  to  have 
a  scriptural  creed.     The  argument  is  in  our  favor. 

2d.  For  a  length  of  time  after  the  apostolic  age,  the  language  of  the 
Scriptures,  as  used  bjj^  professing  christians,  retained  in  a  good  degree  its 
definiteness  of  meaning.  But  as  the  distance  from  the  apostles  became 
greater,  and  errorists  multiplied,  new  ideas  came  to  be  commonly  attach- 
ed to  the  language  of  inspiration  ;  and  it  became  impossible,  as  it  confess- 
edly now  is,  to  know  a  man's  faith  by  the  mere  fact  of  his  using  Bible 
words  and  phrases.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  tfiat  the  church  should 
be  more  watchful.  .lohn  said — " 'i'ry  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of 
God,  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world  ;"  1  John 
iv.  1.  Errorists  used  the  language  of  the  Scriptures.  Therefore  the  plan 
was  adopted  of  agreeing  upon  something  like  an  ouUine  of  the  doctrines 
and  truths  of  the  Scriptures — of  inquiring  of  tliose  who  desired  to  enter 
the  ministry,  whether  tliey  so  understood  them.  So  do  we.  This  is  a 
sufficient  reply  to  the  argument. 

Let  me  now  close  my  remarks  on  the  reception  of  Universalists  into 
Mr.  C.'s  church.  Mr.  Raines,  vvhen  received,  distinctly  stated,  that  lie 
still  held  Universalist  sentiments.  He  agreed  to  hold  them  as  opinions, 
and  not  to  propagate  them.  Yet,  according  to  Mr.  C,  the  Scriptures 
give  clear  and  positive  testimony  against  this  opinion  of  Mr.  Raines. 
Of  course,  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  a  mat- 
ter oi  faith,  not  of  opinion. 

But  Mr.  Raines  was  going  to  preach  the  gospel ;  and,  consequently, 
he  was  most  solemnly  bound  to  keep  back  nothing — "  to  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God."  But  how  was  it  possible  for  him  to  do  this,  when 
he  held  an  opinion  which  he  now  admits,  and  Mr.  C.  tlien  believed,  to 
be  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apostolic  doctrine  ?  In  a  discourse  of  his, 
in  the  Christian  Preacher,  he  says  : 

"  It  is  my  intention  to  endeavor  to  prove,  laconically  and  positively,  that 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  845 

Universalism  is  not  only  not  a  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  but  that  it 
is  most  palpably  contradicted  by  many  testimonies  found  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  And  in  order  to  do  this,  I  will  in  the  first  place  prove,  that 
there  are  throe  distinct  classes  of  salvation  taught  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  that  the  fundamental  assumptions  of  Universalists,  on  which  Universal- 
iera  is  predicated,  are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apostolic  doctrine  rela- 
tive to  these  salvations." 

Mr.  Raines  held  a  doctrine  which  he  agreed  to  call  an  opinion ;  but 
which,  as  he  now  admits,  i.s  flatl)'^  contradictory  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles.  Yet  he  was  received  by  Mr.  C.  as  having  with  him  and  his 
churches  the  one  faith.'  The  church  of  Rome  manages  this  matter  bet- 
ter. She  also  makes  a  distinction  between  faith  and  opinion ;  but  she  de- 
termines the  boundaries  between  them  thus :  All  the  points  on  which 
Iier  councils  can  agree,  are  called  doctrines ;  and  those  concerning  which 
they  differ,  are  opinions. 

I  need  not  now  stay  to  prove,  that  B.  W.  Stone  and  his  followers  are 
Unitarians.  My  friend,  I  think,  will  not  deny  it.  If  he  does,  I  will  im- 
mediately ])rove  it.  Unitarians  deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  It  matters  not 
whether  they  be  high  Arians,  or  low  Socinians  ;  they  equally  rob  him  of 
his  glory.  The  >Scrij)tures  require  all  men  to  "  honor  the  Son  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father;"  Jolin  v.  28.  Can  a  Unitarian  do  this?  If  he  be- 
lieves him  to  be  a  creature,  will  he  not  honor,  or  ratlier  dishonor,  him  as 
a  creature  ?  I  care  not  for  the  difference  between  Arianism  and  Socinian- 
ism.  There  is  an  infinite  distance  between  the  most  exalted  finite  being 
and  the  infinite  and  eternal  God.  Both  Arianism  and  Socinianism  rob 
Christ  of  all  his  glory.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  christian  union 
with  persons  hokiing  sentiments  so  erroneous,  so  dishonoring  to  God,  and 
so  fatal  to  the  hopes  of  men. — [Time  expired. 

Friday,  Dec.  1— U  o'clock,  P.  M 
I^MR.  Campbell's  seventh  address.] 
Mr.  President — It  is  sometimes  expedient  and  necessary  to  carry  the 
war  into  Carthage,  and  try  what  sort  of  a  defence  the  Carthaginians  can 
make  at  home.  From  the  assaults  made  upon  us,  and  the  defence  of 
creeds,  you  might  imagine  that  the  Westminster  confession  produced  the 
most  perfect  harmony  of  views,  and  the  most  cordial  attachment  amongst 
all  its  members — that  it  was  a  palladium,  a  sovereign  shield  against  error, 
heresy,  and  schism.  Well  now,  is  such  the  fact?  Are  they  who  sub- 
scribed it  perfectly  united  in  opinion,  and  in  an  affectionate  and  holy  co- 
operation ?  Nothing  is  more  contrary  to  fact  than  such  an  assumption  !  I 
have  some  little  acquaintance  with  a  few  distinguished  men  of  that  denomi- 
nation, and  I  am  acquainted  with  many  of  tiieir  writers,  (being  a  constant 
subscriber  to  some  of  their  most  po[)ular  and  authoritative  works.)  I  there- 
fore speak  advisedly  on  this  subject.  I  shall  quote  one  of  their  most  dis- 
tinguished men  who,  before  he  left  them  and  joined  the  Episcopalians, 
occupied  a  very  high  place  in  the  esteem  of  the  denomination.  I  allude 
to  Andrew  Wylie,  D.  D.,  president  of  the  college  at  Bloomington,  Indi- 
ana. I  have  had  some  acquaintance  with  this  genUeman  for  thirty  years; 
having  been  my  neighbor,  while  president,  first  of  Jefferson,  and  then  of 
Washington  college,  Pennsylvania,  both  of  them  under  Presbyterian  in- 
fluence. This  gentleman,  a  few  years  since,  published  a  tract  on  creeds ; 
in  which  he  says,  he  never  knew  a  Presbyterian  minister,  who  believed 
all  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith,  taking  the  words  in  thejr  fair 

4b2 


846  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

constructive  sense.  So  speaks  one  of  the  most  gifted  men,  whose  an- 
cestry, for  I  know  not  how  long  back,  were  strict  Calvinists,  of  the  old 
Presbyterian  order- 
Perhaps  not  one  minister  in  one  hundred  of  that  denomination,  believes 
all  that  book,  called  the  Westminster  Creed — the  constitution  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  Now,  if  they,  notwithstanding  all  these  differences  of 
opinion  and  modes  of  interpretation,  can  still  unite  and  co-operate  in  one 
community,  why  may  not  those  who  take  the  Bible,  and  yet  do  not  agree 
in  ail  their  opinions,  co-operate  in  one  society? 

But,  of  those  who  concur  with  Dr.  Wylie,  I  must  quote  some  others. 
Hear  a  few  words  from  Dr.  Bishop's  Plea  for  United  Christian  Action. 
The  Doctor  says : 

"  To  what  extent  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  doctrines  exists  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  tlie  present  generation,  very  few, 
I  am  persuaded,  are  prepared  to  say  with  any  degree  of  exactness.  But 
were  we  to  compare  the  present  state  of  opinion  with  what  is  known  to 
have  been  the  state  of  opinion  among  the  divines  of  a  former  generation, 
who  are  now  admitted  to  have  been  orthodox,  the  result  likely  would  be, 
that  we  are  not  more  divided  on  any  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  West- 
minister confession  of  fiiith,  than  the  fathers  of  that  age  themselves  were. 
Baxter  and  Owen,  for  instance,  are  readily  appealed  to  by  almost  every  min- 
ister of  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  standards  of  correct  theological  opin- 
ion ;  and  yet  these  men  have  given  very  different  explanations  of  some  of 
the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  Westminister  confession  ;  and  neither 
of  these  men  went  in  all  things  with  the  assembly.  Nor  have  we  any  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  divines  of  the  assembly  themselves,  in  their  final 
vote  upon  the  most  of  the  articles  in  the  confession,  were  agreed  upon  any 
other  principle,  than  the  principle  of  compromise.  An  approximation  to- 
wards unity  of  opinion  as  to  the  best  modes  of  expressing  our  individual 
views  of  divine  truth,  is  all  tliat  ever  can  be  obtained  in  our  adherence  to  a 
public  creed." — Beecher's  Trial,  p,  18. 

But  who  is  it  that  has  read  iVeale's  history  of  the  Puritans,  that  does  not 
know  that  even  the  authors  and  finishers  of  the  Westminster  faith,  deliv- 
ered two  hundred  years  ago  to  the  British  parliament,  did  not  themselves 
believe  it?  Perhaps,  amongst  them  all,  the  whole  of  it  was  believed; 
while  not  one  man  believed  it  all.  It  was  adopted,  item  per  item  ;  some 
dissenting  here,  and  some  dissenting  there,  while  for  each  there  was  a 
majority  in  the  detail;  and  upon  the  final  vote  in  the  aggregate,  a  majority 
for  all,  upon  the  principle  of  compromise.  Hence  the  confession  Avas 
never  signed  by  the  men  who  made  it ! 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  while  the  authors  of  that  document,  and  those 
who  subscribed  to  it,  differ  as  to  their  opinions  on  various  points  within 
it,  still  they  love  one  another  and  co-operate  in  a  christian  spirit,  while 
maintaining  and  teaching  the  grand  doctrines  of  the  book.  Very  far  from 
it!  I  will  give  a  specimen  from  a  book  that  I  hold  in  my  hand,  in  which 
are  found  many  savory  morsels  of  this  sort.  It  is  Dr.  Beecher's  trial. 
His  good  bi-other.  Dr.  Wilson,  of  Cincinnati,  in  a  very  fraternal  way, 
commends  his  reverend  brother  Beecher  as  being  addicted  to  the  sins  of 
falsification  and  hypocrisy.  These  are  but  two  of  six  grievous  chcrges 
brought  against  Dr.  Beecher  by  his  good  brother  Wilson,  as  follows  : 

IV.  Specification:  "  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  the  sin  o?  slander :  viz  , 
In  belying  the  whole  church  of  God,  by  bringing  odium  on  all  who  sincerely 
receive  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church,"  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 

VI.  Specification:  "  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  the  sin  of  hypocrisy ;  I 
mean  dissimulation  in  important  religious  matters  :"  "  In  entering  the 
Presbyterian  church,  without  adopting  her  standards,"  &c.,  &c. 


DEBATE  ON  HITMAN  CREEDS.  847 

As  this  is  no  very  pleasant  task  imposed  on.  me,  I  will  make  as  little 
do  as  possible.  I  merely  design  to  show  how  these  bonds  of  union  and 
communion  work  in  the  details  of  ecclesiastic  co-operation,  and  how 
much  they  promote  brotherly  kindness  and  charity. 

But  we  are  represented  as  having  in  our  community  persons  who  hold 
and  teach  very  different  doctrines  on  important  subjects  :  such  as  total  de- 
pravity, Unitarianism,  &c.  Suppose  this  were  the  fact,  we  are  only 
neighborlike,  it  would  appear.  But  the  gentleman  has  not  proved  this 
yet.  He  speaks,  indeed,  of  different  views  of  the  phrase  "  total  deprav- 
ity,''^ as  found  amongst  some  of  us.  But  this  is  a  question  of  the  schools, 
and  not  found  in  our  confession  of  faith  at  all ;  and  therefore  some  of  our 
preachers  have,  it  would  seem,  spoken  irreverently  of  this  doctrine  of  the 
schools,  and  without  any  fear  of  the  clergy  before  their  eyes.  One  says 
it  is  total,  and  another  says  it  is  not  total.  One  speaks  of  its  totality  as 
respects  the  whole  man,  in  all  his  parts,  body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  another 
as  respects  its  degrees:  one  affirming  that  persons  may  grow  worse  in 
one  sense ;  another,  that  they  are,  in  another  sense,  so  depraved  at  first, 
that  they  cannot  deteriorate,  &c.,  &c.  Some  of  our  brethren,  too,  accuse 
the  Presbyterians  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity ;  because 
they  assign  to  fallen  man  the  power  of  acquiring  the  knowledge  of  God, 
without  revelation,  &c.,  &c.  All  this  may  suit  very  well,  to  show  off 
signs  of  conflict  between  our  theory  and  practice ;  but  it  is,  so  far  as  our 
principles  are  implicated,  wholly  unimportant  and  irrelevant.  It  is,  I  say, 
unimportant ;  because  one  speaks  of  total  depravity  as  in  the  confession  ; 
another  of  total  depravity  as  in  the  Bible  :  and  both  discuss  the  doc- 
trine only  as  an  index  of  theological  opinions  amongst  the  sects ;  while 
all  agree,  that  man  is  fallen  and  depraved,  and  without  the  interposition 
of  the  Messiah  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  be  saved. 

But  Unitarianism  is  also  preached  amongst  us.  So  says  Mr.  Rice. 
If  so,  I  know  it  not.  For  my  part,  I  know  and  acknowledge  no  man  as 
a  brother,  preaching  Unitarianism  amongst  us.  I  say  again,  that  I  nei- 
ther know  of  any  such  person,  nor  do  I  acknowledge  any  such  person  as 
a  fellow-laborer  with  me.  I  must  have  the  case  made  out — fully  made 
out  before  it  is  tried.  We  have,  indeed,  in  our  communion,  persons  who 
have  been  Unitarians,  Roman  Catholics,  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians, 
Methodists,  Deists,  sceptics,  &c.  But  that  they  are  such  now,  is  not  true. 
And  should  any  one  accuse  us  of  holding  communion  with  those  who 
teach  Romanism,  Methodism,  Unitarianism,  or  scepticism,  we  charge  him 
with  bringing  against  us  a  railing  accusation. 

But  the  gendeman  flings  out  in  broad  cast  his  calumnies,  rather  than 
his  arguments,  and  endeavors  to  merge  the  whole  question  of  creeds  in 
attempts  to  arraign  our  profession,  and  our  efforts  at  reformation.  He  has 
just  now  read  a  short  passage  out  of  this  book,  a  notice  of  the  union  of 
the  Burghers  and  of  the  Anti-burghers — and  alledges  either  as  a  fact  or  an 
argument,  rather  as  both,  that  as  they  were  separated  by  the  confession 
of  faith,  they  have  been  united  and  reconciled  by  it.  I  presume  that  I 
know  the  history  of  that  matter  a  litde  better  than  his  author  or  himself. 
It  was  not  the  confession  that  has  brought  them  together.  But  so  far 
as  they  have  been  brought  together,  it  was  the  Regium  donum,  this  royal 
bounty,  or  bonus,  that  accomplished  it.  Some  thirty-five  years  ago,  it 
was  proposed  by  the  government  of  England,  in  order  to  loyalize  the 
dissenters  from  the  by  law-established  creed  and  government  church,  to 
confer  upon  them  some  annuity,  or  sum  of  money,  to  be  distributed  amongst 


848  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

the  congregations,  on  condition  that  they  would  be  reconciled  to  each  oth- 
er, and  unite  as  one  denomination.  And  as  these  two  bodies  of  Presby- 
terians could  not  obtain  the  Regium  donum  in  any  other  way,  after  some 
considerable  sparring,  they  made  such  legal  approaches  to  each  other,  as 
secured  the  royal  salary.  But  that  it  extended  no  farther,  is  apparent 
from  the  fact,  that  where  there  was  no  bounty,  there  was  no  union ;  for  in 
this  country,  the  same  two  denominations,  here  known  as  Unionists  and 
Seceders,  are  not  yet  united.  The  union  was  effected  no  farther  than 
the  Regium  donum  was  concerned.  It  was  the  sole  cause,  and  the  whole 
extent  of  that  union.  Some  conscientious  ministers  held  out  against  it, 
some  two  or  three  of  both  denominations.  But  they  got  no  guineas. 
Til]  finally  besieged  into  acquiescence,  they  all,  with  one  exception,  took 
the  bonus,  and  then  politically  united.  So  much  for  the  gentleman's  con- 
fession of  faith  having  re-united  the  Burghers  and  Anti-burghers  of  Scot- 
land and  Ireland  !  ! 

The  gentleman  is  not  yet  satisfied  with  his  former  attempts  at  defence 
from  the  denial  of  the  Westminster  confession,  as  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States.  He  will  balance  the  account 
by  a  critique  on  the  outside  cover  title  of  this  volume,  called  "Christian- 
ity Restored."  That  is  not  the  title  affixed  by  me  on  any  book  written 
by  me.  The  book-binder's  label  on  the  cover,  and  the  author's  title  page, 
are  very  different  facts,  in  reason  and  in  law.  That  is  no  sort  of  ofTset; 
and,  certainly,  there  is  not  the  same  excuse  and  explanation  with  refer- 
ence to  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  Because,  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  supreme  courts  of  tliat  church,  it  is  frequently  so  denom- 
inated— I  say,  that  the  general  assembly  itself  has  so  denominated  it  in 
its  various  enactments  upon  the  subject.  The  synods  and  councils  of 
that  church  do  not,  as  before  said,  call  the  confession  of  faith,  or  a  portion 
of  it,  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  but  the  forms  of  discip- 
line and  government,  together  with  the  confession,  form  the  constitution 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  North  America.  It  is  so  regarded  and 
universally  received.  Destroy  this  constitution,  and  the  Presbyterian 
church  is  no  more.  That  such  is  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  Mr.  Rice,  however  adverse  to  the  disclosure  of  the  fact,  cannot 
possibly  escape  from  it. 

We  sometimes  condemn  christians  for  going  a  begging  to  the  world — to 
Satan's  kingdom,  to  raise  means  and  facilities  for  supporting  the  church 
of  God.  But  the  Presbyterian  church  has  greatly  transcended  any  other 
denomination  in  this  particular — that  they  get  the  constitution  of  their 
church  from  the  world — from  a  political  government.  If  there  be  any 
world  beyond  the  church,  or  any  kingdom  of  Satan  in  the  world,  then,  in- 
deed, their  constitution  came  from  tiiat  department.  I  ask  the  question, 
who  made  this  book?  The  answer  is,  the  Westminster  assembly.  And 
who  were  the  Westminster  assembly  1  The  answer  is — a  body  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  men,  elected,  summoned,  convened,  arranged,  direct- 
ed and  paid  by  the  parliament  of  England.  There  were  put  into  it,  as  a 
component  part  of  it,  ten  lords,  twenty  commoners.  No  council,  church, 
or  association  ecclesiastic,  elected,  appointed  or  commissioned  any  one  to 
have  any  thing  to  do  in  it.  The  parliament  had  its  own  political  views 
and  designs,  and  it  elected  just  such  persons  as  it  regarded  favorable  to 
these  policies  and  designs.  Of  the  whole  number  of  clergy  selected, 
scarcely  more  than  sixty  were  in  regular  attendance.  The  parliament 
not  only  set  a  guard  over  them  in  the  ten  lords  and  twenty  commoners, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  84$ 

but  they  would  not  allow  them  to  choose  their  own  speaker  or  chairman. 
When  they  met,  they  had  not  the  selection  of  a  single  topic,  nor  the  dis- 
cussion of  a  single  subject  left  to  their  discretion.  All  was  prescribed  to 
them  by  their  pay-masters  in  parliament.  They  were  told  when  and 
where  to  begin,  and  where  to  stop.  They  gave  them  for  a  commence- 
ment, the  thirty-nine  articles  to  masticate  and  digest.  They  spent  ten 
long  weeks  in  debate  upon  some  fifteen  of  these.  They  laid  aside  that 
subject  and  took  up  another,  when  parliament  bade  them.  But,  after 
some  one  thousand  and  ten  sessions,  at  four  shillings  sterling  per  diem, 
they  drew  out  their  splendid  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church — 
though,  even  then,  parliament  would  not  disperse  nor  adjourn  them — for 
the  truth  is,  they  neither  adjourned  themselves,  nor  were  adjourned  accor- 
ding to  law.  After  a  change  of  government,  or  the  restoration  of  Charles, 
each  man  returned  quietly  home  to  his  own  place.  The  gentleman  says, 
it  has  not  been  much  amended  ;  at  least,  he  so  considers  it.  Of  course, 
then,  his  church  has  got  its  constitution  from  the  celebrated  Rump  parlia- 
ment, as  it  was  afterwards  most  scientifically  called. 

That  it  was  made  by  men  in  the  flesh,  and  of  the  flesh,  not  like  our  con- 
stitution, v/ill  appear  still  more  evident  from  an  examination  of  the  spirit 
infused  into  the  old  Presbyterians,  who  first  adopted  it.  In  their  history 
we  shall  clearly  see  how  it  operated.  It  is  true,  that  some  Episcopalians 
were  summoned,  and  some  Independents,  and  some  Eraslians.  But  onlj' 
one  bishop  attended,  I  think,  for  one  day.  Five  Independents,  indeed, 
continued  almost  all  the  time.  But  two  Erastians  were  present,  (and  the 
great  Selden,  the  greatest  man  in  that  body,  was  one  of  them,)  because 
the  parliament  that  dictated  to  them  and  controlled  them  were  Erastians, 
whose  distinguishing  maxim  was  :  Tliat  there  was  no  Divine  right  for 
any  kind  of  church  government;  that  whatever  form  the  state  enacted  was 
best;  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  a  state  affair,  and  ecclesiastically  indif- 
ferent. I  am  glad  to  see  a  new  work,  recently  from  the  American  press, 
giving  an  account  of  these  matters  in  part,  M-ith  which  I  found  it  neces- 
sary, in  the  commencement  of  our  efforts  against  these  human  inventions 
many  years  ago,  to  make  myself  familiar. 

I  have  said,  that  neither  the  Episcopalians  nor  Independents  had  much 
to  do  in  furnishing  these  documents;  and,  therefore,  we  must  look  to 
Presbyterians  to  understand  the  spirit  of  the  constitution  of  that  society. 
That  it  was  heretical,  schismatical  and,  withal,  proscriptive,  even  to  per- 
secution, I  am  constrained  to  show,  in  support  of  my  thesis. 

In  the  ratio  of  tkeir  power,  the  majority  of  that  assembly  and  the  clergy 
in  London,  and  round  the  county,  who  sympathized  with  them  in  doc- 
trine, associated  to  proscribe,  and  did  for  a  time  succeed  in  prohibiting  the 
reading  of  the  liturgy  of  the  English  church  ;  and,  indeed,  by  statutory 
law,  inhibited  it  in  all  public  assemblies.  Not  content  with  this,  Neale 
says,  vol.  iii.  p.  291 : 

"  The  Presbyterian  ministers,  despairing  of  success  with  the  commons, 
instead  of  yielding  to  the  times,  resolved  to  apply  to  the  house  of  lords, 
who  received  them  civilly,  and  promised  to  take  their  request  into  consider- 
ation ;  but  no  advances  being  made  in  two  months,  they  were  out  of  all 
patience,  and  determined  to  renew  their  application  ;  and  to  give  it  the 
greater  weight,  prevailed  with  the  lord  mayor  and  court  of  aldermen,  to 
join  with  them  in  presenting  an  address,  which  they  did,  January  16 — "  For 
a  speedy  settlement  of  church  government,  according  to  the  covenant,  and 
that  no  toleration  might  be  given  to  popery,  prelacy,  superstition,  heresy, 
profaneness,  or  any  thing  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  and  that  all  private  as- 
54 


S50  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CTREEDS. 

semblies  might  be  restrained."  The  lords  thanked  them  for  their  zeal,  au'' 
recommended  it  to  the  city  magistrates  to  suppress  all  such  unlawful  assem 
blies  ;  but  the  houses  were  not  to  be  moved  as  yet  by  such  disagreeable  impos- 
tunity  ;  however,  this  laid  the  foundation  of  those  jealousies  and  misunder- 
standings between  the  city  and  parliament,  which  in  the  end  proved  the 
ruin  of  the  Presbyterian  cause.  " 

Matters  were  still  carried  farther.  They  went  against  toleration,  as  a 
sin  not  to  be  endured.  They  represent  it  as  a  sort  of  Pandora's  box,  preg- 
nant with  all  errors  and  sins.     Neale  says,  vol.  iii.  pp.  386,  387  : 

"  The  last  error  they  witness  against,  and  in  which  all  agree,  is  called 
"the  error  of  toleration,  patronizing  and  promoting  all  other  errors,  heresies 
and  blasphemies  whatsoever,  under  the  grossly  abused  notion  of  liberty  of 
conscience;"  and  here  they  complain  as  a  very  great  grievance,  'That 
men  should  have  liberty  to  worship  God  in  that  way  and  manner  as  shall 
appear  to  thera  most  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  ;  and  no  man  be  punished 
or  discountenanced  by  authority  for  the  same ;  and,  that  an  enforced  uni- 
formity of  religion  throughout  a  nation  or  state  confounds  the  civil  and 
religious,  and  denies  the  very  principles  of  Christianity  and  civility.'" 

Again  and  still  worse  :  I  must  read  another  extract  from  Neale ;  and  1 
shall  give  no  other  comment  on  it  than  what  that  candid  and  impartial 
historian  himself  gives  by  way  of  preamble  to  it  in  the  words  following, 
to  wit:  pp.  483,  484. 

"  To  return  to  the  parliament,  which  was  now  recruited  with  such  Presby- 
terian members  as  had  absconded,  or  deserted  their  stations,  while  the  army 
was  quartered  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city  ;  these  gentlemen,  finding 
they  had  the  superiority  in  the  house,  resumed  their  courage  ;  and  took  the 
opportunity  of  discovering  their  principles  and  spirit,  in  passing  such  a  law 
against  heretics  as  is  hardly  to  be  paralleled  among  Protestants.  It  had 
been  laid  aside  by  the  influence  of  the  army  for  above  nine  months,  till  May 
ist,  when  it  was  voted  that  all  ordinances  concerning  church  government 
referred  to  committees,  be  brought  in  and  debated;  and  that  the  ordinance 
concerning  blasphemy  and  heresy  be  now  determined,  which  was  done  ac- 
cordingly. This  was  one  of  the  most  shoclcing  laws  I  have  met  with  in 
restraint  of  religious  liberty,  and  shows  that  the  governing  Presbyterians 
would  have  made  a  terrible  use  of  their  power  had  they  been  supported  by 
the  sword  of  the  civil  magistrate.  Tlie  ordinance  is  dated  May  2nd,  1648, 
and  ordains,  "  That  all  persons  who  shall  willingly  maintain,  publish  or  de- 
fend, by  preaching  or  writing,  the  following  heresies,  with  obstinancy,  shall, 
upon  complaint  and  proof,  b}-  the  oaths  of  two  witnesses,  before  two  jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  or  conlession  of  the  party,  be  committed  to  prison,  with- 
out bail  or  mainprize,  till  tiie  next  jail  delivery  ;  and  in  case  tlie  indict- 
ment shall  then  ba  found,  and  the  parly  upon  his  trial  shall  not  abjure  his' 
said  error,  and  his  defence  and  maintenance  of  the  same,  he  shall  sutler  the 
pains  of  death,  as  in  case  of  felony,  without  benefit  of  clergy  ;  and  if  he  re- 
cant or  abjure,  he  sliall  remain  in  prison  till  he  find  sureties  that  he  will 
not  maintain  the  said  heresies  or  errors  any  more  ;  but  if  he  relapse,  and  ia 
convicted  a  second  time,  he  shall  suffer  death  as  before. 

The  heresies  or  errors  are  these  following  eight,  of  which  I  only  mention 
the  7th  &  8th. 

7th.  The  denying  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  the  word  of  God. 

8th.  The  denying  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  a  future  judg- 
ment. " 

Such  was  that  love  of  civil  liberty  and  toleration  infused  into  the  good 
old  orthodox  Presbyterians,  wlio,  as  my  friend  Mr.  R.  says,  never  clianged, 
and  who  have  always  been  distinguished  for  their  love  of  liberty!  I  do 
not  think,  indeed,  that  these  men  would  attempt  such  things  now.    They 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  S51 

iiave  read  Locke  on  Toleration,  and  the  spirit  of  the  age  has  dispossessed 
the  demon  of  partizaa  zeal  to  a  very  great  extent;  at  least,  it  has  taken  away 
the  horn  of  his  power.  The  papal  see  itself,  in  the  day  of  its  glorious 
power,  went  no  farther  in  black-letter,  than  did  the  creed-party  in  the  day 
of  their  strength.  The  parties  were  then  in  power,  and  they  forgot  right. 
The  truth  of  this  reason  is  incontrovertible;  it  is  a  part  of  English  histor)% 
and  found  in  the  rolls  of  her  parliamentary  acts. 
Other  points  of  error  were  punished  by  other  penalties  not  quite  so  severe. 

"  The  ordinance  proceeds  to  specify  some  other  errors  of  less  demerit,  and 
says:  Tiiat  whosoever  shall  maintain  or  defend  thern  shall,  upon  convic- 
tion by  the  oaths  of  two  witnesses,  or  by  his  own  confession  before  two  jus- 
tices of  peace,  be  ordered  to  renounce  the  said  error  or  errors  in  the  public 
congregation  of  the  parish  from  wiience  tlie  complaint  comes,  or  where  the 
offence  was  committed,  and  in  case  of  refusal  he  shall  be  committed  to  prison 
till  he  find  sureties  that  he  shall  not  publish  or  maintain  the  said  error  or 
errors  any  more.  The  errors  are  these  following : — being  sixteen  in  number, 
of  which  I  only  mention  the  11th,  because  it  respects  one  of  our  proposi- 
tions. 

11th.  That  the  baptism  of  infants  is  unlawful  and  void  ;  and  that  such 
persons  ought  to  be  baptized  again. " 

Various  other  passages  are  marked  here,  to  the  same  effect.  I  will 
read  them  if  necessary.  I  only,  however,  desire  a  clear  and  full  sample — 
a  mere  proof  of  my  position.  That  human  creeds  are  heretical  and  schis- 
matical  is  clearly  evinced,  I  should  judge,  is  fully  demonstrated  by  these 
effects  before  us.  Such  demonstrations  are  not,  indeed,  confined  to  Pres- 
byterians. The  Episcopalians  also  took  a  hand  in  this  game.  Baptists 
were  persecuted,  even  unto  death,  in  some  periods  of  their  reign.  In 
England  every  proscriptive  edict,  in  some  six  months  after  its  passage, 
was  imported  into  New  England  or  Virginia,  and  re-enacted  here  under 
similar  pains  and  penalties.  I  am  sorry  to  find,  in  some  of  the  antique 
specimens  of  Virginia  Episcopal  proscription,  the  following  statute  enact- 
ed against  the  poor  old  Baptists  of  the  Old  Dominion: 

*^Copy  of  a  Law  found  in  Hen7iing''s  Stahites  at  large,  vol.  2,  page  165,  Dec. 
1662,  Uth  Charles  II. 

"Article  III. — Against  persons  that  refuse  to  have  their  children  bap- 
tized. 

"  Whereas  many  schismatical  persons,  out  of  their  averseness  to  the  or- 
thodox established  religion,  or  out  of  the  new  fangled  conceits  of  their  own 
hercticall  inventions,  refuse  to  have  their  children  baptized — 

Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid.  That  all  persons  that, 
in  contempt  of  the  divine  sacrament  of  baptism,  shall  refuse,  when  they  may 
carry  their  child  to  a  lawful  minister  in  that  county,  to  have  them  baptized, 
shall  be  amerced  two  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco — halfe  to  the  informer  and 
half  to  the  publique.  " 

This  goes  to  prove,  that  the  Presbyterian  creed  is  not  the  only  one  that 
has,  on  both  sides  of  the  Adantic,  been  schismatical,  proscriptive,  and  her- 
etical, in  the  highest  degree.  Could  Mr.  Rice  reconcile  these  acts  of  Pres- 
byterians with  the  love  of  civil  liberty  and  equal  rights,  of  which  he  has 
spoken,  he  ought  to  do  it.  But  whether  he  does  or  not,  I  must  again  ex- 
press my  conviction  tliat  they  would  not  now,  as  a  denomination,  if  even 
they  had  the  power  which  they  once  had,  but  which  they  never  can  here- 
after regain,  do  as  their  fathers  did.  Many  of  them,  in  my  acquaintance, 
love  liberty,  and  are  willing  to  extend  it  to  others,  as  well  as  to  enjoy  it 
themselves. 

Touching  the  word  tantamount,  in  allusion  to  a  subject  before-mention 


9S2  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

ed,  may  not  one  say  that  a  certain  principle  of  Calvinism  is  tantamount 
to  paganism  or  lieathenism,  without  incurring;-  the  charge  of  having  said 
that  Calvinism  is  atheism  or  heathenism,  &c.  ? — \_Time  expired. 

Friday,  Dec.  1 — U  o^ clock,  P.  M. 

[mR.    rice's    seventh    REPLY.l 

Mr.  President— 'The  gentleman  tells  us,  that  Dr.  Wiley  has  said^ 
that  he  never  saw  a  Presbyterian  who  believed  the  whole  of  the  confes- 
sion of  faith.  I  have  seen  many  that  believe  it.  When  men  become 
dissatisfied  with  their  church,  and  abandon  it,  they  very  frequently  jus- 
tify themselves  by  making  charges  which  they  cannot  prove.  Such,  we 
have  reason  to  believe,  was  the  fact  in  regard  to  Dr.  W.  Dr.  Bishop's 
remark  bears  not  on  the  subject  before  us.  We  do  not  pretend  to  think 
precisely  alike  on  every  point  in  theology.  Our  confession  of  faith  con- 
tains an  outline  of  the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  we 
believe  it.  But  in  Mr.  C.'s  church  I  have  found  Unitarians,  Universal- 
ists,  and  Materialists.  Can  he  find,  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  any  such 
differences,  concerning  the  essentials  of  Christianity  ?  I  defy  him  to  find 
any  thing  of  the  kind.  Still,  he  says,  there  are  differences,  and  the  au- 
thors of  the  confession  did  not  believe  it.  Let  him  state  them  definitely, 
and  I  will  give  them  due  attention. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  concerning  Dr.  Wilson's  charges  against  Dr. 
Beecher.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  lawfulness  of  creeds.  Dr.  Beech- 
er  might  be  guilty  of  the  charges,  and  still  professedly  receive  the  confes- 
sion of  faith.  Whether  such  was  the  fact,  I  pretend  not  to  decide.  But 
if  arguments  of  this  kind  had  any  thing  to  do  with  the  question  before  us, 
I  could  produce  documents  which  would  bear  somewhat  severely  upon 
Mr.  Campbell.  I  have  a  pamphlet  recendy  published  by  a  Mr.  McVay, 
who  has  been  for  years  a  preacher  in  this  reformed  church,  in  which  he 
prefers,  against  Mr.  C.  and  Mr.  Smith,  his  friend,  very  serious  charges. 
I  will  balance  the  charges  of  Dr.  Wilson  against  Dr.  Beecher,  with  the 
charges  of  McVay  against  Mr.  Campbell,  and,  so  far  as  the  lawfulness 
of  creeds  is  concerned,  the  one  will  weigh  as  much  as  the  other — for  nei- 
ther has  any  thing  to  do  with  it.  The  old  adage  has  wisdom  in  it — ■ 
"  Those  who  live  in  glass  houses,  should  not  throw  stones." 

The  gentleman  makes  a  vain  effort  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Raines  and  Dr.  Fishback.  Mr.  Raines,  he  says,  pronounces  the  doctrine 
of  total  depravity,  as  taught  in  the  confession  of  faith,  a  libel  on  human 
nature,  but  not  the  doctrine  as  held  by  Dr.  Fishback.  Let  us  compare 
Dr.  F.'s  views  of  total  depravity,  with  those  presented  in  the  confession. 

"  The  original  creation  of  man  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God ;  his 
fall,  and  the  loss  of  that  image,  together  with  the  loss  of  union  and  commu- 
nion with  God ;  and  that  by  sin  man  became  involved  in  pollution  and 
death  ;  as  by  it  all  his  posterity  have  begun  to  exist  out  of  fellowship  with 
God,  and  have  come  into  the  world  without  the  knowledge  or  love  of  him, 
and  without  power,  moral  or  natural,  to  relieve  themselves  from  that  state 
of  ignorance,  casualty,  and  death.  This  is  what  we  call  total  depravity, 
(and  which  I  would  call  '■'•hereditary  depravity :")  all  that  makes  man  to  dif- 
fer from  this  state  for  the  better,  is  owing  to  the  interposition  and  effect  of 
divine  grace  and  mercy." 

This  is  the  Doctor's  creed.  It  is  extremely  orthodox  ;  for  it  denies  to 
man  all  ability,  natural  or  moral,  to  relieve  himself  from  his  ignorance, 
pollution,  carnality,  and  death.  Let  us  now  read  the  passage  from  our 
confession,  so  positively  denounced  by  Mr.  Raines : 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  853 

"The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereunto  men  fall,  consisteth  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he  was 
created,  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled  and  made  opposite  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  in- 
clined to  all  evil,  and  that  continually." 

I  should  like  to  see  the  gentleman  point  out  the  difference  on  this 
point,  between  Dr.  Fishback's  creed  and  ours.  Now  hear  what  Mr. 
Raines  says  on  this  subject :  '■'■This  doctrine  is  a  libel  on  human  nature, 
of  the  grossest  kind^  Here  is  christian  union  and  unity  of  faith  for 
you! 

The  gentleman  says,  there  are  no  persons  amongst  his  people,  preach- 
ing Unitarianism  and  Universalism ;  but  he  does  not  deny,  that  there 
are  many  who  believe  these  ruinous  errors.  If  he  can  induce  them  so 
to  compromise  matters  with  their  consciences,  as  that  they  will  refuse  or 
neglect  to  preach  what  they  believe  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  can 
secure  union  by  such  means,  I  am  willing  that  his  reformation  shall  have 
the  full  credit  of  it.  They  believe  those  doctrines  ;  but  they  are  required 
to  call  them  opinions,  and  to  keep  them  to  themselves.  Mr.  Stone,  though 
a  decided  Unitarian,  dares  not  preach  Unitarianism !  So  it  would  seem. 
I  would  leave  the  society  of  all  men,  before  I  would  promise  not  to  preach 
truths  which  I  conscientiously  believe  to  be  taught  in  the  word  of  God ; 
for  all  its  doctrines  are  profitable,  and  every  faithful  minister  is  solemnly 
bound  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God  to  men.  If  there  is  union  in 
a  body  of  men  composed  of  materials  so  utterly  discordant,  most  assuredly 
it  is  not  christian  imio7i. 

I  have  said,  there  is  infinite  difference  between  the  faith  of  Messrs. 
Stone  and  Campbell.  I  wish  now  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  statement. 
In  an  article  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  Stone,  published  in  the  Christian  Bap- 
tist, the  writer  takes  Mr.  C.  to  task,  for  having  published  something  in- 
dicating a  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  Having  presented  seven  ar- 
guments against  this  doctrine,  he  remarks: 

"  If  these  observations  be  true,  will  it  not  follow  indirectly,  that  the 
Word  [di  Iioii,)  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  was  not  the  only  true  God, 
but  a  person  that  existed  with  the  only  true  God  before  creation  began ;  not 
from  eternity,  else  he  must  be  the  only  true  God ;  but  long  before  the 
reign  of  Augustus  Caesar  3"  p.  ?u9, 

Mr.  Stone  denies  that  Christ  is  the  only  true  God,  or  that  he  existed 
from  eternity.  Consequently  there  must  have  been  a  period  when  he 
began  to  exis*.  And  since  he  could  not  have  been  the  author  of  his  own 
existence,  he  must  have  been  a  creature. 

Those  gentlemen  differ  no  less  on  the  subject  of  the  atonement — the 
very  foundation  of  the  gospel.  Mr.  C.  contends,  that  Christ  did  bear  the 
punishment  of  our  sins  in  his  cross  ;  and  Mr.  Stone  denies  it.  The  views 
entertained  by  Mr.  Stone  on  this  subject  are  thus  presented  by  him  in  a 
discussion  with  Mr.  Campbell :  [Millenial  Harbinger,  New  Series,  vol. 
V.  pp.  63,  64.) 

"  How  the  death  of  Christ  bears  away  our  sins,  or  takes  them  away,  I 
will  endeavor  to  illustrate  by.  a  figure.  In  the  early  settlement  of  Ken- 
tucky, a  colony  resided  on  the  border  of  that  country,  continually  exposed 
to  the  bloody  incursions  of  the  Indians.  In  this  colony  was  a  man  of  mark- 
ed benevolence  and  goodness  :  he  was  wealthy,  and  had  a  care  over  all,  that 
none  should  want  the  necessaries  of  life.  He  had  a  son,  the  very  image  of 
himself.  Among  them  also  lived  a  man  of  opposite  character — of  marked 
malevolence  and  wickedness.  He  hated  this  good  man  and  his  son,  and  en- 
deavored to  injure  them  in  their  persons,  property,  and  character,  though  of 

40 


854  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

their  beneficence  he  shared  in  common  with  others.  A  banditti  of  Indians 
passed  by,  and  apprehended  this  wicked  man,  and  hurried  him  off  to  the 
wilderness.  The  good  man  with  pain  and  sorrow  heard  the  news  :  he  call- 
ed his  son  and  told  the  distressing  situation  of  his  neighbor.  My  son,  will 
you  at  the  exposure  or  sacrifice  of  your  own  life,  rescue  him  {  I  go,  father  ; 
and  instantly  stalled — found  the  trace — rapidly  pursued,  and  overtook  them. 
He  saw  the  trembling  wretcii  bound  to  a  tree,  and  the  pile  of  wood  around 
him  ready  to  burn  him,  and  the  Indians  preparing  to  dance  to  his  shrieks 
and  cries.  The  son  rushes  to  the  tree,  cuts  with  his  tomahawk  the  cords 
that  bound  him  :  in  an  instant  the  man  flees  and  evades  the  torture.  But 
the  son  is  apprehended  and  burnt. 

The  wicked  man  now  sees  the  great  love  and  goodness  of  the  father  and 
of  the  son.  He  is  convioiced  of  his  sins  against  them,  and  repents  ;  he  hates 
his  sins,  and  his  hatred  to  the  good  man  and  his  son  is  slain,  taken  away — 
he  is  reconciled.  He  feels  constrained  to  go  to  the  father,  confess  his  sins, 
and  plead  forgiveness.  He  goes  weeping,  humbly  confessing  his  sins,  and 
asks  forgiveness.  I  forgive  you,  said  tlie  father  joyfully,  well  knowing  when 
be  gave  his  son  that  notiiing  else  could  save  the  poor  man,  destroy  his  enmity, 
and  reconcile  him.  Surely  it  was  the  love  and  goodness  of  the  father  and 
his  son,  and  this  love  seen  in  the  death  of  the  son,  that  effected  this  great 
change  in  the  man — that  brought  him  to  repentance,  and  consequently  to 
forgiveness. 

Now  what  efTects  did  the  death  of  the  son  produce  in  the  father'!  Did  it 
produce  in  him  love,  favor,  or  good-will  to  the  wicked  man?  No:  these 
were  in  him  before.  Did  it  dispose  or  make  him  more  willing  to  pardon 
him!  No  :  he  was  always  willing  to  pardon  him  whenever  he  repented  or 
came  within  the  sphere  of  forgiveness.  It  had  no  direct  effect  on  the  fath- 
er ;  it  directly  affected  the  wicked  man  to  a  change  and  repentance  ;  it  in- 
directly effected  pleasure  and  joy  in  the  father  at  the  ciiange  and  repentance 
indirectly  effected  in  the  man  by  the  death  of  his  son. 

The  application  to  our  heavenly  Father  and  to  his  Son  is  easy,  and  sliows 
how  repentance,  forgiveness,  redemption,  sanctification,  and  the  bearing 
away  of  sin,  are  effected  by  love  to  the  believing  obedient  soul.  This  fig- 
ure is  introduced  only  to  show  what  principle  leads  to  repentance  and  for- 
giveness— the  goodness  of  God." 

In  reference  to  this  subject,  Mr.  O.  remarks,  in  one  of  his  replies  to 
Mr.  Stone: — 

'•^Bi~other  Stone — We  are  discussing  the  greatest  question  in  the  world-- 
For  what  did  the  Jlessiah  die?"  p.  258. 

On  page  538,  of  tlie  same  volume,  liaving  copied  into  the  Harbinger 
an  article  from  the  Messenger,  Mr.  Stone's  paper,  in  which  he  proposes 
to  close  the  discussion,  Mr.  Campbell  thus  remarks  : — 

"Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  had  the  painful  intelligence  that 
Elder  Stone  has  been  stricken  with  the  palsy,  and  is  not  likely  to  recover. 
From  recent  accounts,  indeed,  it  is  probable  that  ere  now  he  has  passed  the 
Jordan  and  gone  to  rest.  Under  all  the  circumstances,  I  conceive  it  inex- 
pedient to  prosecute  the  subject  farther  at  present.  The  discussion,  on  my 
part,  was  undertaken  with  a  reference  to  two  points:  The  first,  the  trans- 
cendent importance  of  the  question  itself — For  what  did  Christ  die  1  The 
second,  a  very  general  misconception  and  consequent  misrepresentation  of 
our  views  of  it.  I  did,  I  confess,  expect  that  brother  Stone  would  have 
more  fully  and  satisfactorily  relieved  himself  and  the  cause  of  reformation 
from  the  imputation  of  some  of  our  opponents  on  the  subject  of  Unitarian- 
ism  in  its  sectarian  acceptation.  In  this  respect,  though  measurably  disap- 
pointed, I  am  persuaded  it  will  not  be  without  advantage  to  ihe  cause  of 
reformation,  that  so  much  has  been  written  on  the  subject  in  the  way  of 
discussion — with  one,  too,  ^vho  had  spent  so  many  years  in  debates  and  dis- 
cussions on  that  or  some  kindred  branch  of  the  same  subject." 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  855 

I  have  read  these  extracts  to  show  how  fundamentally  the  two  most 
prominent  men  in  this  reform  church  differ  from  each  other  on  two  of  ihe 
most  important  doctrines  of  the  gospel — the  character  and  the  work  of 
Christ.  In  regard  to  both,  my  friend  Mr.  C.  admits,  that  we  have  Scrip- 
ture testimony,  clear  and  strong.  Both  are,  then,  matters  o( failh,  not  of 
opinio)!.  In  their  faith  concerning  them,  they  differ  radically  ;  and  yet 
they  are  united  in  the  same  church,  and  pi'ofess  to  have  the  one  faith  ! 
In  such  union  I  have  no  confidence  ;  and  to  it  the  Bible  gives  not  the 
least  countenance. 

The  clergy,  the  gentleman  says,  will  unite  if  you  give  them  money. 
I  presume  he  ought  to  know  by  what  motives  he  is  influenced  in  his  reli- 
gious career;  and  we  know  iiow  very  natural  it  is  for  men  to  judge  others 
by  themselves — to  suppose  others  to  be  under  the  influence  which  con- 
trols them.  When  a  man  makes  such  charges  against  others,  without  the 
slightest  evidence  of  their  truth,  we  are  constrained  to  suspect,  that  he 
knows  something  experimentally  on  the  subject.  I  pretend  not  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  the  motives  of  Mr.  C.  ;  but  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  if  I  am 
correctly  informed,  that  he  has,  by  his  various  labors  and  offices,  accumu- 
lated more  wealth  than  any  one  of  the  vejial  clergy,  as  he  considers  them. 
I  venture  to  assert,  that  there  is  not  in  this  country  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter who  has,  by  his  ministerial  labors,  accumulated  the  one-tenth  part  as 
much  as  has  Mr.  Campbell.  And  yet  he  has  not  failed  to  denounce  the 
clergy  as  a  most  corrupt  and  venal  set  of  men  ! ! ! 

Destroy  the  confession  of  faith,  says  Mr.  C,  and  you  cannot  find  the 
Presbyterian  church.  We  could  find  a  body  still  of  quite  as  much  con- 
sistency, far  more  harmonious  in  its  views,  than  his  own  church.  There 
are  hundreds  of  little  independent  democracies  scattered  through  the  coun- 
try, wholly  independent  of  each  other  in  government  and  in  doctrine, 
which  are  claimed  by  him  as  constituting  his  church.  If  our  confession 
were  destroyed,  we  should  still  have  a  much  more  homogenous  and  united 
body. 

The  Westminster  confession,  he  says,  was  a  political  invention,  gotten 
up  for  political  purposes.  It  is  true,  the  parliament  of  England  did  ap- 
point a  large  number  of  learned  and  godly  men  to  prepare  a  creed  accord- 
ing to  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  they,  after  long  and  prayerful  deliberation, 
drew  up  the  Westminster  confession.  It  is  also  true,  that  our  Bible  was 
translated  by  order  of  King  James.  If,  then,  we  are  to  denounce  the 
confession,  because  its  framers  were  called  together  by  political  men,  we 
must,  for  the  same  reason,  denounce  our  translation  of  the  Bible!  The 
argument  is  as  conclusive  in  the  one  case,  as  in  the  otlier.  But  when  I 
have  compared  the  confession  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  found  it  to 
state,  with  remarkable  clearness  and  correctness,  its  great  doctrines  and 
truths,  I  am  not  disposed  either  to  denounce  or  to  reject  it,  because  the 
Westminster  assembly  of  divines  was  controlled  by  parliament. 

The  genUeman  has  labored  to  make  the  impression,  that  creeds  in  ge- 
neral, and  the  Westminster  confession  in  particular,  are  persecuting  in 
their  character  and  tendency.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  day  in  which  the 
Westminster  assembly  met,  few  men  understood  the  rights  of  conscience. 
I  am  not  prepared,  however,  to  admit  the  correctness  of  all  that  Mr.  Neale 
has  written  concerning  Presbyterians.  He  was  a  zealous  Congregation- 
alist,  and,  of  course,  somewhat  under  the  influence  of  his  feelings.  I 
cheerfully  admit,  that  there  were  some  Presbyterians  who  did  not  fully 
understand  the  rights  of  conscience;  but  in  this  respect  they  were  by  no 


856  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

means  peculiar.  It  was  the  error  of  the  age.  All  were,  more  or  less,  un- 
der its  influence.  But  was  this  error  caused  by  creeds  ?  Mr.  C.  ha& 
told  us,  that  he  does  not  believe  that  Presbyterians  would  now  persecute. 
Yet  they  have  their  creed  still,  which,  he  says,  is  the  cause  of  persecution ! 

It  is  true,  that  Mr.  C.'s  church  has  never  literally  persecuted  men  unto 
death ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that  it  has  never  had  the  opportunity  to  perse- 
cute. It  is  yet  quite  a  beardless  youth — only  about  sixteen  years  old  I 
It  does  not  look  well  in  a  youth  in  his  teens  to  denounce  older  persons, 
and  to  boast  what  he  would  do,  when  he  has  never  been  tried.  I  do  not 
charge  the  reformers  with  a  disposition  to  persecute ;  but  I  think  it  out  of 
place,  that  they  should  boast  before  they  are  tried. 

I  have  proved,  that  there  are  in  Mr.  C.'s  church,  Universalists  and  Uni- 
tarians. I  will  now  prove,  that  there  are  Materialists — men  who  deny 
that  man  has  a  soul.  Dr.  Thomas,  formerly  of  Virginia,  since  of  Illinois, 
one  of  Mr.  C.'s  gifted  preachers,  published  a  paper  called  the  Gospel  Ad- 
vocate^ in  which  he  set  forth  and  zealously  defended  the  doctrine,  that 
man  is  composed  of  body,  blood,  and  breath — that  the  word  soul,  in  the 
Scriptures,  means  breath — that  the  righteous  sleep  in  their  graves  till  the 
resurrection — and  pagans,  infants,  and  idiots,  are  annihilated  !  I  will  not 
take  time  to  prove  these  facts,  unless  they  are  called  in  question. 

Mr.  C,  opposed  these  notions  of  the  Doctor ;  but  he  refused  to  heark- 
en to  the  voice  from  Bethany.  At  length  he  held  a  public  discussion 
with  one  of  our  ministers,  in  which  he  defended  these  heresies,  and  was 
about  to  publish  it  in  a  book.  Mr.  C.  then  renounced  fellowship  with 
him,  and  called  on  his  church  to  excommunicate  him.  This,  of  course, 
was  not  schismatical !  It  was  done  quite  ecclesiastically  ! !  All  that  Mr. 
C.  deemed  necessary,  was  to  renounce  and  denounce  him  ! 

Thus  things  went  on  for  a  time;  when  the  two  gentlemen  met,  and 
held  a  public  discussion  of  three  days ;  and,  neither  of  them  being  con- 
vinced, they  became  reconciled,  and  agreed  to  co-operate  in  the  good 
cause  of  reformation.  So  brother  Campbell  and  brother  Thomas  went 
forth  to  enlighten  the  people,  by  preaching  the  gospel ! !  [Mr,  Campbell 
here  denied  that  they  went  forth  together,  and  called  for  proof.]  I  will 
read  the  account  of  their  reconciliation,  and  agreement  to  co-operate,  as 
copied  from  Dr.  Thomas'  paper  into  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  New  Series, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  74,  75. 

"  We,  the  undersigned  brethren,  in  free  consultation,  met  at  the  house 
of  brother  John  Tinsley  Jeter,  at  Paineville ;  and  after  frankly  comparing 
our  views,  unanimously  agreed  upon  the  resolution  subjoined,  and  submitted 
the  same  for  the  consideration  of  brethren  Campbell  and  Thomas  ;  and  bro- 
ther Thomas  agreeing  to  abide  the  same,  all  difficulties  were  adjusted,  and 
perfect  harmony  and  co-operation  mutually  agreed  upon  between  them. 

Resolved,  That  whereas  certain  things  believed  and  propagated  by  Dr. 
Thomas,  in  relation  to  the  mortality  of  man,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked,  having  given  offence  to  many  brethren, 
and  being  likely  to  produce  a  division  amongst  us;  and  believing  the  said 
views  to  be  of  no  practical  benefit,  we  recommend  to  brother  Thomas  to  dis- 
continue the  discussion  of  the  same,  unless  in  his  defence  when  misrepresented. 

Signed  by — Wm.  A.  Stone,  Thomas  E.  Jeter,  et  als.  The  resolution 
being  agreed  upon  by  the  brethren,  brother  C.  and  myself  were  requested 
to  appear  before  them.  The  result  of  their  deliberations  was  reported  to 
us  ;  we  acquiesced  in  the  recommendation  after  a  few  words  of  mutual  ex- 
planation ;  and  having  recognized  our  christian  fraternity,  the  brethren  gave 
in  their  names  to  brother  Stone  to  be  appended  in  the  order  affixed. 

Paineville,  Amelia,  Va.,  Nov.  15th,  1838." 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  857 

Here  we  have  the  reconciliation  and  agreement  to  co-operate.  But  the 
gentleman  says,  they  did  not  travel  the  same  road  together!  No:  Dr. 
Thomas  remained  in  Virginia,  and  still  maintained  his  old  sentiments. 
If  any  thing  could  prove  that  a  man  has  no  soul,  it  would  be  the  fact  that 
he  held  such  doctrines  as  those  held  by  this  reform  preacher !  Dr.  Tho- 
mas held  sentiments  which  are  subversive  of  all  religion  ;  and  yet  he  was 
recognized  by  Mr.  Campbell  as  a  brother  and  a  minister  of  the  gospel; 
and  they  go  forth  co-operating  in  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and 
"restoring  the  ancient  order  of  things!!!"  And  to  this  day,  Thomas,  if 
he  has  not  of  his  own  accord  abandoned  the  church,  continues  to  hold  the 
rank  and  office  of  a  preacher. 

Here  is  christian  union  with  a  witness.  Trinitarians,  Unitarians,  and 
Materialists,  all  preaching  the  gospel  together !  Why,  then,  should  the 
gentleman  attempt  to  exclude  any  thing  from  such  a  church  1  For  it  is 
scarcely  possible  that  any  should  wander  farther  from  the  truth  than  some 
of  these. 

But  in  the  gentleman's  committee,  selected  to  aid  him  in  this  debate,  we 
have  an  illustration  of  the  unity  in  faith  of  his  church.  Mr.  Campbell 
holds,  and  has  labored  faithfully  to  prove,  the  doctrine  of  baptism,  in  or- 
der to  the  remission  of  sins.  Dr.  Fishback  denies  it.  Dr.  F.  holds  the 
doctrine  of  total  hereditary  depravity.  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Shannon 
deny  it ;  and  Mr.  Raines  says,  "  it  is  a  libel  on  human  nature  of  the  gross- 
est kind."  Mr.  Shannon  believes,  that  the  Scriptures  are  adequate  to 
the  conversion  of  men,  without  any  superadded  spiritual  influence.  Mr. 
Raines  says  he  does  not  believe  it !  So  they  go.  Here  we  have  a  most 
edifying  illustration  of  what  the  gentleman  calls  christian  union.  The 
very  committee  who  have  come  up  to  war  against  Presbyterians  and 
"  the  sects,"  are  forced  to  contradict  each  other,  and  to  differ  radically  in 
regard  to  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  gospel !  May  we  ever  be 
preserved  from  such  union  !  The  inspired  writers  know  nothing  of  it. 
it  has  no  countenance  from  the  Word  of  God. 

And  mark  it ! — This  is  the  latest  and  best  edition  of  a  crtuRCH 
WITHOUT  A  CREED  !  Let  US  gain  from  Mr.  Campbell  some  further  infor- 
mation concerning  its  present  state  and  prospects.  I  know  he  would  not 
slander  his  own  church.  DoubUess  his  strong  partialities  would  prevent 
him  from  seeing  and  exposing  many  existing  evils.  We  will  hear  his 
testimony: 

"  But  there  is  a  still  more  delicate  and  responsible  species  of  communion, 
sometimes  called  ministerial  communion,  on  the  proper  exercise  of  which 
most  essentially  depends  the  character,  dignity  and  success  of  the  christian 
ministry,  to  which  we  more  especially  invite  the  attention  of  our  brethren. 
I  lay  it  down  as  a  maxim  not  to  be  questioned,  that  where  there  is  christ- 
ian communion  of  any  sort,  special  or  common,  there  must  be  an  amenabili- 
ty of  the  participants  to  some  common  tribunal,  and  a  mutual  responsibili- 
ty to  watch  over,  and  nourish,  and  comfort  one  another. 

Suppose,  then,  (but  indeed  we  have  not  to  suppose  such  a  case;  for  it 
too  often  happens,)  that  numerous  communities,  each  upon  its  own  responsi- 
bility and  its  own  discretion,  sends  abroad  public  ministers  of  the  Word, 
without  proper  regard  to  tiie  character  and  attainments  of  such  public  func- 
tionaries ;  and  that,  in  their  various  and  extensive  peregrinations,  they  visit 
the  churches  and  commune  with  them  ;  will  it  not  follow  that,  either  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  such  evangelists  and  missionaries  are  responsible  to  those 
churches,  and  to  be  as  subject  to  reproof,  admonition,  and  general  supervis- 
ion as  they  are  entitled  to  the  aids,  encouragement,  and  christian  hospitali- 
ties of  the  congregations  they  visit?     But  is  it  so  amongst  usl  Are  all  our 

4c2 


858  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

public  men  of  such  a  character,  call  and  mission,  as  we  approve'?  Or  are 
not  some  of  them  their  own  messengers,  or  the  apostles  of  irresponsible 
communities — without  piety,  moral  character  or  intelligence  worthy  of  the 
countenance,  esteem,  support  or  affection  of  the  christian  communities'! 
And  shall  we  commune  with  them  and  recognize  them  as  ministers  of 
Christ,  or  the  messengers  and  evangelists  of  his  church,  merely  because 
they  had  either  the  vanity,  self-esteem,  or  boldness  to  assume  an  office  and 
a  character  which  neither  the  church  on  earth  nor  in  heaven  awards  to 
them  '?  ! 

The  cause  of  reformation  has  suffered  more  from  this  portion  of  its  pre- 
tended friends  than  from  all  its  enemies  put  together.  This  state  of  things 
is  indeed  generally  attendant  on  the  incipiency  of  all  public  and  social  insti- 
tutions. But  we  have  had  a  very  large  portion  of  this  unhappy  and  mischiev- 
ous injluence  to  contend  with.  Every  sort  of  doctrine  has  been  proclaimed  by 
almost  all  sorts  oj" preachers,  under  the  broad  banners  and  with  the  supposed 
sanction  of  the  begun  reformation.  We  arc  glad  to  follow,  rather  than  to 
lead  public  opinion  amongst  ourselves  on  this  subject.  Experience  teaches 
with  effect,  what  theory  could  not  accomplish." — Jlill.  Harb.  vol.  vi.  No. 
2,  pp.  63,  64. 

Mr.  Campbell  says  there  must  be  mutual  accountability,  where  there  is 
christian  communion  of  any  sort;  but  Mr.  Fishback  seems  to  go  for  strict 
independency.    But  I  will  read  more  of  this  to-morrow. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 10  o'clock,  Jl.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  eighth  address.] 

Mr.  President — Having  so  often  spoken  of  the  Westminster  in  such 
high  terms  of  admiration  as,  upon  the  whole,  with  all  its  faults,  one  of 
the  best  creeds  in  Christendom  ;  and  having  read  so  much  from  it  already, 
I  shall  voluntarily  read  but  one  other  extract;  which  I  do  for  tlie  sake  of 
giving  it  conspicuity,  and  for  the  sake  of  commending  it  to  the  especial  con- 
sideration of  my  Presbyterian  friends,  and  especially  of  my  friend,  Mr. 
Rice,  as  constituting  one  of  my  main  arguments  against  creeds  : 

"9.  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture,  is  the  Scripture  it- 
self; and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the  true  and  full  sense 
of  any  scripture,  (which  is  not  manifold,  but  one,)  it  may  be  searched  and 
known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

10.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  be 
determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doc- 
trines of  men,  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sen- 
tence we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scripture." — Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  i.  sec.  9,  10,  p.  14. 

In  the  course  of  my  remarks  and  responses  to  the  allegations  brought  for- 
ward by  my  friend,  some  matters  transpired  yesterday  of  a  very  important 
character,  respecting  what  is  here  called  '■'■the  constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church.'"  Mr.  R.  would  represent  me  as  exonerating  the  confession 
of  his  church  from  that  persecuting  spirit  which  characterized  the  framers 
of  it,  and  the  parliamentary  acts  which  enforced  it;  alledging,  moreover, 
that  it  has  lost  its  persecuting  spirit.  That  is  not  the  interpretation  I  put 
upon  it,  nor  is  it  the  true  one.  I  believe  the  same  document,  under  fa- 
vorable circumstances,  would  still  operate  in  the  same  way.  The  people 
and  the  spirit  of  the  age  have  changed,  but  the  spirit  and  body  of  the  con- 
fession is  still  the  same.  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  my 
opinion  is,  that  the  same  document  in  a  society  of  the  same,  or  of  a  simi- 
lar character,  would  produce  the  same  effects  now  as  then.  I  ascribe  the 
change  not  to  the  document,  nor  to  the  party,  but  to  the  spirit  of  tiie  age, 
and  the  superior  light  that  has  gone  forth  into  the  land.     The  spirit  of  a 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  859 

sectary  is  naturally  and  necessarily  an  intolerant  spirit,  and  the  creed  is 
the  great  means  of  cherishing,  developing,  and  maturing  it.  Hence  we 
say,  the  persecution  is  in  the  document,  when  we  ought  rather  to  say,  it  is 
in  the  man  that  solemnly  subscribes  and  obliges  himself  to  believe  and 
teach  it. 

Light,  spiritual  and  divine,  is  not  to  be  confined  by  the  landmarks  and 
boundaries  of  human  legislation.  No  legislative  ordinances,  no  human 
enactments,  can  restrain  the  rising  of  the  sun  or  the  free  communication 
of  its  animating  and  salutary  influences.  No  more  can  ecclesiastical 
canons,  or  the  penal  statutes  of  kings  or  priests,  shut  out  from  our  eyes 
the  direct  and  reflex  light  of  Bible  truth,  which  is  now  pouring  forth  its 
benign  influences  upon  the  whole  social  system  in  this  our  favored  land — 
in  this  our  happy  age.  The  blighting  influences,  of  which  we  have  been 
complaining,  are,  therefore,  not  so  much  to  be  feared  now,  as  in  days  of 
yore.  Sectarianism  has,  indeed,  been  cherished  by  this  document,  and 
is  still  kept  alive  by  it  in  many  hearts,  that  else  had  melted,  under  the  ge- 
nial influences  of  gospel  grace,  and  overflowed  in  all  the  holy  sympathies 
and  tender  affections  of  christian  benevolence.  It  aflbrds  me  no  plea- 
sure to  have  to  go  into  details  of  facts  explanatory  of  the  melancholy  re- 
flection, that  still  the  old  leven  works,  and  that  the  spirit  which  party 
creeds  infuse,  is  wholly  alien  from  the  kind  and  generous  spirit  that 
breathes  in  the  holy  faith,  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  Sorry  indeed  I 
am,  that  the  course  pursued  by  my  friend  yesterday  compels  me  again  to 
advert  to  this  ungrateful  theme. 

The  gentleman  is  making  rather  a  licentious  use  of  my  writings.  He 
brings  up  matters  wholly  extraneous  of  our  agreement  by  correspon- 
dence, and  not  authorized  by  our  rules.  In  any  matters,  relevant  to  the 
matter  on  hand,  I  am  pleased  to  hear  so  much  of  them  transferred  into 
this  discussion  ;  but  to  read  what  has  been  said  against  us  by  our  oppo- 
nents, and  matters  entirely  remote  from  the  question  on  hand,  is  rather 
unauthorized  either  by  usage  or  by  agreement.  What  has  the  document 
read,  concerning  Dr.  Thomas  or  his  views,  to  do  with  the  subject  before 
us  ?  Do  we  fraternize  with  persons  denying  the  resurrection  of  all  the 
dead,  or  that  there  is  a  spirit  in  man  ?  I  do  not.  The  agreement  was 
made,  and  so  far  as  I  assented  to  it,  was  entered  into,  upon  the  conces- 
sions made  by  Dr.  Thomas,  and  the  opinion  then  entertained  by  me,  that 
he  was  himself  really  grieved  in  spirit  for  his  course ;  and  had  also  resol- 
ved, from  conviction  of  its  folly  and  inutility,  to  abandon  it  altogether.  I 
trusted  that  he  had  seen  how  unfounded  were  his  views,  and  so  informed 
my  friends,  whose  hopes  of  his  future  course  were  not  so  sanguine  as  my 
own.  It  has,  indeed,  since  appeared  that  he  has  not  abandoned  them  : 
and,  in  violation  of  that  agreement,  has  gone  on  to  promulge  them,  both 
by  word  and  writing. 

I  cannot  honor  such  a  mode  of  warfare  as  that  pursued  against  our  prin- 
ciples, by  calling  it  legitimate  argumentation.  There  is  much  of  the  non 
causa  pro  causa  in  it,  of  the  substitution  of  false  causes,  and  of  false  ef- 
fects. It  is  indeed  possible  by  assuming  lor  facts,  things  that  never  hap- 
pened, and  by  reasoning  from  them  eitlier  in  the  way  of  illustration  or 
confirmation  of  our  assumptions,  to  make  a  shew  of  reason  and  of  evidence, 
when  there  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

But  if  the  gentleman  is  determined  to  go  into  the  private  details  of  such 
incidents,  by  way  of  oppugning  us,  I  must  shew  what  the  tendency  and 
practice  of  his  church  and  principles  have  been  in  matters  of  this  sort. 


860  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

He  is  only  ministering  to  me  superior  weapons  against  himself.  I  must, 
therefore,  again  illustrate  the  mutual  complaisance  and  reciprocal  esteem 
of  Presbyterian  doctors  for  one  another,  in  a  letter  from  Rev.  Dr.  Miller, 
of  Princeton,  as  introduced  into  Beecher's  trial  and  acquittal.  We  have 
a  character  of  Presbyterian  ministers,  living  in  holy  communion,  that 
startles  me,  not  a  little,  to  see  printed  in  a  Presbyterian  book.  "  Dr. 
Miller's  letter,"  says  Dr.  Wilson,  of  Cincinnati,  page  82,  "  is  truly  cha- 
racteristic. It  exhibits  the  urbanity  of  Dr.  Miller  to  the  life.  It  proves 
the  courtesy  and  kindness  of  that  distinguished  man,  who  wrote  letters  to 
Presbyterians /^rori/ig-  that  some  of  our  ministers  were  guilty  of  offences 
in  the  church  as  heinous  as  swindling,  forgerv,  and  perjury  in  civil 
society,  and  at  the  same  time  protesting  against  a  separation  from  such 
men"  ! ! !  With  how  good  a  grace  a  reproof  comes  from  such  a  quarter 
for  our  winking  at  doctrinal  errors  !  !  Is  not  the  above  an  effectual  reply 
to  all  such  imputations  ?  If  such  be  the  men,  matured  and  perfected,  un- 
der a  matured  and  perfected  system,  now  almost  two  centuries  old  ;  and, 
if  they  are  by  its  operation  constrained  to  keep,  not  only  members,  but 
MINISTERS,  of  such  character  as  depicted  by  these  pious  and  exemplary 
doctors,  are  we  to  be  upbraided  by  them  for  having  some  bold  youthful 
speculators,  upon  some  untaught  questions  ! !  What  are  these  opinions, 
compared  with  ci'imes  as  base  as  "  swindling,  forgery,  and  perjury?" 

We  reprobate  these  opinions  and  speculations,  and  regard  those  as  schis- 
matics and  heretics  who  seek  to  propagate  them.  There  is  no  society  on 
earth,  all  of  whose  members  can  be  perfectly  approbated.  If  principles  are 
thus  to  be  tested,  no  arguments  could  sustain  any  cause .  Even  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  the  conduct  of  every  christian  professor  could  not  be  approbated. 

But  we  must  have  at  least  two  witnesses  to  the  truth,  in  attestation  of 
tlie  operation  of  the  creed  system — I  mean  its  whole  operation  in  doors, 
on  the  faith,  union,  harmony,  and  brotherly  kindness  of  the  creed  sys- 
tem.    I  am  obliged  to  go  into  this  matter  fully  once  for  all. 

"  Preamble  and  resolutions  adopted  by  the  church  of  Harmony,  December 
the  'M,  1840. — Determined  to  preserve  the  spirit  and  principles  of  our  stand- 
ards, as  well  as  the  name  of  Presbyterianism,  at  a  called  meeting  on  the  3d 
of  December,  1840,  well  attended,  the  members  present  unanimously  sub- 
scribed the  underwritten  document. 

"The  members  of  the  church  of  Harmony,  having  met  for  the  purpose  of 
deliberating  upon  the  alarming  posture  of  affairs  in  our  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection, after  mature  reflection,  and  after  solemnly  invoking  Divine  counsel, 
adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  : 

We  have  viewed  with  deep  regret  the  spirit  of  encroachment  upon  what 
we  conceive  to  be  our  rights,  as  members  of  the  old  school  Presbyterian 
church.  We  have  been  pained  to  witness,  since  the  unparalleled  stretch  of 
power  by  the  general  assembly  in  the  sessions  of  '37  and  '38,  that  the 
spirit  of  which  we  complain  has  been  so  actively  and  injuriously  at  work  : 
That  our  ecclesiastical  courts,  in  place  of  being  as  bulwarks,  set  up  for  the 
protection  of  our  religious  privileges,  and  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel,  -ave 
been  converted  into  engines  of  oppression  Have  repeatedly  disregarded 
the  claims  of  justice — violated  the  constitution  of  our  church — and  exhibi- 
ted feelings  at  variance  with  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  in  conformity  to 
the  carnal  policy  of  men,  seeking  rather  to  promote  the  purposes  of  party 
than  the  glory  of  God." 

Observe,  that  those  Presbyterian  congregations  are  taught  to  regard 
the  confession  as  "  the  co7istitution  of  their  church."  Why  should  they 
thus  so  denominate  the  book,  at  this  time,  if  they  were  not  accustomed, 
in  all  their  courts,  so  to  denominate  it? 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS  861 

In  proof  of  what  we  assert,  we  would  refer,  say  they, 

"  I.  To  the  deposition  and  excomniunicalion  of  the  Versailles  session — a  sen- 
tence inflicted  without  trial,  and  through  an  exertion  of  usurped  potaer, 
not  to  be  borne  by  the  citizens  of  a  free  country.'''' 

"  Usurped  power,  not  to  be  borne  by  the  citizens  of  a  free  country." 
Now,  if  Presbyterians  can,  ^^  ivithout  trial,''''  thus  "usurp  power"  not  to 
be  endured,  even  themselves  being  judges,  "by  the  citizens  of  a  free 
country,"  for  the  sake  of  sustaining  the  creed  and  the  form  of  govern- 
ment, have  we,  in  the  least,  exaggerated  the  tendency  of  the  system  of 
human  creed  government,  in  representing  it  as  necessarily  prescriptive, 
tyrannical,  and  schismatical?  Nothing  is  always  tyrannical.  No  despot- 
ism is  forever  active.  Even  the  papal  tyranny  itself  sometimes  sleeps. 
It  is  only  occasionally  that  the  most  iron  despotism  lays  upon  its  subject 
the  rod  of  its  anger.  Occasion  must  call  it  forth  into  action.  It  is  then, 
and  only  then,  when  roused  into  action,  that  all  its  power  and  tendencies 
are  fully  developed. 

"II.  We  refer  to  the  ground  assumed  by  the  leading  men  in  synod,  when 
that  case  was  taken  up  by  appeal — viz.  That  presbytery  had  the  right  to 
cut  off  the  session  without  trial  ;  and  that  synod  might  proceed  in  a  simi- 
lar manner  against  presbytery,  if  circumstances  made  it  necessary. 

III.  We  refer  to  the  public,  repeated  and  undisputed  assertion  of  one  of 
the  leading  men  in  our  church,  '■Hhat  the  dominant  party  felt  themselves  bound 
to  protect  their  minorities'''' — a  principle  at  war  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of 
our  institution  ;  and  which  acted  out,  has  led  to  a  series  of  judicial  investi- 
gations the  most  partial,  and  ice  loould  add,  the  most  disgraceful  ever  placed 
upon  the  records  of  any  court  i?i  our  country,  cither  civil  or  ecclesiastical." 

"Judicial  investigations,  the  most  partial  and,  as  we  believe,  the  most 
disgraceful  ever  placed  upon  the  records  of  any  court  in  our  country, 
either  civil  or  ecclesiastical.'^^  If  the  Presbyterians  themselves  so  speak 
of  their  own  government,  of  the  acts  of  their  own  beloved  ministry,  and 
of  the  bearings  of  their  own  system,  may  we  not  use  this  document  in 
full  illustration  and  development  of  the  truth  of  our  positions  on  this 
question  ? 

"  IV.  We  refer  to  the  trial  and  suspension  of  the  Rev.  J.  C.  Stiles, — a 
proceeding,  in  our  view,  attended  with  circumstances  of  unexampled  con- 
tempt of  every  rule  of  decorum,  and  in  violation  of  the  constitution,  laws 
and  usages  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

1st.  Because  the  mind  of  tlie  religious  community,  a  few  weeks  before 
the  trial  came  on,  was  poisoned  by  a  scandalous  publication  from  the  pen  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Rice,  editor  of  the  Protestant  and  Herald — whose  gross  mis- 
statements and  perversions  of  fact  tended  to  prejudice  the  cause  of  the  ac- 
cused, and  served  to  stimulate  presbytery  to  a  deed,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  the  consummation  of  intemperate  zeal  and  party  violence." 

I  am  not  the  only  person,  then,  that  accuses  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice, 
with  "  gross  perversions  of  fact,"  and  "  gross  misstatements  too."  His 
zeal  for  the  old-fashioned  and  immutable  Presbyterianism,  without  any 
evil  intention  on  his  part,  betrays  him  into  such  a  course  of  action,  as  his 
brethren  feel  themselves,  at  times,  authorized,  according  to  their  views, 
to  call  "gross  perversions  of  fact,"  and  "gross  misstatements  of  fact." 

"  2d.  Because,  according  to  their  own  decision  in  reference  to  the  Ver- 
eailles  session,  presbytery  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case — presenting  them- 
selves and  acting  in  the  fourfold  capacity  of  prosecutors,  judges,  witnesses 
and  jurymen,''^ 

Presbytery,  it  seems,  then,  in  the  judgment  of  Presbyterians  them- 
selves, can  act  in  the  fourfold  capacity  of  prosecutors,  judges,  witnesses, 
and  jury  !  I  have  always  heard  this  objection  to  the  courts  of  that  comrau- 


862  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

nity,  in  such  cases.  It  is  one  of  the  standing  objections  to  tlie  operations 
of  the  system,  so  far  back  as  the  records  of  its  proceedings  have  reached 
us. 

"3d.  Because  the  verdict  was  contrary  to  evidence;  as  the  only  cliarge 
proved  against  him  was  the  public  discussion  of  the  Reform  measures  ;  in 
which  he  stands  justified  by  ihe  free  constitution  of  our  church. 

4th.  Because  they  did  not  grant  him  the  righl  of  appeal  from  their  first 
sentence,  of  which,  according  to  our  booiv  of  discipline,  he  might  avail  liira- 
self  at  any  time  within  ten  days  :  but  immediately  proceeded  to  pronounce 
a  higiier  degree  of  censure,  and  suspend  liim  from  all  the  functions  of  the 
gospel  ministry — they  say,  Ibr  "  contumacy  " — because  he  "  refuses  to  sub- 
mit"  "?(ow)"  to  a  "decision"  declared  above. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  therefore, 

Resolved,  I.  That  the  members  ot  the  Harmony  church  do  avow  it  as 
our  solemn  belief,  that  tlie  hig-li  handed  measures  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts, 
have  inflicted  a  deep  wound  upon  the  cause  of  religion  in  our  land  : — that 
their  attempts  to  repressy)-cf(/o??i  of  discussion  is  a  blow  aimed  at  our  repub- 
lican institutions  ;  and  that  were  we  to  submit  amj  longer  to  these  assumed 
powers,  we  should  consider  ourselves  as  standing-  in  the  altitude  (f  foes  to  hu- 
man liberty.''^ 

Here,  then,  is  "  the  solemn  beUef''  of  the  member?  of  the  Harmony 
church,  that  a  new  institution  ought  to  be  got  up  ;  that  they  would  be 
'■'■foes  to  liberty''''  if  iliey  sliouhl  any  longer  submit  to  "  attempts  to  re- 
press freedom  of  di>iCi(!isio7i,^^  and  "  to  blows  aimed  at  our  republican  in- 
stitutions." Yet  Mr.  Rice  would  have  us  believe  that  the  love  of  liberty, 
of  freedom  of  debate,  and  of  free  institutions,  were  of  the  very  spirit  and 
essence  of  Presbyterianism  ! 

This  may  serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  operations  of  Presbyterians  in  the 
United  States,  for  some  iew  years  past,  especially  since  the  commencement 
of  the  distinctions  between  new  and  old  school  in  that  denomination. 

"  II.  Resolved,  That  we  disclaim  all  connection  with  the  old  school  Pres- 
byterian church;  and  that  we  consider  it  an  imperious  duty,  at  the  present 
crisis,  to  form  a  distinct  presbytery — with  a  view,  at  some  future  period,  of 
connecting  ourselves  with  a  Western  and  Southeim  Presbyterian  ciiurch, 
provided  such  an  one  can  be  organized  free  from  the  taint  of  abolitionism. 

III.  Resolved,  That  the  session  of  the  Harmony  church  attend  the 
convention  to  meet  on  the  18th  of  this  month  at  Lexington,  to  represent 
and  attend  to  the  interest  of  this  church." 

I  will  only  add  to  this  chapter  of  details  of  the  creed  system  a  single 
incident  which  quite  recently  occurred  during,  and  in  the  last  ses- 
sion, of  the  synod  of  Kentucky,  in  this  very  city.  A  worthy  brother 
minister,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Preston,  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  had,  during 
this  last  year,  presumed  "to  break  the  loaf''  some  once  or  twice  with 
our  brethren  at  Georgetown.  Having  been  arraigned  before  presbytery 
for  this  great  ofience,  from  whose  decision  he  appealed  to  synod,  his  case 
came  up  in  order  at  last  session.  Wliile  it  was  before  synod,  and  in 
course  of  trial,  a  veneralile  and  worthy  gentleman  of  many  years  experi- 
ence in  the  ministry,  arose,  and  among  other  very  acceptable  Avords,  said, 
that  he  had  never  heard  these  people  (reformers)  preach,  nor  would  he 
allow  his  children  to  hear  them  preach.  He  judged  it  a  profanation  of 
the  sabbath  to  hear  them  ;  and  that,  "  so  long  as  he  was  able  to  wear  a 
blue  stocking,  he  never  would  hear  them."  Yet  he  could  denounce  them 
as  guilty  of  heresy  and  profanation.  All  this  was  said  in  the  city  of  Lex- 
ington, in  the  year  of  grace,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-three.  Go,  sir, 
not  to  Westminster,  but  to  Rome,  and  ask,  what  proscriptive  and  denuncia- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  863 

tory  measures — what  haughtier  pretensions  to  infallibility,  could  have 
emanated  from  the  genius  of  popery  itself!  But  the  synod  presented  the 
following  resolution : 

[A  copy  of  the  resolution  could  not  be  obtained  by  the  reporters.]] 

The  synod  sustained  the  views  of  the  presbytery,  and  the  gentleman 
withdrew  from  its  jurisdiction.  1  shall  not  expatiate  on  this  trial.  There 
is  one  point  in  it  to  which,  however,  I  must  advert.  It  is  the  fact,  that 
when  this  conscientious  and  independent  brother  was  arraigned  for  trial, 
being  seized  with  hemoptysis,  and  unable  to  speak,  he  was  not  allowed  a 
single  day  to  prepare  for  the  investigation  of  his  case.  Since  the  days  of 
the  Star  Chamber  and  High  Court  of  Commission,  daring  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  I  doubt  whether  any  thing  so  small  as  this  affair,  was  treated 
more  in  the  spirit  of  those  days  of  ecclesiastic  tyranny  and  domination. 

Here,  then,  is  an  intelligent  and  useful  member  of  the  church,  and  min- 
ister of  religion,  set  aside  merely  for  the  sin  of  celebrating  the  Lord's 
supper  with  a  people  whom  the  synod  thought  proper  to  denounce  as 
holding  errors.  They  seem  to  have  forgotten  that  they  themselves  had 
all  been  denounced  by  other  synods  and  councils,  as  reprobate  in  doc- 
trine and  unworthy  of  the  name  of  christians.  Orthodoxy  is,  indeed, 
very  arbitrary  and  whimsical  in  its  decisions.  To-day  it  reprobates  what 
it  commended  yesterday,  and  will  to-morrow  reprobate  what  it  approves 
to-day.  Power  and  numbers  consecrate  every  thing :  hence,  while  par- 
ties are  weak  and  struggling  into  power,  they  are  always  erroneous  and 
heretical  by  those  in  authority;  but  when  they  triumph  over  their  rivals, 
the  sin  of  heterodoxy  no  more  adheres  to  them. 

I  blame  the  system,  not  the  men.  These  creeds  have  always  operated 
in  this  way.  It  is  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  in  contrast  with  those  who 
hold  the  Book  alone,  that  we  pronounce  them  to  be  of  schismatical  ten- 
dency, and  ultimating  in  tyranny  and  oppression. 

Had  I  time  to  accomplish  ii  this  morning,  I  should  glance  at  the  whole 
history  of  the  practical  operations  of  the  Westminster  creed,  from  its  origin 
till  now.  But  that  is  at  present  out  of  the  question.  I  shall,  therefore, 
only  glance  at  its  actual  effects  in  this  western  country  ;  almost  exclusively, 
indeed,  in  this  commonwealth,  in  the  memory  of  one  generation.  Only 
one  class  of  Presbyterians  were  liere  at  the  commencement  of  the  pres- 
ent century.  In  1803,  did  not  the  oppression  of  some  of  its  technical  ab- 
stractions on  Trinity,  cause  the  disseverance  and  disruption  of  the  denomi- 
nation? Arianism,  or  Unitarianism,  as  Mr.  Rice  calls  it,  was  the  result 
of  the  agony  of  that  day.  The  whole  Springfield  presbytery  was  severed 
from  the  denomination,  a  part  of  it  turning  Arian,  and  another  part  termi- 
nating in  Shakerism.  I  call  these  results  by  the  names  which  the  people 
of  that  day  imposed  on  them.  An  abstract,  dogmatic  and  erroneous  nom- 
enclature, gave  birth  to  these  new  forms,  by  whatever  name  they  should 
be  called.  Indeed,  this  unscriptural  vocabulary,  this  metapliysical  jargon, 
has  been  the  occasion  of  much  the  larger  part  of  all  the  strife  and  partyism 
of  Protestantism.  Think  only  of  the  unscriptural  terms,  'Eternal  Son,' 
'eternal  (generation,'  'eternal  procession,'  '  eternal  justification,' '  Trinity,' 
'  Triune  God,'  'con-substantial,'  'co-eternal,'  &c.  &c.  Here  are  terms 
and  phrases  no  inspired  man  ever  used,  and  no  sane  man  ever  understood. 
These  v/ild  abstrusities  beget  a  speculative  habit;  and  men,  with  a  little 
conceit,  and  a  litUe  pliilosophic  pride,  getting  into  controversy  on  tiiese 
mystic  points,  soon  generate  feuds  ;  and,  if  they  are  only  a  little  self- 
willed  and  conscientious,  a  new  sect  or  party  will  be  the  result.     Latitu- 


864  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

dinarian  comments,  and  new  modes  of  construction,  gave  birth  to  those 
two  American  parties,  called  "  Newlights,"  and  "  Shakers." 

Extremes  beget  each  other.  Only  contemplate  the  fanaticism  of  the 
Shakers,  growing  out  of  a  Presbyterian  education.  They  supposed  them- 
selves moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  some  new,  direct  or  immediate  way ; 
and,  therefore,  commenced  hoAvling,  barking,  leaping,  jerking,  and  other 
spasmodic  operations.  No  pagan  fanaticism  ever  did  transcend  some  of 
the  scenes  said  to  have  been  transacted  at  the  commencement  of  the  pres- 
ent century,  in  this  good  commonwealth,  under  the  reaction  of  the  creed- 
system.  A  latitudinarianism  of  interpretation,  of  thinking,  speaking,  act- 
ing, rarely  equalled,  never  surpassed,  was  the  genuine  revulsionary  opera- 
tion of  the  then  reigning  system,  upon  that  peculiar  class  of  mind  subjected 
to  those  influences.  Like  combustion,  fanaticism  cannot  be  developed, 
without  the  proper  materials  and  circumstances. 

I  am  not  speaking  of  the  Scotch  Cameronians,  the  good  old  solemn 
league  and  covenant  Covenanters,  nor  of  other  English,  Scotch  and  Irish 
Presbyterians — I  am  speaking  of  the  Kentucky  Presbyterians  of  the  pres- 
ent century.  And  whence  came  the  Cumberlanders — the  Presbyterians 
on  the  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  sides  of  that  sacred  river  ?  Was  it  not 
the  oppression  of  the  creed,  in  some  of  its  doctrinal  and  disciplinary 
parts  ? 

Was  it  not  the  high  ground  taken  by  some,  and  the  efforts  to  impose 
their  views  and  constructions  upon  others  ?  The  same  causes,  operating 
upon  diflerent  minds,  on  particular  subjects,  generally  terminate  in  the 
formation  of  some  new  denomination,  and  that,  too,  upon  some  particular 
point  or  points.  This  new  denomination,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  now 
nearly  equals  the  old  Presbyterians  in  the  same  districts  of  country. 
When  to  these  you  add  the  late  general  schism,  which  is  not  confined  to 
Kentucky  or  Tennessee,  but  whicli  extends  over  all  the  states,  where  Pres- 
byterianism  exists,  and  count  the  sixty  thousand  new-school  neuclens  and 
the  old  school,  we  have  four  schisms  in  forty  years  ;  or  rather,  for  one  old 
Presbyterian  church  we  have,  through  the  instrumentality  of  one  party 
and  its  creed,  no  less  than  five  communities.  Has  not  the  Westminster 
wrought  well  in  the  way  of  increase  of  parties  in  this  valley  ? !  A  fruitful 
mother  of  discords  truly  ! !  This  is  a  proof,  strong  and  clear,  within  the 
memory  of  the  living  men  around  us.  Contemplate  Shakerism,  New- 
lightism,  Cumberland  Presbyterianism,  New-schoolism  and  Old-school- 
ism,  and  what  a  powerful  argument  to  sustain  my  position,  that  human 
creeds  are  heretical  and  schismaticalJ  It  was  the  creeds  and  their  inter- 
pretation that  caused  all  this  discord  and  strife.  Every  one  of  these  par- 
ties began  about  something  within  the  creed.  How,  in  reason's  name, 
can  these  facts  be  disposed  of! ! 

Many  things  in  the  development  of  social  life,  I  verily  believe  and 
teach,  ought  to  be  let  alone.  When  men  indulge  in  speculations,  so  long 
as  they  do  not  presume  to  propagate  them,  better  to  let  them  alone. 
What  v/ould  Mr.  Rice  have  done  with  such  persons  as  Dr.  Thomas  ? 
What  would  our  Westminster  divines  have  done  with  Elder  B.  W.  Stone  ? 
They  would,  according  to  their  construction  of  his  opinions,  certainly  have 
either  cut  off  his  head  or  hanged  him  by  the  statute  read  from  Neale.  I 
do  not  say  the  Kentucky  Presbyterians  would  now  do  this.  I  speak  of 
their  fathers,  about  the  year  1648.  I  read  you  on  yesterday  an  act  which 
said  that  Unitarians  should  "  die  without  benefit  of  clergy."  Under  that 
statute,  it  would  have  gone  equally  hard  with  the  Materialist.     But  as  the 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  865 

Savior  said  he  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them  ;  so  we 
prefer  to  save  men's  lives  by  the  gospel  rather  than  to  destroy  them. 
Hence  I  sought  to  save  some  of  those  speculators,  until  my  friends  sup- 
posed I  almost  sympathized  with  their  opinions.  I  cheerfully  say,  I  do 
not  approve  of  all  that  Barton  W.  Stone  has  written  and  said,  yet  I  believe 
our  society  has  been,  and  is  pursuing  a  most  salutary  and  redeeming  pol- 
icy. Whither  has  fled  the  Newlightism  of  former  days  ?  How  long 
will  its  speculations  be  remembered,  that  lloated  on  the  winds  of  thirty 
years  ? ! 

Presbyterians,  and  all  the  other  parties  in  the  field,  could  not  dispose  of 
it,  till  the  pleaders  for  the  reformation  arose  in  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land.  They  have  indeed  disposed  of  it  in  such  a  way,  as  to  lead  the 
honest  and  candid  into  more  scriptural  and  consistent  views  and  practices, 
and  to  paralyze  and  silence  the  uncandid  declaimers  upon  these  specula- 
tions. 

New  generations  will  now  grow  up  under  new  influences.  The  off- 
spring of  those  persons  propagating  erroneous  speculations,  will  grow  up 
under  new  influences.  The  Bible  and  its  facts,  and  new  associations,  will 
make  of  them  a  new  people.  They  will  rally  round  the  banners  of  the  ori- 
ginal institutions  of  Christ.  They  will  place  themselves  upon  the  naked 
book  of  God  alone.  If  they  err  and  do  wrong,  the  Bible  will  set  them 
right  again.  They  may  go  wrong  for  a  time,  but  they  are  in  the  safe- 
keeping of  apostles  and  prophets,  while  at  school  with  the  Great  Teacher 
and  the  holy  Twelve.  These  teachers,  should  they  err,  will  set  them  right 
again.  I  believe  we  have  done  a  good  work,  for  which  even  the  Pres- 
byterians should  thank  us,  in  removing  out  of  their  way  what  they  could 
not;  and  for  correcting  errors  growing  out  of  their  own  misinterpretations 
of  the  Directory  of  God,  Avhich,  with  all  their  learning,  ability  and  zeal, 
they  failed  to  vanquish! — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 10|  o'clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  eighth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — My  friend,  Mr.  C.,  who  would  seem  to  know  intui- 
tively what  errors  will  die,  if  let  alone,  and  which  must  be  killed ;  also 
sees  with  no  less  clearness,  that  under  certain  circumstances,  the  West- 
minster confession  would  lead  to  persecution.  Will  he  please  to  put  his 
finger  on  one  passage  or  sentiment  in  it,  that  even  distantly  looks  towards 
persecution  ?  From  the  first  chapter  to  the  last,  there  is  not  one  that  con- 
tains an  illiberal  or  persecuting  tenet.  I  deny  that  it  ever  did,  in  any  age, 
induce  any  man  or  class  of  men  to  persecute.  No  creed  produces  perse- 
cution, unless  it  embodies  persecuting  principles. 

It  would  be  as  unwise,  and  as  decidedly  wrong,  to  attempt  to  force 
men,  by  civil  penalties,  to  embrace  the  Bible,  as  to  compel  them  to  re- 
ceive a  creed ;  and  both  have  been,  at  difierent  times,  attempted.  Our 
Savior  was  condemned  to  death  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bible,  not  to  a  hu- 
man creed.  The  Jews  appealed  to  the  law  of  Moses  against  blasphemy, 
and  said  to  Pilate,  "  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die,  be- 
cause he  made  himself  the  Son  of  God,"  John  xix.  7.  Never  were  there 
more  malignant  persecutions  than  have  been  carried  on  in  the  name  of  the 
Bible,  without  a  human  creed.  The  infidel  might  as  plausibly  maintain, 
that  Christianity  itself  persecutes,  as  Mr.  C.  that  creeds  are  necessarily  in- 
tolerant. Had  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany  a  written  creed  ?  They  had 
not.  Yet  where,  in  the  bistory  of  the  christian  church,  can  you  find  a 
55  4D 


866  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

more  fanatical  and  intolerant  sect  than  they  ?  The  infidels  of  France  hail 
no  creed,  but  where,  in  the  history  of  man,  can  you  find  such  a  scene  of 
diabolical  persecution,  as  characterized  "the  reign  of  terror" — the  period 
of  the  revolution  ? 

If,  then,  it  be  true,  that  in  different  ages  and  nations  men  have  perse-* 
cuted,  in  the  name  of  the  Bible,  without  a  creed,  and  even  without  a  reli- 
gious belief  of  any  kind;  who  can  believe  in  the  philosophy  of  my  friend, 
when  he  makes  creeds  the  cause  of  persecution  ?  There  is  no  error  more 
common  amongst  men,  than  that  of  ascribing  eflects  to  wrong  causes. 
Each  party,  political  and  religious,  is  disposed  to  attribute  existing  or  ap- 
prehended evils  to  causes  which  they  dislike.  In  their  judgments  they 
are  often  controlled  by  prejudices,  contrary  alike  to  philosophy  and  to 
fact.  The  gentleman  says,  creeds  lead  to  persecution.  Let  him,  if  he 
can,  prove,  or  give  even  the  shghtest  evidence,  that  a  creed  not  embody- 
ing persecuting  principles,  leads  to  persecution.  If  men  hold  intolerant 
opinions,  they  will  persecute,  whether  those  opinions  are  committed  to 
writing  or  not. 

The  gentleman  has  repeatedly  expressed  his  particular  gratification  at 
my  reading  so  much  from  his  various  publications.  Then,  again,  he 
complains  bitterly,  as  if  I  were  doing  him  serious  injustice.  This  morn- 
ing he  tells  you,  that  he  never  gave  me  the  right  to  read  his  books  on 
every  subject.  I  ask  him  no  favors  on  this  matter.  I  have  the  right  to 
read  any  thing  he  or  any  one  else  has  written,  bearing  on  the  subjects  un- 
der discussion.  He  has  the  right  to  quote  tlie  confession  of  faith,  or  any 
author  he  may  fancy.  I  have  the  same  right;  and,  therefore,  do  not  ask 
his  permission  to  read  any  or  all  of  his  books,  as  I  may  choose.  He 
may  complain  if  he  will.  I  know  he  feels  unpleasantly  at  having  the 
contradictions  and  absurdities  of  his  books  exposed;  but  I  cannot  help  it. 

I  was  not  a  little  surprised  to  hear  Mr.  Campbell  say,  tliat  he  thought 
Dr.  Thomas,  the  Materialist,  had  abandoned  his  errors.  1  will  again  read 
from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  that  we  may  see  whether  there  was  the 
sliglitest  foundation  for  such  an  opinion  :  - 

"  We,  the  undersigned  brethren,  in  free  consultation,  met  at  the  house  of 
brother  John  Tinsley  Jeter,  at  Paineville ;  and  after  frankly  comparing  our 
views,  unanimously  agreed  upon  the  resolution  subjoined,  and  submitted 
the  same  for  the  consideration  of  brethren  Campbell  and  Thomas  ;  and  bro- 
ther Thomas  agreeing  to  abide  the  same,  all  difficulties  were  adjusted,  and 
perfect  harmony  and  co-operation  mutually  agreed  upon  between  them. 

Resolved,  That  whereas  certain  things  believed  and  propagated  by  I>r-^ 
Thomas,  in  relation  to  the  mortality  of  man,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked,  having  given  offence  to  many  brethren, 
and  being  likely  to  produce  a  division  amongst  us,  and  believing  tlie  said 
views  to  be  of  no  practical  benefit,  we  recommend  to  brother  Thomas  to 
discontinue  the  discussion  of  the  same,  unless  in  his  defence  when  misrepre- 
sented."    Signed  by  some  twenty-four  persons. 

This  is  the  document ;  and  you  observe  that,  so  far  from  confessing 
and  abandoning  his  errors,  Dr.  Thomas  expres.sly  retained  the  right  to 
discuss  them  in  his  defence,  lohen  misrepresented.  If,  afterwards,  there- 
were  mutual  explanations,  in  v/hich  he  retracted  his  errors,  why  was  not 
the  paper  altered  by  striking  out  the  part  which  granted  him  the  right  to 
defend  them?  I  prefer  to  take  the  document  itself,  which  concedes  the 
right,  and  in  connection  with  which,  he  declared  positively  that  his  views 
remained  unaltered.  Dr.  Thomas  has  been,  for  a  number  of  years,  advo- 
cating those  errors ;  and,  if  I  am  correctly  informed,  is  yet  a  member  and 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  867 

a  preacher  in  Mr.  C.'s  church.     Certainly  he  is,  unless  he  has  volunta- 
rily withdrawn. 

.  The  gentleman  seems  to  be  quite  pained  by  the  necessity  of  referring 
to  certain  personal  difficulties  between  several  ministers,  which  have  no- 
thing whatever  to  do  with  the  subject  in  hand.  How  he  feels  about  such 
matters  now,  I  pretend  not  to  know ;  but  I  do  know  that  his  Christian 
Baptist  abounds  with  just  such  attempts  to  injure  the  reputation  of  the 
clergy  of  all  denominations.  Dr.  Miller,  he  informs  us,  charged  certain 
men,  formerly  in  our  church,  with  dishonesty,  in  adopting  our  confession 
of  faith.  This  may  all  be  true,  and  yet  creeds  may  not  be  heretical  and 
schisraatical.  Creeds  are  not  designed  to  detect  dishonest  men.  I  pre- 
sume the  gentleman  will  not  deny,  that  men  may  be  dishonest  in  profess- 
ing to  receive  the  Bible  as  their  only  infallible  guide. 

But  what  is  the  difference  between  Mr.  Campbell's  church  and  ours, 
with  regard  to  errorists  and  unworthy  men  ?  As  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles, some  crept  in  unawares,  so  now,  some  dishonest  men  may  gain  ad- 
mittance into  our  church.  But  in  his,  are  found  Arians,  Socinians,  Uni- 
versalists,  Materialists,  who  have  entered  in  perfect  consistency  with  the 
principles  of  the  church.  The  door  is  wide  enough  to  receive  them,  and 
the  foundation  broad  enough  for  them  to  stand  on.  My  friend  Mr.  C. 
says,  he  will  receive  Unitarians  and  Universaiists.  It  is  one  thing  for 
errorists  to  gain  admittance  to  a  church  under  the  garb  of  a  false  profes- 
sion, and  quite  another  for  them  to  be  received,  whilst  avowing  their  erro- 
neous faith.  [Mr.  Campbell.  I  never  said  so.]  The  gentleman  now 
says,  he  has  never  said  that  he  would  receive  a  Unitarian  or  a  Universal- 
ist !  I  will  prove  that  he  has  said  he  will  receive  them,  if  they  will  use 
the  Bible  words,  and  hold  their  errors  as  opinions.  I  will  read  in  his 
Christianity  Restored,  (pp.  122,  123  :) 

"  I  will  now  show  how  they  cannot  make  a  sect  of  us.  We  will  acknowl- 
edge all  as  christians  who  acknowledge  the  gospel  tacts,  and  obey  Jesua 
Christ.  But.  says  one,  will  you  receive  a  Unitarian  1  No  ;  nor  a  Trinita- 
rian. We  will  have  neither  Unitarians  nor  Trinitarians.  How  can  this 
be !  Systems  make  Unitarians  and  Trinitarians.  Renounce  the  system, 
and  you  renounce  its  creatures. 

But  the  creatures  of  other  systems  now  exist,  and  some  of  them  will 
come  in  your  v/ay.  How  will  you  dispose  of  them  1  T  answer.  We  will 
unmake  them.  Again  I  am  asked,  How  will  you  unmake  them  "?  I  an- 
swer, By  laying  no  emphasis  upon  their  opinions. 

What  is  a  Unitarian  J  One  who  contends  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the 
Son  of  God.  Such  a  one  hos  denied  the  faith,  and  therefore  we  reject  him. 
But,  says  a  Trinitarian,  many  Unitarians  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God  \n  a  sense  of  their  ov/n.  Admit  it.  Then  I  ask,  How  do 
you  know  they  have  a  sense  of  their  own'?  Intuitively,  or  by  their  words'? 
Not  intuitively,  but  by  their  words.  And  what  are  these  words]  Are  they 
Bible  words'?  If  they  are,  we  cannot  object  to  them — if  they  are  not,  WG 
will  not  hear  them  ;  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  we  will  not  discuss  them 
at  all.  If  he  will  ascribe  to  Jesus  all  Bible  attributes,  names,  works,  and 
worship,  we  will  not  light  with  him  about  scholastic  words:  but  if  he  will 
not  ascribe  to  him  every  thing  that  the  first  christians  ascribed,  and  wor- 
ship and  adore  him  as  the  first  christians  did,  we  will  recoct  him,  not  be- 
cause of  his  private  opinions,  but  because  he  refuses  to  honor  Jesus  as  the 
first  converts  did,  and  withholds  from  him  the  titles  and  honors  which  God 
and  his  apostles  have  bestowed  upon  him. 

In  like  manner  we  will  deal  with  a  Trinitarian.  If  he  will  ascribe  to 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  all  that  the  first  believers  ascribed,  and 
nothing  more,  we  will  receive  him — but  we  will  not  allow  him  to  ipply 


868  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

scholastic  and  oarbarous  epithets  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spir- 
it. If  he  will  dogmatize  and  become  a  factionist,  we  reject  him— n&t  be- 
cause of  hia  opinions,  but  because  of  his  attempting  to  make  a  faction,  or 
to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage. 

And  will  you  receive  a  Universalist  too"?  No  ;  not  as  a  Universalist  If 
a  man,  professing  Universalist  opinions,  should  apply  for  admission,  we  will 
receive  him,  if  he  will  consent  to  use  and  apply  all  the  Bible  phrases  in  their 
plain  reference  to  the  future  state  of  men  and  angels.  We  will  not  hearkeo 
to  those  questions  which  gender  strife,  nor  discuss  them  at  all.  If  a  per- 
son say  such  is  his  private  opinion,  let  him  have  it  as  his  private  opinion ; 
but  lay  no  stress  upon  it :  and  if  it  be  a  wrong  private  opinion,  it  will  die  a 
natural  death  much  sooner  than  if  you  attempt  to  kill  it." 

If  the  Universalist  says,  he  holds  his  errors  as  private  opinions,  the 
gentleman  says,  he  will  receive  him,  and  let  him  hold  them  still.  This  is 
precisely  what  I  have  asserted. 

I  think  he  ought  to  have  felt  unpleasantly,  when  he  read  a  document 
passed  by  a  new  school  church  in  this  vicinity.  What  had  it  to  do  with 
the  question,  whether  creeds  are  heretical  and  schismatical  ?  Absolutely 
nothing.  But  it  contains  some  personal  imputations  against  myself, 
thrown  out  under  the  excitement  arising  from  the  suspension  of  a  minister 
to  whom  they  were  attached  ;  and  therefore  it  was,  that  he  read  it !  If  I 
were  inclined  to  return  evil  for  evil,  I  would  read  the  pamphlet  I  hold  in 
my  hand,  published  by  a  Mr.  McVay,  one  of  the  preachers  in  his  church, 
preferring  against  Mr.  C.  very  serious  charges.  It  contains  a  number  of 
certificates,  signed  by  respectable  persons.  This  document  would  be  a  fair 
match  for  the  Harmony  paper.     But  my  cause  requires  no  such  defence. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Preston's  case,  various  false  statements  have  been  pub- 
lished in  the  Harrodsburg  Christian  Journal,  by  certain  anonymous  wri- 
ters. The  gentleman,  by  way  of  showing  the  intolerance  of  the  synod 
of  Kentucky,  states  that  Mr.  Preston,  though  in  bad  health,  was  not 
allowed  a  day  to  prepare  his  defence.  The  facts  of  the  case  are  these  : 
Mr.  Preston  had  two  or  three  times  communed  with  the  reformers — at 
which  conduct  some  of  his  brethren  were  grieved.  He  came  before  the 
presbytery,  and  asked  their  opinion  of  his  conduct.  He  had  not  been  ar- 
raigned— and  was  not  called  before  that  body  to  answer  to  charges  pre- 
ferred against  him.  He  stated  the  fact,  that  he  had  communed  with  a 
church  known  not  to  be  acknowledged  by  ours,  and  asked  their  opinion. 
They  were  prepared  to  give  it ;  and,  after  hearing  his  reasons,  they  said 
to  him — "We  think  your  conduct  is  highly  censurable."  He  appealed 
to  synod.  That  body  heard  him  fully  in  defence  of  his  conduct,  and  then 
expressed  the  same  opinion.  He  was  not  excommunicated  nor  suspended. 
This  is  all.  If  the  gentleman  can  prove  us  intolerant  by  such  evidences, 
he  is  most  welcome  to  do  so. 

But,  to  cap  the  climax,  and  to  prove  unanswerably  how  much  Presby- 
terians are  bent  on  persecution,  the  gentleman  told  you,  that  there  is  living 
in  this  city  a  Presbyterian  minister  who  said,  he  had  not  heard  these  re- 
formers preach,  and  did  not  wish  to  hear  them.  I  supposed,  that  in  this 
free  country,  a  man  had  a  right  to  hear,  or  refuse  to  hear,  whom  he 
pleased,  without  being  justly  chargeable  with  intolerance.  But  I  now 
learn,  that  all  who  think  they  can  better  employ  their  time,  than  by  going 
to  hear  Mr.  C.  or  his  preachers,  are  to  be  branded  as  persecutors  !  It  is, 
indeed,  a  singular  species  of  persecution,  which  consists  in  letting  men 
alone !  I  think  it  within  the  bounds  of  possibility,  that  the  minister  allu- 
ded to  has  read  enough  concerning  the  principles  of  this  new  reformation. 


DEBATE  ON  HUiMAN  CREEDS.  869 

to  determine  that  he  may  spend  his  sabbaths  more  profitably  than  by 
seeking  edification  from  that  quarter. 

But  Mr.  C.  boasts  of  his  liberality.  Yet  when  a  gentleman  in  England 
inquired  of  him,  whether  his  churches  admit  unimmersed  persons  to  com- 
munion, he  answered  in  the  most  unqualified  terms — "  Not  one  of  them, 
as  far  as  known  to  me."  Presbyterians  are  chargeable  with  a  persecuting 
spirit,  if  they  refuse  to  allow  their  members  to  commune  with  the  reform- 
ers ;  but  the  reformers  are  quite  charitable  in  refusing  to  permit  any  unim- 
mersed person  to  commune  with  them  ! ! ! 

My  friend  has  often  displayed  the  extent  of  his  charity  and  liberality 
in  bold  relief.  A  specimen  of  the  kind  is  found  in  his  Christian  Baptist, 
(p.  23.) 

"  Thirdly,  the  worshiping'  establishments  now  in  operation  throughout 
Christendom,  increased  and  cemented  by  their  respective  voluminous  con- 
fessions of  faith,  and  their  ecclesiastical  constitutions,  are  not  churches  of 
Jesus  Christ,  but  the  legitimate  daughters  of  that  Mother  of  Harlots,  the 
church  of  Rome." 

Let  me  give  another  specimen  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  (vol.  i. 
p.  349.) 

"  This  respectable  sect,  [Presbyterians,]  respectable  not  so  much  for  its 
humility,  spirituality,  and  piety  ;  but  respectable  for  its  numbers,  its  wealth, 
and  learning;  for  its  ancient  foundation,  being  only  the  second  daughter  of 
the  second  marriage  of  the  kings  of  the  earth  with  Mistress  Roma  Baby- 
LONA,  now  in  her  third  century,  is  annually  publishing  to  the  world,  how 
illy  she  is  adapted  to  our  government,  to  the  salvation  of  this  community, 
temporally,  spiritually,  or  eternally,  to  the  spread  and  progress  of  the  chris- 
tian religion,"  &c. 

Thus  he  speaks  of  Presbyterians ;  and  yet  he  tells  you  now,  that  he  is 
quite  willing  to  have  those  children  of  Mistress  Roma  Babylona  com- 
mune with  him  ! ! ! 

The  gentleman  sometimes  hints  remotely  at  the  question  before  us. 
Creeds,  he  says,  produced  Arianism,  and  Shakerism,  bowlings,  barkings, 
&c.,  in  our  own  country.  Did  not  Arius  teach  his  heresies ;  and  did 
they  not  rapidly  spread  through  the  church  before  a  creed  was  adopted  ? 
How,  then,  could  the  creed  have  produced  it  ?  Did  the  efiect  exist  before 
the  cause  ?  And  \\o\v  did  the  creed  produce  Shakers  ?  How  did  it  make 
people  howl  and  bark  ?  I  am  really  curious  to  understand  the  philosophy 
of  this  matter.  It  is  true  that  the  Shakers  carried  their  reforynation  rather 
too  far  for  my  friend;  but  still  they  were  reformers.  One  of  the  advan- 
tages secured  to  our  church  by  our  creed  is,  that  we  are  enabled,  with 
some  despatch,  to  get  rid  of  all  such  errorists.  We  desire  not  to  have  in 
our  communion,  men  who  reject  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  gospel, 
hov/ever  respectable  in  character  or  in  numbers.  But  did  the  ism  of 
my  friend  produce  the  Materialism  of  Dr.  Thomas,  or  the  part3dsm  of 
McVay  ?  Let  him  answer  the  question ;  and  he  will  refute  his  charges 
against  our  creed. 

But  he  asks,  what  would  the  old  Presbyterian  fathers  have  done  with 
Dr.  Thomas  ?  Certainly  they  would  not  have  retained  him  in  their  com- 
munion. But  T  do  not  admit  that  Presbyterians  in  England  and  Scotland 
were  inclined,  generally,  to  persecute.  There  doubtless  were  some  of  all 
parties  who  did  not  understand  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  who  desired 
a  church  establishment.  But  that  Presbyterians  were  in  fiivor  of  killing 
those  who  dift'ered  from  them,  is  not  true.  Presbyterians  did  not  consti- 
tute the  parliament,  to  whose  persecuting  laws  the  gentleman  has  re- 

4d3 


870  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

ferred.  Whether  there  was  any  considerable  number  of  Presbyterians  it 
that  parlianaent,  I  know  not.  Anabaptists,  and  others,  have  violently  per* 
secuted  without  a  creed.  How,  then,  can  it  be  made  appear,  that  the  in- 
tolerance of  any  age  or  country,  was  caused  by  the  existence  of  creeds  ? 

The  gentleman  has  now  informed  us  of  one  great  good  growing  out  of 
his  reformation.  But  for  it,  he  says,  there  would  have  been  in  the  West  a 
body  of  Unitarians  for  a  hundred  years  to  come  !  If  it  is  any  credit  to 
his  reformation,  that  it  has  embraced  in  its  bosom  multitudes  who  rob 
Christ  of  his  glory,  by  denying  his  divinity ;  and  the  sinner  of  hope,  by 
denying  his  atonement ;  he  is  most  welcome  to  it !  His  foundation  is 
broad  enough  for  all  such;  but  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of  such  compro- 
mises of  the  truth,  to  effect  union  with  those  who  deny  tl:e  Lord  that 
bought  them. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  give  some  further  development  of  the  true  char- 
acter and  condition  of  Mr.  C.'s  church,  by  reading  a  few  extracts  w'hich 
I  commenced  on  yesterday  afternoon  ;  (Millenial  Harbinger,  vol.  vi.. 
No.  6,  pp.  243,  244 :)  -  •  -  .  . 

'^How  few  public  preachers  and  teachers  at  this  day  are  there,  that  need 
not  to  be  ashamed  of  their  aptitude  to  discriminate  and  apply  the  holy  ora- 
cifis  !  Ought  not  many  to  blush  who  presume  to  speak  by  a  divine  call  spe- 
cially to  them  addressed,  for  their  ignorance  of  all  the  laws  of  language,  the 
force  of  words,  the  logical  point  in  an  argument,  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
style,  and  their  inaptitude  to  expound  and  apply  the  word  of  truth  !  How 
many  ought  to  blush  for  their  irreverent  manner  of  speaking  in  the  divine 
presence — their  vapid  and  most  irreligious  way  of  pronouncing  the  divine 
names  and  attributes — their  profanation  of  the  privilege  of  prayer  in  the 
most  undevout  style  of  addressing  God,  and  of  speaking  to  him  merely  for 
the  sake  of  speaking  to  men — correcting  what  they  deem  popular  errors,  and 
eulogizing  kindred  spirits,  while  addressing  the  awful  throne  of  God  !  The 
times  are  sadly  out  of  joint  in  all  these  respects.  Public  prayers  are  some- 
times mere  sermons  preached  to  God — critiques  on  doctrine,  satires  on  rival 
dogmas,  protracted  efforts  at  saying  something  commendable,  random  at- 
tempts to  be  eloquent,  monotonous  gibberish,  empty,  loud,  and  vehement 
vociferations.  For  all  this  insolence  to  heaven,  and  for  all  these  lamentable 
defects,  we  have  neither  jurisdiction  nor  tribunal !  We  certainly  have  not,  if 
every  individual  may  send  himself  and  authorize  his  own  acts  ;  or  if  a  small, 
weak,  irresponsible  community  may  send  out  whom  it  pleases  into  the  world. 

The  cause  of  reformation  would  ere  now  have  overrun  the  whole  commu- 
nity, but  for  two  causes.  One  is,  the  great  masses  of  neglected  new  con- 
verts, who  are  not  taught  the  christian  religion  in  scriptural  churches,  and 
who  consequently  Icse  confidence  in  themselves,  return  to  the  world,  or  re- 
main dry  and  barren  branches  in  the  mystic  vine.  The  other  is  a  class 
of  unsent,  unaccomplished,  uneducated  advocates,  who  plead  it ;  amongst 
whom,  too,  have  been  found  a  number  of  persons  of  immoral  character,  who 
have  assumed  the  profession  as  a  cloak  of  covetousness — as  means  of  impos- 
ing themselves  on  the  unsuspecting  and  benevolent.  ****** 
We  have  bled  at  every  pore  through  the  lacerations  of  many  such.  And  had 
not  our  cause  possessed  more  than  mortal  strength — had  it  not  been  of  celes- 
tial origin  and  divine  power,  it  had  long  since  been  prostrate  through  trait- 
ors, pretenders,  incompetent  disciplinarians,  and  impotent  administrators." 

What  a  picture  this  of  the  preachers  and  members  of  this  boasted 
church — the  latest  and  best  edition  of  a  no-creed  church  !  The  evils  are 
not  exaggerated.  The  picture  is  drawn  by  the  gentleman  himself;  and 
we  know  that  he  would  not  slander  his  own  church.  He  says — "  We 
have  bled  at  every  pore  through  the  lacerations  of  many  such  "—that  is, 
of  their  own  preachers  [     Why,  if  1  were  to  see  a  man  bleeding  at  every 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  87 

^ore,  I  should  be  sure  that  he  would  die,  if  the  doctor  did  not  speedily 
come  to  his  relief.  And  if  he  were  thus  bleeding  from  self-inflicted 
wounds,  I  should  certainly  think,  that  he  ought  to  be  confined  in  a  straight' 
jacket !  But  if  I  were  told,  that  he  was  the  only  sane  and  healthy  man 
in  that  community,  I  should  regard  it  as  a  horrible  place.  I  should  make 
a  speedy  retreat  from  amongst  them.  But  let  me  read  a  litde  further  on 
page  245. 

'•  But  we  have  not  yet  laid  open  the  great  defects  of  our  evangelical  min- 
istry. There  are  the  belligerent  theorists,  whose  special  care  it  is,  in  every 
serraon,  or  on  all  public  occasions,  to  disinter  the  remains  of  some  fallen  or 
decayed  system,  exhibit  its  bones  and  putrid  remains,  and  then  to  bury  it 
again  with  all  the  honors  of  an  ecclesiastic  war;  and,  in  contrast  with  it,  to 
unfold  the  charms  of  a  wiser  and  better  theory.  Alas !  what  pranks  are  play- 
ed on  earth,  in  the  presence  of  mourning  angels,  by  those  whose  undertak- 
ing it  is  to  persuade  sinners  to  turn  to  God  and  live  forever ! 

Another  portion  of  our  more  gifted  and  ingenious  cohorts  have  addicted 
themselves  to  the  enviable  task  of  public  censors  of  the  senior  theologians. 
Boys  in  their  teens,  or  youths  who,  for  years  to  come,  would  not  have  been 
permitted  to  lay  a  shoulder  of  mutton  on  God's  ancient  altar,  are  now  grave- 
ly and  learnedly  exposing  the  errors  of  Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley,  the  sy- 
nods of  Dort,  Westminster  and  Trent,  cum  multis  alliis,  with  as  much  seli- 
approbation  and  secret  relish  as  the  most  exquisite  sensualist  devours  a  fa- 
vorite dish  when  his  appetite  is  stimulated  with  the  pickles  of  Macenas 
and  a  fast  of  full  twelve  hours.  These  are  the  wild  beasts  of  our  Ephesus, 
with  whom  it  is  more  difficult  to  conflict  than  with  those  with  whom  Paul 
fought  at  the  capital  of  Asia.  Yet  these  are  workmen  who  are  never 
ashamed,  but  always  glory  in  their  success  in  what  they  call  preaching  tlie 
gospel  of  peace.  ... 

Of  these  profanations  of  the  evangelical  office,  and  of  these  flagrant 
aberrations  from  good  sense,  good  taste,  and  approved  models,  the  more  in- 
telligent and  pious  communities  are  always  complaining;  but  without  per- 
ceiving that  they  have  the  power  of  preventing  the  evil.  They  flatter 
themselves  that  Time,  the  great  teacher,  innovator,  and  reformer,  will,  of 
iis  own  accord,  correct  these  evils.  But  \\'\\\  it  save  the  multitudes  that 
are  fatally  injured  in  the  meantime  while  the  experiment  is  in  progress! 
And  has  the  Lord  commissioned  Time  and  Experiment  as  his  reforming 
agents?"  .   . 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  present  state  and  prospects  of  his  church, 
given  by  the  gentleman  himself.  Again,  he  says,  "  Every  sort  of  doc- 
trine has  been  proclaimed  by  almost  all  sorts  of  preachers,  under  the 
broad  banner  and  with  the  supposed  sanction  of  the  begun  reformation  ;" 
(Mil.  Harb.  vol.  vi.  No.  2,  p.  64.)  If  the  leading  man  in  the  church 
feels  constrained  to  portray  its  condition  in  such  language,  how  dark 
would  be  the  picture  drawn,  in  its  true  colors,  by  an  impartial  hand  ! 
Who  would  desire  to  enter  such  a  church?  Who  could  regard  it,  with 
all  its  errors  and  its  confusion,  as  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  ?" 
Let  me  remain  among  "the  sects"  where  such  men  are  not  tolerated, 
and  where  such  errors  are  not  cherislied  to  the  ruin,  present  and  eternal, 
of  multitudes. 

Another  argument  I  shall  urge  against  the  gentleman's  plan  of  christian 
union,  is,  that  he  has  felt  constrained  radically  to  change  his  ground 
since  he  commenced  his  reformation,  and  is  noiv  advocating  the  very 
principles  he  once  boldly  denounced.'  In  the  beginning  of  his  ca- 
reer he  denounced  all  denominations  for  doing  precisely  what  he  is  now 
himself  doing.  He  began  with  taking  the  New  Testament  as  the  only 
constitution  of  tht  churches.     Now  he  is  offering  them,  and  urging  upon 


872  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

ihem,  several  articles,  written  by  himself,  as  the  basis  of  a  general  organ- 
ization !  Many  of  his  friends  and  followers  have  been  alarmed  at  the 
progress  he  seems  to  be  making  towards  "Babylon;"  and  well  they 
may  be. — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 1 1  o^ clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  ninth  address.]] 

Mr.  President — Mr.  Rice,  it  seems,  has  left  the  argument,  and  is  de- 
termined to  proceed  in  his  begun  course  of  calumniating  the  community 
with  which  I  stand  connected.  He  will  not  provoke  me  to  reply  to  such 
calumnies,  in  any  other  way  than  I  have  already  done.  I  have  shown  that 
the  apostle  Paul  said  full  as  much  against  his  brethren,  as  I  have  ever  said 
against  mine ;  nay,  much  more  than  I  have  yet  said.  I  have  given  a  few 
examples  of  the  manner  in  which  he  inveighed  against  some  whom  he 
himself  had  converted  from  Judaism  and  Paganism  to  Christ.  Every  so- 
ciety has  to  contend  with  unprofitable  and  unworthy  members.  Of  all  the 
churches  in  Galatia,  Paul  said  more  than  I  have  ever  said  of  all  the 
churches  in  Kentucky,  or  of  any  one  state  of  this  Union,  Of  them,  Paul 
said — '■'■  I  stand  in  doubt  of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in 
vain." — "Am  I  become  your  enemy  because  I  tell  you  the  truth?" — "I 
call  God  to  witness,  that  you  would,  at  one  time,  have  plucked  out  your 
eyes,  and  have  given  them  to  me."  Any  one  disposed  to  calumniate 
Paul  and  his  labors,  from  his  own  writings,  would  have  had  a  fine  oppor- 
tunity from  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  as  well  as  from  those  to  Timothy 
and  the  Corinthians. 

But  it  is  not  only  of  the  dereliction  of  these  churches  that  great  apostle 
complains.  He  says  not  only  "  Demas  has  forsaken  me,"  but  "all  in 
Asia  have  forsaken  me."  "  I  pray  God  not  to  lay  this  sin  to  their 
charge."  Mr.  Rice,  had  he  been  in  Paul's  place,  would  not  have  told 
over  these  apostasies  and  obliquities  of  his  brethren.  He  would  have 
concealed  them.  He  would  not  have  published  their  imperfections  as  I 
have  done.  Stood  he  in  the  same  relations  to  community,  he  would  not, 
as  I  still  do,  expose  the  frailties  and  errors  of  those  associated  with  him. 
Which  of  us  seems,  in  these  specifications,  to  walk  more  after  the  exam- 
ple of  Paul  ?  I  feel  myself  in  duty  bound  to  remonstrate  against  the  er- 
rors of  my  brethren,  as  against  the  errors  of  other  men — nay,  more.  I 
may  have,  indeed,  said  of  them  things  more  severe  than  I  should  have 
said.  Still,  I  glory  in  the  fact,  that  my  prejudices  and  partialities  have 
not  hid  their  frailties  from  my  eyes,  nor  sealed  my  lips  in  reproving  them. 
Mr.  R.  confers  upon  me  an  honor  of  which  I  am  proud,  really  proud. 
He  honors  my  candor,  my  impartiality,  and  my  love  of  truth.  I  shall, 
then,  always  persevere  in  this  course  of  reproving  defects  in  friend  or  op- 
ponent. We  have  reformed,  and  are  reforming,  and  still  will  reform. 
We  have  placed  before  ourselves  and  brethren  a  very  high  standard  of 
perfection,  and  to  this  we  must  still  direct  our  eyes.  I  hope  the  very 
censures  of  our  ardent  and  devoted  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  will  still  admonish 
ns  to  ascend  still  higher  in  our  aspirations  after  christian  excellence. 

I  have  been  endeavoring  to  relieve  my  Presbyterian  friends  from  the 
imputation,  that  those  deeds  of  intolerance  and  persecution  which  history 
records  against  their  fathers,  were  the  workings  of  their  system,  rather 
than  of  any  personal  or  ancestral  depravity  of  nature ;  that  the  system, 
and  not  the  people,  was  to  blame  for  it.  This  is,  indeed,  my  real  con- 
viction. But  he  will  not  let  the  creed  have  it.  He  admits  that  they  have 
done  those  deeds ;  and,  as  one  endorsed  by  Presbyterians,  he  can  do  no 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  873 

less  than  admit  it.  Neale  is  candid,  honest,  and  impartial.  He  was  re- 
commended to  my  early  readings,  by  some  of  the  best  Presbyterians  I  have 
ever  known.  Not  only  he,  however,  but  all  our  historians,  and  religious 
dictionaries  and  encyclopoedias,  attest  the  fact,  that  all  creeds,  since  that  of 
Nice  and  saint  Athanasius,  have  been  baptized  in  blood.  The  Bible  and 
its  friends  have  killed  no  person.  Martyrologists  say  that  creeds  have 
made  in  various  forms,  and  in  all  time,  their  fifty  millions  of  martyrs. 
Christians  do  not  kill  christians.  Never,  never !  Jesus  said,  "All  who 
take  the  sword,  shall  perish  with  the  sword."  Doubdess  in  defence  of 
religion. 

The  gendeman  says,  the  Anabaptists  persecuted !  That  has  been  often 
said.  But  what  have  we  to  do  with  the  Anabaptists  ?  It  is,  indeed,  one 
of  the  brightest  glories  of  the  Baptists,  the  pure  immersionists,  that  they 
have  never  shed  one  drop  of  blood  in  defence  of  their  creed  or  practice. 
I  am  not  speaking  of  the  Munster  fanatics — but  I  speak  of  those  properly 
called  Baptists,  in  contrast  with  the  Pedo-baptists.  I  know  the  gentleman 
will  tell  you  that  they  never  had  it  in  their  power.  Roger  Williams  and 
his  colony  might  have  done  it.  Persecutions  might  have  been  introduced 
into  Rhode  Island,  as  easily  as  into  Connecticut  or  Massachusetts.  But 
the  founders  of  those  colonies  were  of  different  views.  I  have  said  the 
confession  has  been  changed,  altered,  and  improved,  in  some  particulars. 
The  article  on  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  has,  indeed,  been  much 
improved  in  our  American  Westminster  confession.  It  does  not  now, 
as  formerly,  authorize  the  sword  to  serve  at  the  altar.  It  does  not  now 
constrain  any  man  to  lift  up  his  hand  and  swear,  by  high  heaven,  that 
he  will  "extirpate  popery  and  prelacy  by  all  civil  pains;"  as  did  the 
solemn  league  and  covenant.  You  have  read  the  history  of  the  holy  and 
bloody  wars  of  orthodoxy  for  forty  years ;  and  did  I  not  read  the  solemn 
decree  of  the  men  who  made  that  creed  ? 

It  is  indeed  possible  that  it  might  be  the  men  and  not  the  principles.  I 
have  known  some  men  that  would  never  persecute  others  on  any  account, 
or  in  any  way.  The  milk  of  human  kindness  flowed  too  freely  though 
their  veins.  No  system,  the  most  intolerant,  could  make  them  cruel. 
Still  I  opine,  it  was  their  principles,  and  not  the  peculiarity  of  a  bilious 
or  atrabilious  temperament.  The  spirit,  the  very  genius  of  a  human 
bond  of  union,  a  human  standard,  around  which  the  human  aff'ections  are 
taught  to  revolve,  is  as  certainly  exclusive  as  there  is  self-love  in  man, 
and  a  love  for  one's  own  opinions.  When  men,  under  the  influence  ot  a 
creed,  oral  or  written,  can  pass  a  law  to  hang  men  for  an  opinion,  for  a 
theory  or  a  doctrine,  there  must  be  an  attachment  to  opinions  of  a  very 
morbid  and  predominating  character.  To  imprison  one  for  immersing  or 
refusing  to  sprinkle  an  applicant,  certainly  evinces  not  only  the  fact  of  the 
previous  existence  of  an  opinion  favorable  to  sprinkling,  but  of  an  undue 
attachment  to  it,  and  it  moreover  exhibits  a  theory  of  human  nature,  of 
civil  rights,  of  rational  liberty,  wholly  incompatible  with  our  views  of 
justice,  reason,  and  conscience. 

I  have  before  said,  that  I  am  under  no  necessity  whatever,  in  my  own 
defence,  to  take  this  view  of  the  subject,  in  the  maintenance  of  my  posi- 
tion on  the  use  and  tendency  of  human  tests  of  orthodoxy.  I  take  this 
ground  on  principles  of  respect  for  my  Presbyterian  contemporaries,  to 
relieve  them  as  men  from  the  spirit  of  the  system.  They  have  caught 
the  spirit  of  the  age,  of  our  free  institutions,  and  they  cannot  think  or  act 
as  their  fathers  did.     There  is  too  much  Bible  reading  in  this  land,  and 


874  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

intercommunication  with  other  denominations,  with  men  of  piety  and  ele^ 
rated  conceptions  of  human  rights,  and  liberty  of  thought,  of  speech,  of 
conscience  and  of  action.  I  do  not  think  that  the  people  are  now  so 
intolerant.     I  will  therefore  blame  the  system  rather  than  the  people. 

.  Still,  Mr.  Rice  will  excuse  the  creed  rather  than  the  men.  I  blame  the 
system,  but  he  blames  the  men.  It  is  true  that  men  made  the  law  to  pun- 
ish heretics  and  the  heterodox  with  death ;  and  that  these  men  had  those 
principles  within  them  before  the  statute  which  they  had  just  enacted. 
But  these  men  were  themselves  the  creatures  of  other  systems  of  the 
same  kind  which  they  had  now  ordained.  It  was  then  the  system  tha't 
made  them  pass  such  laws.  I  do  not,  as  I  before  said,  think  that  the  men 
of  this  age,  the  Presbyterians  around  me,  would  persecute  any  of  us  to 
death.  Light  has  become  too  strong,  and  public  opinion  has  been  revoli>- 
tionized,  and  one  of  the  most  dangerous  articles  in  the  creed  has  been 
reformed.  Still  there  is  a  species  of  newspaper  defamation,  of  pulpit 
and  synodical  calumny,  of  religious  neighborhood  gossiping,  that  murders 
men's  reputation,  slays  their  usefulness,  and  as  effectually,  in  certain  re- 
gions, restrains  their  influence,  as  would  banishment  or  imprisonment 
By  turning  over  to  the  article  on  persecution,  in  that  encyclopoedia  lying 
beside  him,  the  gentleman  will  find  enough  on  that  subject  to  satisfy  any 
reasonable  man,  that  I  have  not  exaggerated  the  matter  at  all ; — and  that 
although  we  have  not  persecutions  of  the  first  class,  v/e  still  have  of  all 
the  subordinate  ranks  enough  to  sustain  our  position,  that  creeds  are  still 
schismatical  and  heretical. 

.  This  being  the  last  day  of  our  discussion,  I  am  resolved  to  confine 
myself  to  such  topics  as  directly  illustrate  and  establish  the  proposition. 
I  did  not,  through  this  discussion,  nor  do  I  now,  respond  to  every  thing 
the  gentleman  has  introduced.  I  have  already  given  my  reasons  why  1 
am  not  only  not  obliged  to  do  it,  but  why  it  ought  not  to  be  done.  I  an- 
swer every  thing  that  I  remember  of  consequence,  or  in  any  direct  way 
affecting  the  proposition. 

On  this  subject  I  have  used  no  stronger  terras  than  have  the  Presbyte- 
rians themselves.  One  of  their  correspondents  in  this  commonwealth,  as 
I  learn  from  those  who  read  it  in  the  denominational  press,  calls  his  owa 
church  "a  stripling  of  Rome.''''  All  indeed  are  striplings  of  Rome  who 
are  not  purified  from  her  errors.  Between  England  and  Rome  they 
were  wont  to  say,  there  was  but  a  paper  wall.  If  so,  betvveen  England 
and  Scotland  there  is  a  still  thinner  paper  wall.  If  the  establishment  of 
England  be  the  first  in  descent,  that  of  Scotland  may  be  regarded  as  the 
second  in  descent  from  the  mother  and  mistress  church,  and  as  possessing 
a  little  of  the  body  and  the  spirit  of  the  old  queen. 

I  do,  indeed,  believe,  that  so  long  as  persons  become  members  of  a 
church  without  their  own  personal  responsibility,  while  natural  genera- 
tion, without  personal  regeneration,  makes  members,  we  must  have  a  com- 
munity carnal,  intolerant,  and  proscriptive.  I  have  often  said  so,  I  have 
so  written,  and  I  still  believe  it.  It  has  ever  been  so.  All  the  ecclesi- 
astic persecutions  have,  as  before  shown,  emanated  from  such  communi- 
ties. But  I  have  other  points  on  which  I  must  offer  a  few  connected 
remarks.  And  first,  we  invite  your  attention  to  an  historical  glance  at 
schism. 

I  said  yesterday,  or  the  day  before,  that  Satan  was  the  first  sectary  io 
the  universe,  and  that  the  first  schism  occurred  in  heaven.  The  Messiah 
informs  us  that  Satan  '■^  abode  not  in  the  truth.''''     He  departed  from  it 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  875 

and  became  a  liar  and  a  deceiver.  That  truth  was  doubtless  a  revelation 
of  good  things  to  come  in  some  of  the  other  dominions  of  God.  But  so 
it  was,  the  lofty  seraph  did  not  choose  to  acquiesce  in  it.  He  became 
disaffected  towards  it,  apostatized,  and  became  a  heretic  and  hereeiarch. 
For  this,  he  and  all  who  rallied  around  the  new  principle  of  disloyalty, 
were  exiled  from  heaven.  This  was  a  tremendous  heresy  and  fall.  On 
discord  bent,  the  great  schismatic  plotted  the  severance  of  man  from 
God's  covenant  of  life.  The  ruin  of  our  race  was  fully  plotted,  the 
scheme  matured,  and  inexperienced  Eve  was  selected  for  his  victim. 
He  succeeded.  He  turned  away  her  ear  from  God's  word,  substituted  a 
commentary  upon  it  which  made  it  void ;  and  she,  believing  the  lie,  put 
forth  her  hand  and  plucked  down  ruin  upon  herself  and  all  her  child- 
ren.    This  was  the  second  schism. 

After  a  full  development  of  this  sad  catastrophe  and  a  judgment  held, 
God,  in  the  fullness  of  his  philanthropy,  set  on  foot  a  remedial  system. 
He  promised  a  victorious  Redeemer,  and  set  up  a  sacrificial  institution. 
Adam  and  Eve  brought  up  their  family  under  that  dispensation.  They 
had  their  altar,  their  victims,  their  sabbath,  and  their  family  worship. 
Cain  and  Abel,  their  eldest  sons,  followed  their  example,  and  each  one 
brought  his  offerings  to  the  Lord.  Abel  believed  the  promised  Lamb  of 
God,  and  brought  from  his  flock  a  sin-offering.  Cain,  regardless  of  lire 
necessity  of  a  Mediator,  and  a  bloody  victim,  brought  merely  his  thank- 
qffering,  the  first  fruits  of  his  harvest.  Having  disdained  the  remedial 
system,  God  disdained  him,  and  would  not  receive  his  offering  by  such 
token  of  his  regard  as  he  had  shewn  to  that  of  Abel.  Cain's  proud  and 
unbelieving  heart  was  filled  with  rage,  and  turned  away  from  God  and  his 
own  brother.  They  went  into  a  debate — Cain's  anger  was  kindled  into  a 
rage,  and,  incensed  with  pride  and  envy,  he  rose  up  against  Abel  and 
slew  him.  He  left  his  father's  house,  became  a  vagabond  or  wanderer, 
and  roamed  abroad  to  the  land  aflerv/ards  called  Nod,  and  there  set  up 
an  institution  of  his  own.  Thus  commenced  the  second  schism  in  the 
family  of  man.  Cain  is  a  full  developed  schismatic  now,  and  how  like 
the  grand  apostate !  He  became  a  liar  and  a  murderer.  Falsehood, 
heresy,  schism  and  persecution  seem  to  commence  and  travel  together 
in  one  sad  league  of  ruin.  Virtue,  alas!  piety  itself,  becomes  obnox- 
ious to  the  wrath  of  the  schismatic !  "  Wherefore  slew  he  him  ?" 
said  John,  "  because  his  own  works  were  evil,  and  his  brother's  right- 
eous." We  must  not  pause  here.  We  must  pursue  the  history  of  schism 
farther. 

Marriage  was  a  divine  institution.  And  equal  matches,  as  respected 
piety  and  faith,  have  always  been  the  law  of  heaven.  A  wiser  and  a 
holier  institution  is  not  inscribed  upon  the  rolls  of  time.  But  from  that 
covenant  too,  man  apostatized,  and  polygamy  and  unequal  matches  com- 
menced in  the  time  of  Seth.  This  consummated  the  wickedness  of  the 
old  world,  and  God  fixed  a  day  for  its  destruction.  The  intermarriage 
of  "the  sons  of  God"  with  "the  daughters  of  men"  made  the  cup  of 
antediluvian  impurity  overflow,  and  one  tremendous  deluge  destroyed 
the  whole  race,  one  family  alone  excepted.  But  though  a  world  is 
drowned,  and  only  one  family  saved,  still  in  it  are  all  the  seeds  of  human 
depravity,  and  the  remembrance  of  the  sins  of  a  former  world. 

God  makes  a  new  covenant  with  Noah  and  his  offspring — of  which  one 
is  selected  as  the  root  of  blessings  to  the  new  world.  Time  roUea  on, 
and  families  are  formed  and  multiplied.     A  distribution  of  the  earth  was 


876  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

about  being  made ;  and,  it  seems,  the  whole  family  of  man  engaged  them- 
selves in  the  plains  of  Shinar,  in  constructing  one  new  bond  of  union,  in 
raising  up  one  tower  to  heaven,  in  opposition  to  divine  revelation  from 
God.  The  Lord  descends  ;  in  the  style  of  metaphor,  the  Lord  descends 
— frowns  upon  their  toils — divides  their  speech,  and  sets  them  all  adrift; 
scattering  them  according  to  their  families,  their  nations  and  languages. 
This  was  the  schism  of  schisms. 

God  had  said  that  he  would  bless  Shem — that  he  would  enlarge  Ja- 
phet,  and  curse  Canaan,  for  reasons  which,  to  his  wisdom,  were  all  just, 
righteous  and  merciful.  Shem  was,  however,  made  the  depository  of  the 
promises  of  the  world's  redemption.  The  Lord  God  of  Shem  is  the  Bene- 
factor of  our  world ;  and  our  eyes  are  directed  to  him  as  the  hope  of  the 
race. 

From  this  family  God  raised  up,  called  and  separated,  Abraham  ;  made 
him  the  father  of  nations,  and  of  the  Messiah  ;  cut  him  off  from  all  the 
world  by  circumcision,  making  him  a  pilgrim  for  life.  He  gave  him  new 
promises,  and  confirmed  wiih  him  "  the  covenant  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah." Time  advanced.  Four  hundred  years  of  discipline  and  various 
misfortunes,  fitted  his  posterity  for  a  new  dispensation.  The  Lord  sent 
Moses,  and  led  them  out  of  Egypt — conducted  them  into  the  desert — 
made  of  them  a  wonderful  nation — supported  them  by  miracle  for  forty 
years,  and  threw  such  a  hedge  around  them  as,  methinks,  ought  to  have 
kept  them  a  separate  and  distinct  people,  pious  and  devout  above  all  peo- 
ple, and  for  all  generations.  But,  to  preserve  unity,  he  gave  them  but  one 
mediator,  one  grand  national  covenant,  one  altar,  one  law,  one  tabernacle, 
one  high  priest,  and  one  common  inheritance ;  all  of  which  was  given  to 
them  in  one  book — the  book  of  the  covenant,  or  constitution  of  Israel. 

A  strong  foundation  was  thus  laid  to  preserve  unity  of  faith,  feeling, 
and  action  in  this  one  grand  national  family.  Time  rolled  on  through 
four  centuries  of  judges,  until  the  age  of  kings  came — until,  in  the  days  of 
Solomon  the  wise,  the  nation  gained  its  zenith  glory,  and  still  preserved 
its  ancient  institutions,  all  of  which  were  firmly  established  by  this  great 
prince  in  one  august  temple,  the  most  magnificent  building  ever  erected 
by  the  hand  of  man.  Judah  reigned.  David,  the  son  of  Jesse,  was  its 
first  king ;  Solomon  the  second ;  and  then  came  the  weak,  and  foolish,  and 
tyrannical  Rehoboam.  Then  came  the  great  schism  in  the  symbolic  and 
picturesque  nation — the  many-tongued  schism,  replete  with  much  instruc- 
tion to  all  the  world.  It  is  the  grand  national  schism,  whose  whole  his- 
tory is  not  yet  fully  written.  For  the  sin  of  David,  God  rent  the  kingdom 
in  part  from  the  house  of  David,  and  gave  almost  ten  tribes  to  Jeroboam 
the  son  of  Nebat,  "  who  made  Israel  to  sin.''^ 

This  cunning  and  potent  rival  of  Rehoboam,  from  motives  profoundly 
political,  machinated  a  grand  schism  in  the  established  worship,  in  order 
to  produce  an  abiding  schism  in  the  affections  of  the  people.  He  reasoned 
thus :  So  long  as  the  people  worship  at  one  altar,  through  one  priesthood, 
and  in  one  temple,  they  will  naturally  coalesce  again  in  one  common- 
wealth and  serve  one  king.  Such  was  the  philosophy  of  Jeroboam,  and 
all  history  has  proved  it  true.  He  therefore  made  new  places  of  worship, 
on  the  plea  of  convenience  and  expediency ;  and  had  two  golden  calves 
cast  and  finished ;  one  for  Bethel,  sacred  from  the  days  of  Jacob ;  and 
one  for  Dan,  at  a  convenient  distance.  Instead,  then,  of  going  up  to  one 
altar,  one  temple  and  one  high  priest,  to  worship  God  and  commune  with 
their  brethren,  they  heretically  set  up  for  themselves — and  thus  alienation 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  877 

and  strife  commenced.  Again  we  see,  on  a  larger  scale,  and  for  a  longer 
continuance,  falsehood,  heresy,  schism  and  persecution,  marching  in  co- 
partnery through  the  land  of  Israel,  until,  in  one  rencounter,  more  than  a 
million  of  warriors  are  slain  in  a  single  day  ! 

This  was  the  era  of  state  religion  f  and  it  was  the  era  oi  false  gods, 
false  altars  and  false  worship.  Golden  calves  are  easily  converted  into 
idols ;  and  mercenary  priests  will  serve  at  their  altars,  under  the  smiles  of 
an  approving  monarch.  But  what  was  the  consequence?  The  kings  of 
Israel  were  a  wicked  dynasty,  and  the  people,  though  in  tribes  almost  four 
to  one,  in  some  two  centuries  were  reduced  to  slavery,  and  carried  out  of 
their  own  country,  and  never  since  have  been  gathered.  So  ended  the 
schism  of  Jeroboam,  and  those  who  with  him  united  around  the  schismatic 
altars  that  he  had  reared. 

The  land  of  Canaan  and  the  sceptre  continued,  with  the  true  altar  and 
temple,  in  the  families  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  though  a  small  number  of 
tribes  worshiped  there  ;  and  although  often  chastised  for  their  follies,  they 
were  never  abandoned  till  the  Messiah  came  and  set  up  his  institution 
among  them. 

Let  us  now  collect  these  facts  and  views  together,  and  give  them  their 
true  and  proper  significance  and  emphasis.  We  have  seen  in  all  these 
schisms,  from  that  of  Satan  down  to  that  of  Jeroboam,  the  true  nature, 
character  and  consequences  of  schism.  When  we  have  before  us  the  vic- 
tims of  all  these  several  schisms  grouped  together  ;  Satan  and  his  angels 
— Cain  and  his  posterity,  down  to  the  deluge — the  Babel  builders  and 
their  nameless  misfortunes— the  national  schism  of  Israel  and  all  its  untold 
calamities — methinks,  we  have  a^ lesson,  the  clearest,  the  most  forcible, 
and  the  most  appalling  that  could  be  given  to  mortal  man.  He  that  doubts 
the  connection  between  schism,  rebellion,  persecution  and  murder,  is  not 
to  be  rationally  convinced  by  human  power.  Christianity  contemplates 
the  obliteration  of  all  these  schisms.  It  contemplates  the  completion  of 
one  great  family,  gathered  out  of  all  families ;  built  upon  one  grand  foun- 
dation, having  one  temple,  one  altar,  one  law,  one  faith,  one  high  priest, 
one  spirit,  one  inheritance.  Every  thing  in  it  is  unity  and  community. 
It  contemplates  one  nation,  out  of  all  nations  ;  one  people,  out  of  all  people ; 
one  Book,  one  law,  one  Savior,  one  worship,  one  Judge  and  one  heaven, 
as  the  only  means  of  rescuing  man,  and  saving  him  from  the  numerous 
and  various  misfortunes  and  calamities,  that  one  grand  schism  has  entailed 
upon  our  world,  for  thousands  of  years  past,  and  for  an  eternity  to  come. 

Now,  in  tracing  out  this  glorious  scheme  of  Heaven,  we  discover  that 
God  has  been  consolidating  and  harmonizing  our  race  upon  one  faith  and 
one  hope  ;  upon  a  few  simple,  well-defined,  and  strong  principles  ;  and 
that  he  has  regarded  as  treasonable  every  defection  from  them,  stamping 
upon  every  apostasy  the  clearest,  broadest,  and  most  enduring  marks  of 
his  fiercest  indignation.  In  every  age  ignorance,  cruelty,  and  persecu- 
tion have  followed  in  the  train  of  schism ;  so  that  we  doubt  not,  could 
any  one  trace  all  human  miseries  to  one  common  and  prolific  fountain, 
that  fountain  would  be  religious  discords. 

Hence  we  infer  that  those  modes  of  exhibiting  and  teaching  Christianity, 
and  those  modes  only,  which  accord  with  these  important  and  fundamen- 
tal views — which  seek  to  discover  to  man  the  true  centre  of  attraction,  to 
rconcile  man  to  his  God  and  to  his  fellow-men,  by  obliterating  and  anni- 
hilating every  cause  of  division,  every  source  of  discord — are  most  accept- 
able to  God,  most  sanctifying  to  the  church,  and  most  persuasive  and 

4E 


878  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

converting  as  respects  the  world.  Some  grand  fundamental  principle, 
harmonizing  all  human  hearts,  uniting  all  souls,  and  preventing  all  rival- 
ries, jealousies,  and  envyings,  must  be  projected,  in  order  to  this  glorious 
consummation. 

That  grand  principle,  whatever  it  be,  must  possess  the  sanction  of  di- 
vine authority.  It  must  have  more  to  commend  it  than  the  mere  ra- 
tionality, beauty,  and  simplicity  of  the  scheme.  It  must  have  a  para- 
mount, a  Divine  authority.  Nothing  addressed  to  human  genius,  to 
fancy,  to  imagination,  to  mere  reason,  will  ever  command  the  admiration 
or  acquiescence,  or  the  conscience,  or  the  love  of  man.  God  in  Christ 
must  be  perceived,  regarded,  and  felt  as  the  author  of  any  scheme  or  sys- 
tem that  contemplates  the  union,  harmony,  and  co-operation  of  all  the 
christian  profession.  It  must  have  the  awful,  sublime,  and  adorable  sanc- 
tion of  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  and  invisible,  to  it.  It  must  have  his 
sign  manual,  and  the  seal  of  supernatural  power  and  grandeur. 

The  fact  that  all  synods,  councils,  and  convocations  are,  by  Protestants, 
acknowledged  to  have  erred,  will  forever  stain  the  pride  of  all  their 
boasted  glory,  impair  their  authority,  and  convert  their  Avisdom  into  folly. 
Whenever  the  time  comes  for  the  one  fold,  the  one  shepherd,  and  the  one 
holy  and  beloved  brotherhood,  to  combine  all  their  energies  in  the  holy 
cause,  they  will  as  certainly  reprobate  all  human  devices,  and  rally  on 
the  identical  ground  originally  consecrated  by  the  feet  of  all  the  apostles. 
If,  then,  there  is  to  be  any  raillenium,  any  thousand  years  of  triumphant 
Christianity  before  the  Lord  comes,  these  systems  must  all  be  abjured, 
and  men  must  place  the  church  exactly  on  the  ground,  the  identical 
ground,  on  Avhich  she  stood  at  the  beginning.  This  was  my  first,  and  it 
is  my  present  capital  objecion  to  all  partizan  schemes,  that  they  are.  not 
made  for  man,  but  for  one  class ;  not  for  all  ages,  but  for  one  age  ;  not  for 
all  countries  and  climes,  but  for  some  one  latitude  of  humanity.  They 
are  not  adapted  nor  framed  for  the  human  race.  Now,  the  Nev/  Testa- 
ment is  just  that  very  sort  of  document ;  and  it  is  the  only  one  that  ever 
was,  or  is,  or  evermore  shall  be.  It  can  make  of  discordant  sects  what  it 
once  made  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  one  new  man,  slaying  the  enmity  and 
making  peace. 

Christianity,  allow  me  to  reiterate  it  again  and  again,  in  all  its  pris- 
tine characteristics,  is  directly  and  supremely  adapted  to  the  genius  of 
human  nature ;  not  to  the  people  of  one  quarter  of  the  world,  of  one  race, 
or  of  one  age,  but  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe,  to  all  races  of  men,  and  to 
all  the  ages  of  time.  It  takes  hold  of  man  with  the  grasp  of  omnipo- 
tence, because  it  contemplates  him  at  once  in  the  light  of  his  whole  des- 
tiny, as  he  was,  as  he  is,  and  as  he  must  hereafter  be.  Its  philosophy 
of  happiness  is  the  subordination  of  all  our  passions,  of  all  our  desires, 
and  all  our  volitions,  to  the  will,  and  pleasure,  and  dictation  of  Jesus 
tlie  Messiah.  It  proposes  a  glorious  leader,  a  mighty  and  triumphant 
prince,  as  our  chief,  as  our  captain  and  commander ;  whose  charms  and 
accomplishments  are  so  grand  and  fascinating,  as  to  attract  the  admiring 
eyes  and  enraptured  hearts  of  tlie  true  aristocracy  and  nobility  of  the 
universe. 

Men  must  have  a  leader.  The  genius  of  humanity  calls  for  it.  Chris- 
tians cannot  have  a  human  leader.  They  must  have  a  Divine  leader. 
Leaders,  rather  than  creeds,  make  parties  and  keep  them.  So  Paul  un- 
derstood the  matter  when  he  said,  "  One  says,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of 
ApoUos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ,"  &c.     Satan  made  a  party  in 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  879 

heaven ;  Cain  made  a  party  ;  Nimrod  made  a  party ;  Caesar  made  a 
party,  as  well  as  Jeroboam,  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin.  Lead- 
ers are  first  in  making  parties,  and  creeds  are  second.  Attachment  to  the 
man  generally  precedes  attachment  to  the  principles — the  leader  while  he 
lives,  and  his  principles  and  views  when  he  is  dead.  There  is  much 
more  truth  in  the  adage  "Jim  and  not  principles ,"  than  in  that  which 
says,  "  Principles  and  notnieny  I  presume  he  is  the  wise  man  who  goes 
for  both  "  Principles  and  men.'''' 

We  would  not  presume,  on  such  an  occasion,  to  give  the  history  of  at- 
tachments to  human  leaders,  originating  the  present  parties.  But  this  we 
may  say,  that  if  any  one  will  be  at  the  pains  to  read  the  history  of  creeds 
and  councils,  with  this  idea  in  his  mind,  he  will  find  that,  nine  times  in 
ten,  in  the  history  of  the  church,  and  often  in  the  state,  attachments  to 
men's  persons  precede  attachments  to  abstract  principles.  True,  indeed, 
that  principles  and  their  parties  are  so  often  identified,  that  we  more 
frequently  contemplate  them  together  than  apart :  so  it  comes  to  pass, 
that  one  says,  I  am  of  Calvin,  and  I  of  Luther,  and  I  of  Wesley,  and  I  of 
Christ.       ■  • 

Seeing,  then,  that  things  are  so,  and  have  worked  so,  in  all  the  records 
of  the  past,  we  have  long  since  resolved  to  guard  against  schism,  and  all 
tlie  causes  and  occasions  thereof,  by  calling  no  man  on  earth  master,  or 
father,  or  leader ;  and  by  acknowledging  one  teacher,  the  Messiah — one 
another  as  brethren  in  him.  United  in  him,  we  stand  for  ever ;  alien- 
ated from  him,  we  fall  into  everlasting  ruin. — \_Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 111  o^ clock,  A.  M. 
[mr.  rice's  ninth  reply.] 

Mr.  President — It  is  true,  that  Paul  complained  of  false  brethren 
gaining  admittance  into  the  church  in  his  day,  and  leading  many  astray. 
But  there  is  one  very  great  difference  between  the  church  of  my  friend, 
Mr.  C,  and  Paul's  church.  If  errorists  and  unworthy  men  entered 
Paul's  church,  they  were  obliged  to  creep  in  iinaivares  ;  but  Mr.  C.  re- 
ceives them,  when  they  openly  avow  their  errors,  provided  only  that  they 
will  call  them  opinions.  They  need  practice  no  concealment  in  order  to 
enter  his  church.  He  has  a  door  wide  enough  to  admit  them  with  all 
their  errors.  Such  was  not  Paul's  church ;  and  such  were  not  Paul's 
principles.     There  is,  therefore,  no  similarity  between  the  two. 

I  am  willing  to  award  to  the  gentleman  due  credit  for  his  candor  in  ex- 
posing the  condition  of  his  church ;  but  I  am  not  sure,  however,  that  he 
was  not  rather  more  influenced  by  a  desire  to  alarm  them,  and  thus  to  in- 
duce them  to  come  into  his  measures,  than  by  his  extraordinary  candor. 
He  could  prevail  on  them  to  organize  on  his  constitution,  instead  of  the 
New  Testament,  only  by  showing  them,  that  they  Avere  on  the  borders 
of  anarchy  and  ruin  !  He  thinks,  that  if  I  had  been  in  his  place,  I  would 
have  concealed  these  evils.  However  that  might  be,  I  incline  to  the 
opinion,  that  he  would  better  have  followed  the  advice  given  to  one  of  his 
brethren,  who  had  divulged  the  state  of  things  in  a  particular  church. 
The  church  numbered  about  two  hundred  members.  A  very  respecta- 
ble old  gentleman,  one  of  its  members,  in  conversation  with  one  of  our 
ministers,  happened  to  express  the  opinion,  that  of  the  two  hundred,  per- 
haps twenty-Jive  or  thirty,  judging  by  their  lives  and  conversation,  were 
truly  pious.  He  was  arraigned  and  tried  for  slandering  the  brethren 
But  on  his  trial  he  said,  his  mind  was  changed  since  he  made  the  remai'K. 


880  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

and  his  opinion  was,  that  there  were  not  more  than  four  or  Jive  who  were 
pious !  Finding  him  not  inclined  to  retract,  the  preacher  said  to  him — 
"  Well,  brother,  if  you  think  thus  badly  of  us,  don't  tell  our  enemies. 
If  general  Jackson  had  told  Packenham  his  weak  points,  he'd  never 
have  gained  the  battle  of  New  Orleans.  Brother,  don't  tell  Packenham." 
The  gentleman  has  told  Packenham  his  weak  points,  and  he  cannot  won- 
der if  they  are  noticed. 

Neale,  he  says,  is  endorsed  by  Presbyterians,  and  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  candidates  for  the  ministry.  Hume's  history  of  England  is  often 
placed  in  the  hands  of  young  men ;  but  we  do  not  endorse  all  that  he  has 
written.  Neale's  is  a  valuable  history;  but  we  do  not  endorse  every  thing 
he  wrote.    His  judgment  was  doubtless  sometimes  swayed  by  prejudices. 

The  fact  is — Presbyterianism  was  never  actually  established  by  law  in 
England ;  and,  therefore,  Presbyterians  had  not  the  power  to  persecute. 
Yet  the  gentleman  says,  persecuting  laws  were  enacted  by  the  very  men 
who  made  the  Westminster  confession.  This  is  not  correct.  The  con- 
fession was  drafted  by  a  body  of  learned  and  godly  ministers,  called  to- 
gether by  parliament.  They  were  not  members  of  parliament.  When 
fiiey  had  agreed  upon  a  confession  of  faith,  embracing  an  outline  of  the 
doctrines  and  ti-uths  of  the  Bible,  their  work  was  done.  The  objectiona- 
ble laws,  of  which  the  gentleman  has  spoken,  were  not  made  by  them. 

The  gentleman  does  not  deny,  that  the  Anabaptists  persecuted,  and 
were  guilty  of  many  acts  of  violence,  though  they  had  no  creed ;  but  he 
says,  pU7'e  immersionists  never  persecuted.  This  may  be  true.  It  is 
also  true,  that  those  whom  he  calls  pure  immersionists,  never  had  the  op- 
portunity to  persecute.  Whether  they  would  have  persecuted,  if  power 
had  been  in  tlieir  hands,  or  whether  their  sufferings  had  taught  them  to 
respect  the  rights  of  conscience,  I  pretend  not  to  determine.  It  is  enough, 
however,  as  an  offset  to  the  gentleman's  argument,  to  prove  the  fact,  that 
some  of  the  most  terrible  persecutors  have  been  men  without  a  written 
creed.  No  creed  ever  led  to  persecution,  unless  it  embraced  persecuting 
tenets.  I  have  called  on  the  gentleman  to  point  out  one  intolerant  princi- 
ple in  our  confession.  He  has  not  attempted  it.  Its  principles  are  of 
precisely  the  opposite  character;  so  that  no  one  who  truly  embraces 
them,  can  persecute. 

Mr.  C.  charges  us  with  persecuting  his  church  by  misrepresentation 
and  slander — the  only  way,  he  says,  in  which  men  in  this  country  can 
persecute.  If  misrepresenting  and  caricaturing  the  principles  of  men  be 
persecution,  then  is  he  the  greatest  persecutor  of  the  age  !  He  has  pub- 
lished against  the  clergy,  of  all  denominations,  multitudes  of  charges 
which  are  not  true,  and  which,  therefore,  he  cannot  possibly  prove.  I  do 
not  say,  that  he  knew  them  to  be  false ;  but  I  do  say,  they  are  not  true. 
And,  so  far  as  our  church  is  concerned,  he  is  the  less  excusable,  because 
we  have  a  creed  which  presents  clearly  our  principles,  and  with  which 
he  professes  to  be  familiar.  But  in  his  church  he  has  told  us,  that  all 
sorts  of  doctrine  have  been  preached  by  almost  all  kinds  of  men.  I  can 
scarcely  think  it  possible  to  slander  a  body  of  people  who  have  amongst 
them  persons  holding  all  sorts  of  doctrine  ;  for,  though  it  might  be  slan- 
dering some  of  them  to  charge  them  with  holding  almost  any  one  doc- 
trine, yet,  since  all  sorts  are  held  by  one  or  another  among  them,  we  can- 
not but  represent  some  of  them  correctly.  By  the  way,  I  desire  to  see 
the  Presbyterian  paper,  referred  to  by  the  gentleman,  which  represents 
our  church  as  a  stripling  of  Rome, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  881 

Pedobaptism,  (the  old  subject  again,)  the  gentleman  says,  brings  a  great 
deal  of  carnality  into  the  church.  I  should  think  that  such  men  as  Dr. 
Thomas,  the  Materialist,  would  cause  his  church  to  abound  in  carnality ; 
for  he  makes  men  nothing  but  carnality,  except  their  breath!  Yet  he  and 
his  followers  and  adherents  have  for  years  remained  in  connection  with 
Mr.  C.'s  church  !  But,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  I  am  prepared,  at  any 
time,  to  compare  churches  with  him,  both  as  to  soundness  of  faith  and 
purity  of  life. 

Mr.  C.  has  been  laboring  to  prove,  that  human  creeds  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical.  His  course  of  argument  in  his  last  speech  was 
truly  singular.  He  commenced  in  heaven  with  Satan,  the  first  heresiarcli 
and  schismatic.  But  did  Satan  prepare  a  creed,  and  induce  the  angels  to 
adopt  it?  If  not,  how  does  this  case  of  schism  prove  that  creeds  are  ne- 
cessarily heretical  and  schismatical  ? 

The  second  schism  mentioned  by  the  gentleman,  was  in  the  family  of 
Adam.  Here  Cain  was  the  schismatic;  but  had  he  a  written  creed  ?  He 
was  also  a  persecutor ;  but,  so  far  as  my  information  extends,  Cain  had 
no  creed.  If  my  friend  has  ascertained  that  he  had  a  creed,  the  argu- 
ment will  be  pertinent;  but  if  he  has  not,  it  is  against  him. 

The  third  schism,  he  tells  us,  was  at  the  tower  of  Babel,  where  God 
confused  their  tongues,  and  the  people  were  scattered  abroad.  Was  this 
schism  caused  by  a  written  creed  ?  No :  the  Lord  confused  their  lan- 
guage. According  to  the  philosophy  of  Mr.  C,  the  most  effectual  means 
of  separating  them,  would  have  been  to  give  them  a  creed. 

Some  have  supposed  that  their  language  was  confused,  not  by  causing 
them  to  use  words  not  before  known,  but  by  confusing  their  minds  in  re- 
gard to  the  meaning  of  the  words  before  employed;  so  that,  if  one  called 
for  a  brick,  another  would  bring  him  a  trowel.  If  he  called  for  a  trowel,  a 
hammer  was  brought.  Thus  they  used  the  same  words,  but  gave  them  en- 
tirely different  meanings.  Whether  the  confusion  was  caused  in  this  way, 
I  pretend  not  to  decide ;  but,  seeing  the  endless  confusion  in  Mr.  C.'s 
church,  caused  precisely  in  tliis  way,  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  think  the 
theory  correct.  Thus  all,  for  example,  call  our  Savior  "  the  Son  of  God ;" 
but  this  language  one  understands  to  teach  that  he  is  God,  equal  with  the 
Father;  another,  that  he  is  a  super-angelic  creature  ;  and  a  third,  that  he  is 
a  good  man.  All  use  the  same  language,  but  attach  to  it  different  and 
even  opposite  meanings !     This  looks  very  much  like  Babel. 

The  next  schism  mentioned  by  the  gentleman,  was  that  caused  by  the 
apostasy  of  the  ten  tribes  of  the  Jews  under  Jeroboam.  Did  Jeroboam 
write  a  creed,  and  compel  them  to  adopt  it?  Here  we  have  another  great 
schism  where  there  was  no  human  creed.  Mr.  Campbell  commenced 
with  the  rebellion  in  heaven,  and  mentioned  every  important  schism  that 
occurred  amongst  the  people  of  God  during  four  thousand  years ;  and  not 
one  of  them  teas  caused  by  a  creed!  Yet  his  object  was  to  prove,  that 
human  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical.  But  instead  of 
this,  he  proved  conclusively  that  there  have  been  many  schisms,  where 
there  were  no  creeds.  How,  then,  I  ask,  does  it  appear  that  the  schisms  in 
the  christian  church  were  caused  by  creeds  ?  The  gentleman  has  proved 
just  the  opposite  of  what  he  intended,  viz  :  that  heresies  and  schisms  are 
to  be  ascribed,  not  to  creeds,  but  to  other  causes. 

He  says,  the  Savior  gave  his  church  but  one  faith.  AVhat  does  he 
mean  by  one  faith  ?  They  who  have  one  faith,  of  course  believe  the 
same  important  and  essential  truths.  In  his  church,  one  believes  in  a  Sa- 
56  4e2 


Sm  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

vior,  who  is  "  the  mighty  God  ;"  another,  in  a  Savior  who  is  only  a  crea- 
ture. One  honors  the  Son,  even  as  he  honors  the  Father ;  another  ho- 
nors, or  dishonors,  him  as  a  creature.  One  believes  that  he  died  to 
atone  for  our  sins  ;  another,  that  he  died  to  cause  men  to  repent.  One  be- 
lieves, that  the  wicked  will  be  turned  into  hell,  and  punished  forever  ;  ano- 
ther, that  they  will  be  taken  to  heaven,  and  made  forever  happy.  Have  all 
these  one  faith  ?  Far,  very  far,  from  it.  Yet  this  is  the  unity  in  the  gen- 
tleman's church  ! ! !  I  can  prove,  and  I  will  do  it  before  this  discussion 
closes,  that  the  different  evangelical  denominations  have  more  unity  of  faith 
— are  nearer  together,  than  these  modern  reformers  are  to  each  other. 

Partyism,  says  the  gentleman,  arises  from  attachment  to  some  chief 
or  leader.  He  never  said  a  truer  thing.  But  if  partyism  comes  from 
attachment  to  a  chief,  it  is  not  caused  by  creeds.  The  Westminster  con- 
fession was  not  made  by  a  chief.  We  are,  it  is  true,  sometimes  called 
Calvinists ;  but  although  we  believe  that  Calvin  was  a  great  and  good 
man,  whose  views  of  divine  truth  were  generally  correct,  we  have  never 
adopted  his  Institutes  as  our  creed,  nor  do  we  believe  all  that  he  taught. 
For  example,  he  contended  that  John's  baptism  was  christian  baptism, 
but  Presbyterians  believe  no  such  thing.     We  have  no  chief. 

In  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  was  no  human  creed,  and  yet  there 
were  parties  formed.  One  was  of  Paul,  another  of  Apollos,  a  third  of 
Cephas,  and  a  fourth  of  Christ.  The  gentleman  has  almost  saved  me  the 
trouble  of  offering  further  arguments  against  his  proposition.  He  began 
in  heaven,  and  gave  us  some  account  of  all  the  important  schisms  down 
to  the  christian  era;  and  it  appeared,  that  no  one  of  them  was  caused  by 
a  creed.  Yet  his  object  was  to  prove,  that  human  creeds  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical. 

I  will  now  offer  another  argument  to  prove,  that  the  principles  advo- 
cated by  Mr.  C.  are  wrong.  It  is  this :  He  has  himself  radically  changed 
his  ground,  since  he  commenced  his  reformation.  He  began  with  main- 
taining, that  the  New  Testament  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  guide  the 
churches  in  faith  and  practice,  without  any  articles  of  faith,  or  rules  of 
church  government,  drawn  up  by  men.  Yet,  as  I  have  proved,  he  has 
actually  drafted  a  constitution  of  some  six  articles,  and  offered  it  to  his 
churches,  as  a  basis  of  a  general  organization !  The  churches  have  not 
received  it ;  and  many  consider  him,  in  offering  such  a  constitution,  as 
palpably  inconsistent  with  his  published  principles.  If  time  permitted,  I 
should  like  to  read  several  extracts  from  the  Christian  Baptist,  (pp.  25, 
73,  531,)  where  the  gentleman  contends,  "that  every  such  society  [indi- 
vidual church]  with  its  bishops  and  deacons,  is  the  highest  tribunal  on 
earth  to  which  an  individual  christian  can  appeal ;  that  whosoever  will 
not  hear  it,  has  no  other  tribunal  to  which  he  can  look  for  redress." 
"  That  an  individual  church,  or  congregation  of  Christ's  disciples,  is  the 
only  ecclesiastical  body  recognized  in  the  New  Testament — is  the  highest 
court  of  Christ  on  earth:"  "that  wherever  they  [the  churches]  form  a 
quorum,  and  call  for  the  business  of  the  churches,  they  are  a  popish  calf, 
or  muley,  or  a  harmless  stag,  or  something  akin  to  the  old  grand  beast 
with  seven  heads  and  ten  horns:"  "that  every  christian  community  must 
settle  its  own  troubles — no  appeal  from  one  congregation  to  ano- 
ther." Yet,  in  the  Millenial  Harbinger,  he  contends  most  earnestly, 
that  the  right  of  prayer  is  not  more  natural,  nor  necessary,  nor  expedient, 
than  the  right  of  appeal ;"  that  "  there  is  no  government,  or  stale,  or  fam- 
ily, that  can  subsist  without  it;"  that  "  every  church  that  departs  from 


DEBATE  OJN  HUMAN  CREEDS.  883 

the  faith,  or  from  the  discipline  of  Christ's  kingdom,  or  that  unrighteously 
or  unwisely  administers  its  affairs  to  the  great  detriment  of  individual 
members,  a  particular  congregation,  or  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  must 
be  tried  by  some  tribunal ;"  that  "  if  any  one  or  more  of  these  churches 
err  from  the  faith,  or  from  the  discipline,  or  from  a  just,  impartial,  and 
christian  administration,  they  are  amenable  to  the  rest,  and  will  be  judged 
some  way  or  other,  and  disallowed." — (New  Series,  vol.  v.  pp.  38 — 47.) 
This  is  approximating  the  true  principles  of  church  order.  But  whilst 
individuals,  in  his  churches,  may  claim  the  right  of  appeal,  there  is  no 
tribunal  to  ivhich  they  can  appeal.  Our  church  has  a  very  great  advan- 
tage over  his.  We  claim  the  right  of  appeal,  and  there  are  tribunals  re- 
gularly constituted,  to  which  every  member  may  appeal;  and  no  minister 
or  private  member  can  be  finally  excluded  from  our  church,  until  the 
general  assembly  of  the  whole  church  has  heard,  and  decided  upon  his 
case,  if  he  choose  to  bring  it  before  them.  Thus  the  rights  and  immuni- 
ties of  individuals,  and  of  particular  churches,  are  as  completely  protect- 
ed, as  in  the  nature  of  things  they  can  be.  The  difference  between  Mr. 
C  and  us  is,  that  he  admits  the  right  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  ap- 
peals, but  cannot  exercise  that  right;  we  claim  the  right,  and  have  an  or- 
ganization that  secures  the  exercise  of  it. 

I  desire,  now,  to  present  one  more  argument  very  distinctly.  It  is 
this  :  Jifter  all  the  gentleman^ s  declamation  against  creeds,  his  churches 
actually  have  a  creed.  They  have  not  adopted  the  constitution  he  offer- 
ed them,  but  still  they  have  a  creed.  It  is  short — containing  two  articles, 
the  substance  of  which  is — 1st.  That  immersion  only  is  baptism ;  2nd. 
That  infant  baptism  is  not  to  be  tolerated.  They  will  receive  no  one 
into  the  church  who  has  not  been  immersed,  and  ihey  will  not  permit 
their  members  to  have  their  children  baptized. 

But  in  having  such  a  creed  ihey  are  most  inconsistent  with  their  own 
principles.  They  have  proclaimed  to  the  world,  that  they  go  by  the 
New  Testament  alone  ;  that  they  pretend  not  to  judge  of  men's  opinions  ; 
that  they  require  those  who  wish  to  unite  with  them,  only  to  say,  that 
they  believe  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  are  willing  to  be  baptized. 
They  do  not  profess  to  take  the  New  Testament,  as  Mr.  Campbell  inter- 
prets it;  nor  as  each  little  church  interprets  it;  but  as  each  individual 
understands  it.  Now,  suppose  I  should  take  the  gentleman  upon  his 
own  principles,  and  apply  for  membership  in  his  church.  He  would 
ask  me,  '  Do  you  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  V  I  answer 
in  the  affirmative.  He  would  ask  again,  'Are  you  willing  to  be  baptized?' 
I  answer,  I  have  been  baptized.  Will  he  receive  me  ?  He  will  not.  He 
demands  that  I  shall  be  immersed.  But  I  understand  the  Scriptures  to 
authorize  the  administration  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling;  and  I 
solemnly  believe,  that  I  have  been  scripturally  baptized.  But  Mr.  C.  and 
liis  friends  say,  '  We  understand  the  New  Testament  to  require  immer- 
sion;^ and  ihey  positively  refuse  me  admittance  into  their  church,  unless 
I  will  take  their  opinion  concerning  this  matter.  I  must  be  baptized 
again  to  accommodate  them.  Now,  I  ask,  are  they  not  seeking  to  impose 
on  me  their  opinions?  Are  they  not  making  their  opinions  a  term  of 
membership  in  the  church  ?  Does  not  their  creed  operate  as  effectually  to 
exclude  believers  from  their  communion,  as  any  other  creed  on  earth? 

Again,  I  wish  to  have  my  children  baptized.  They  tell  me  I  cannot 
be  permitted  to  do  so.  But  I  understand  the  Bible  to  require  it.  They 
tell  me,  they  do  not  so  understand  it ;  and  I  must  go  by  their  interpreta- 


884  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

tion.     Do  they  not  again  make  their  opinion  concerning  the  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures,  a  term  of  communion  ? 

Now,  observe  how  much  greater  importance  is  attached  by  Mr.  C.  to 
external  ordinances,  than  to  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity.  Even 
the  mode  of  applying  the  water  in  baptism  is  made  more  important  than 
the  true  character  and  work  of  Christ.  Here  comes  a  man  asking  ad- 
mission into  his  church,  and  declaring  his  opinion  that  Christ  is  not  equal 
with  the  Father — that  he  did  not  exist  from  eternity.  So  believes  Barton 
W.  Stone :  yet  they  receive  this  man  as  a  christian  brother,  if  he  will  be 
immersed,  and  will  not  have  his  children  baptized  !  The  same  individual 
declares  his  belief,  that  Christ  died  only  to  cause  men  to  repent,  not  to 
meet  the  demands  of  God's  broken  law.  Still  they  receive  him.  An- 
other comes  and  declares  his  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  Universalism. 
They  will  take  him,  if  he  will  call  his  eiTor  an  opinion,  and  will  not  prop- 
agate it! 

Now,  I  ask  any  thinking  man  to  say,  whether  the  mode  of  applying 
the  water  in  baptism  is  more  important  than  the  character  and  work  of 
the  Son  of  God.  Mr.  C.  AviU  not  admit  a  man  into  his  cimrch  without 
immersion,  even  though  he  would  call  his  views  concerning  sprinkling 
an  opiiiion;  but  he  will  receive  those  whose  opinion  is — that  Christ  is  a 
creature !  1  !  He  will  allow  those  to  enter  his  church,  who  rob  Christ  of 
all  his  glory;  but  he  will  not  receive  one  who  would  diminish,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  quantity  of  water  to  be  used  in  baptism !  He  will 
permit  men  to  enter  his  church,  who  deny  that  Christ  bore  the  punish- 
ment due  to  our  sins  ;  and  affirm,  that  he  died  only  that,  by  witnessing  or 
hearing  of  his  sufferings,  men's  hearts  might  be  melted  and  brought  to 
repentance.  He  will  permit  them  to  take  away  the  glorious  foundation 
laid  in  Zion,  on  which  the  church  stands  ;  but  he  will  not  allow  me  to 
diminish  aught  from  the  quantity  of  water  in  baptism  ! 

Is  it  true  that  God  has  revealed  so  much  more  clearly  the  mode  of 
baptism,  than  the  true  character  and  work  of  his  Son,  that  men  may  deny 
the  latter  with  impunity,  but  must  hold  the  former  on  pain  of  excommu- 
nication? Has  he  not  distinctly  and  emphatically  required  "  that  all  men 
should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father  ?"  And  has  he  not 
added,  "  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth  not  the  Father  which 
hath  sent  him  ?"  John  v,  23.  But  does  not  the  gentleman  make  it  more 
important  that  men  should  be  immersed,  than  that  they  should  honor  the 
Son  of  God,  as  he  has  commanded,  and  trust  in  his  glorious  work  of 
atonement,  as  it  is  exhibited  in  the  Scriptures  1 

Again,  Mr.  C.  will  receive  into  his  church  those  who  avow  their  belief, 
that  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the  righteous,  will  go  to  heaven.  Is  it  possible 
that  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  is  so  much  more  clearly  revealed, 
than  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked,  that  we  may  safely  deny  the 
latter,  but  must  hold  the  former,  or  be  excluded  from  God's  kingdom  ? 

Does  not  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  attach  wonderful  importance  to 
an  external  ordinance,  and  a  strange  insignificancy  to  the  character  and 
work  of  the  glorious  Redeemer  ?  Is  this  the  faith  taught  in  the  Bible  ? 
Do  the  inspired  writers  so  exalt  the  mode  of  baptism?  Do  they  so  dis- 
regard the  character  and  work  of  the  Son  of  God — the  foundation  laid  in 
Zion?     Is  a  itnion  founded  on  such  views  truly  christian  union? 

I  will  offer  but  one  more  argument  against  the  proposition,  that  human 
creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical.  It  is  this :  There  is 
more  real  christian  union  amongst  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Cumber- 


DEBATE  ON   HUMAN  CREEDS.  885 

land  Presbyterians,  CongregationaUsts,  Baptists,  and  other  evangelical 
denominations,  than  there  is  among  these  modern  reformers.  These  de- 
nominations, I  mean  to  say,  have  more  unity  of  faith — are  much  nearer 
to  each  other  in  their  views  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity,  than  the 
reformers  are  to  each  other.  If  tlie  time  shall  ever  come,  vi^hen  the  Me- 
thodists, or  any  one  of  these  denominations,  will  deny  that  Christ  is  God 
equal  with  the  Father ;  or  that  he  bore  the  punishment  due  our  sins  ;  or 
when  they  will  admit  to  their  communion  and  their  ministry  men  avowing 
such  opinions,  we  will  bid  them  a  linal  adieu.  We  will  never  again  ac- 
knowledge them  as  christian  brethren,  or  liold  christian  fellowship  witii 
them.  There  is  an  intinite  distance  between  the  most  exalted  finite  being 
and  the  intinite  and  eternal  God.  There  can  be  no  comparison  between 
finite  ^i\A  infinite ;  between  creature  and  Creator.  Hoav  can  two  per- 
sons, whose  faith  is  infinitely  different — who  build  on  foundations  as  un- 
like as  the  creature  and  the  Creator — -walk  together?  How  can  it  be  said 
with  truth,  that  they  have  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ?"  How  can 
they  be  said  to  receive  the  same  gospel?  No — should  any  one  of  these 
denominations  so  exalt  the  mere  mode  of  an  ordinance,  or  the  ordinance 
itself,  and  so  disregard  the  character  and  work  of  Christ,  we  will  never 
again  acknowledge  them. 

With  them  all  we  agree  in  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity.  They 
believe  in  the  fiiU  and  total  depravity  of  man  ;  and  so  do  we.  They  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  per- 
sonality and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  so  do  we.  They  believe 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  bearing  them  in  his  own  body  on  the  cross; 
and  so  do  we.  They  believe  that  regeneration  by  the  special  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  is  absolutely  essential  to  salvation  ;  and  so  do  we.  They 
believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  eternal  rewards  and  punish- 
ments ;  and  so  do  we.  They  call  on  men  to  believe,  repent  and  obey  all 
God's  commands ;  and  so  do  we.  These  denominations  differ  on  some 
points  of  doctrine  and  church  order;  but  they  agree  in  holding  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  which  are  essential  to  a  compliance  with  the  con- 
ditions of  salvation. 

Every  system  of  truth  has  its  fundamental  principles,  which  are  essen- 
tial to  it;  and  minor  points,  in  regard  to  which  those  holding  the  same 
system,  may  differ.  The  Newtonian  philosophy  has  its  fundamental 
principles,  which  are  believed  by  all  who  hold  the  system.  But  there  are 
many  points  connected  with  it,  concerning  which  they  do  differ.  This  is 
true,  also,  of  the  sublime  system  of  truth  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
Every  truth  is  important  in  its  place  ;  but  the  knowledge  and  belief  of 
every  truth  is  not  essential  to  salvation.  Evangelical  denominations  are 
united  in  holding  every  doctrine  which  the  Scriptures  make  essential  to  3 
compliance  with  the  conditions  of  salvation.  They  can,  therefore,  pray 
together,  and  rejoice  in  each  others'  success  in  extending  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  and  his  glorious  gospel;  and  they  can  truly  thank  God,  that  they 
are  united  in  their  efforts  to  make  known  to  the  heathen  "  the  unsearcha- 
ble riches  of  Christ ." 

The  real  difference  between  Mr.  Campbell's  church  and  the  evangelical 
denominations,  so  far  as  christian  union  is  concerned,  is  this :  He  and  his 
churches  have  union  in  name,  and  radical  disunion  in  fact.  We  have 
different  denominational  names,  but  union  in  fact.  We  have  "  unity  of 
faith," — they,  unity  in  name.  There  is,  I  repeat  it,  vasdy  more  real 
christian  union — union  in  faith — amongst  the  evangelical  denominations, 


886  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

than  amongst  the  reformers  themselves.  We  are  actually  nearer  together, 
than  they  are  to  each  other.  We  agree  in  faith  more  nearly  with  Meth- 
odists, Baptists,  Episcopalians  and  other  evangelical  denominations,  than 
Dr.  Fishback  with  Mr.  Campbell.  Mr.  C.  believes,  and  has  labored  to 
prove,  that  baptism  is  necessary  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  Dr.  F.  de- 
nies it.  Dr.  Fishback  avows  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  total  hereditary 
depravity.  Mr.  Campbell  denies  it.  [Mr.  C.  It  is  not  so.]  I  will  read 
an  extract  from  his  Christian  System,  that  the  audience  may  judge 
whether  it  is  so,  (pp.  29,  30  :) 

"  Still  man,  with  all  his  hereditary  imbecility,  is  not  under  an  invinci- 
ble necessity  to  ein.  Greatly  prone  to  evil,  easily  seduced  into  trans- 
gression, he  may  or  he  may  not  yield  to  passion  and  seduction.  Hence  the 
difference  we  so  often  discover  in  the  corruption  and  depravity  of  man.  All 
inherit  z.  fallen,  consequently  a  sinful  nature  ;  though  all  are  not  equally  de- 
praved. Thus  we  find  the  degrees  of  sinfulness  and  depravity  are  very  dif- 
ferent in  different  persons." 

Dr.  Fisliback  says,  all  men  are  so  totally  depraved,  that  they  have  no 
power,  either  natural  or  moral,  to  avoid  sinning,  or  to  help  themselves 
out  of  their  deplorable  condition ! 

Here  are  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  committee  of  four  prominent  preach- 
ers, who  have  come  up  to  war  against  us ;  and  yet  it  is  a  fact,  as  I  have 
fully  proved,  that  they  differ  from  each  other  more,  concerning  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  than  we  difl'er  from  the  Methodists,  the  old  Bap- 
tists, or  any  other  evangelical  denomination !  We  are  nearer  to  each  of 
those  bodies,  than  these  gentlemen  are  to  each  other !  We  are  infinitely 
nearer  to  each  other,  than  Mr,  C.  professes  to  be  to  B,  W.  Stone,  or  to 
any  of  his  members  who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked.  Yet  the  gentleman  calls  on  us  to  give  up  our 
union,  which  is  real,  for  theirs,  which  is  merely  nominal!  Call  not  on  us 
to  abandon  our  creeds,  which  serve  to  show  us  how  near  we  are  to  each 
other,  and  to  promote  christian  confidence  and  co-operation,  to  enter  a 
body,  where  the  most  important  truths  of  Christianity  are  compromised 
and  sacrificed  for  a  name  ;  where,  in  the  awful  name  of  God,  all  sorts  of 
men  are  preaching  all  sorts  of  doctrine.  Alas  !  for  such  christian  union  ! 
I  have  formed  a  far  higher  opinion  of  christian  union.  I  rejoice  in  believ- 
ing, that  the  church  of  Christ  is  really  and  truly  one  ;  that  all  of  whom  it 
is  composed,  do  hold  the  head,  Jesus  Christ,  and  do  maintain  all  the  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  Bible.  They  have  one  faith ;  they  build  on 
the  same  foundation,  and  constitute  one  spiritual  temple. — \_Timc  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 12  o^clock,  M. 
[mr.  Campbell's  tenth  address.] 
Mr.  President — It  is,  sir,  a  painful  task  to  have  to  respond  to  such  a 
speech  as  you  have  just  heard.  For  many  years,  sir,  I  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  addresses  upon  all  sorts  of  subjects,  and  from  almost  all  sorts 
of  men ;  but  such  a  tissue  of  misrepresentation  and  abuse,  from  any  one 
professing  piety,  I  have  not  heard  in  all  my  life,  so  far  as  my  present  recol- 
lections testify.  It  is  too,  sir,  to  be  called  an  argument! !  Argument! ! ! 
If  this  be  logic,  argument,  rhetoric,  religion,  or  morality,  1  confess  I  know 
not  the  meaning  of  those  words.  If  this  be  a  fair,  honorable,  and  chris- 
tian discussion  of  principles — of  great  sectional  divisions  of  thought  and 
language,  I  do  acknowledge  myself  to  be  unacquainted  with  the  signs  of 
ideas  and  the  elements  of  things  literary  or  moral.  I  will,  however,  sir,  in 
my  usual  calmness,  endeavor  to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  more  promi- 
nent topics  of  abuse. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  887 

The  gentleman  commenced  by  telling  you  of  his  views  of  the  difference 
between  the  reformation  for  which  we  plead,  and  the  character  of  the  primi- 
tive church  ;  alledging.  that  while  certain  errorist  and  improper  persona 
crept  in  among  them  unawares,  we,  knowingly,  willingly,  and  designedly, 
take  them  in  openly  !  That  is  to  say — that  when  immoral  persons,  and 
those  avowedly  erroneous  in  the  grand  fundamental  points  of  religious  faith, 
present  themselves  for  admission,  we  receive  them,  as  Universalists,  Arians, 
Unitarians,  &c.  &c.  only  on  condition  that  they  will  be  immersed  !  I  ask, 
is  not  this  the  impression  the  gentleman  would  make  upon  your  minds  ;  are 
not  these  the  views  he  seeks  to  communicate  to  your  understandings  in  tlie 
speech  which  you  have  just  now  heard!  As  truly,  as  honestly,  he  might 
say,  we  open  our  churches  to  Mahometans,  Mormons,  and  infidels !  Yes, 
sir,  there  would  be  just  as  much  truth  in  the  one  imputation  as  in  the 
other.  His  allegation,  sir,  to  speak  in  the  mildest  terras,  is  without  fact, 
without  authority,  without  any  sort  of  evidence — written,  spoken,  or  pub- 
lished, by  any  man  belonging  to  our  community.  We  disclaim  the  whole 
as  imputations  most  unjust  and  ungenerous — as  the  distorted  imaginations 
of  his  own  bewildered  head. 

It  is  one  of  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  our  pleadings  for  re- 
formation, that  our  press  has  always  been  open  to  our  enemies.  From 
the  4th  day  of  July,  1823,  till  now,  I  have  conducted  a  printing  press  which 
has  issued  a  volume  every  year,  and  a  number  every  month,  without  a  sin- 
gle failure ;  and,  sir,  those  volumes  are  filled  with  communications  from  our 
enemies,  to  speak  in  sectarian  style,  as  from  our  friends.  I  believe,  sir, 
mine  is  the  only  press  in  this  nation  that  has  systematically  and  undevia- 
tingly  given  both  sides  on  every  question,  and  opened  its  pages  to  all  sorts 
of  opponents — Romanists,  Protestants,  infidel  or  sectarian,  provided  only 
he  paid  a  decent  regard  to  the  laws  of  grammar  and  politeness.  I  believe, 
sir,  I  ma}''  go  farther  and  say,  that  my  periodical  was  the  first  and  the  only 
x-eligious  periodical  in  the  world  which  has  pursued  that  course.  They 
were,  in  those  days,  all  pledged  to  some  creed  or  party — all  one  sided.  I 
have  been  shut  out  of  all  their  pages.  Tiiey  dared  not  to  admit  my  es- 
says. They  feared  to  let  their  readers  hear  from  me  on  those  subjects 
which  they  were  inculcating.  To  those  very  persons  that  shut  us  out,  we 
have  tendered  them  page  for  page,  line  for  line,  word  for  word  in  our  vol- 
umes. Some  of  them  have  accepted,  some  of  them  have  declined.  We 
have  then,  sir,  nothing  secret,  nothing  clandestine.  We  have  called  for 
investigation,  for  documents,  arguments,  and  evidence.  On  our  pages  all 
parties  have  been  heard  and  responded  to,  so  that  our  constant  readers  are 
the  most  intelligent  persons  in  the  religious  world.  They  know  both  sides. 
What,  may  I  ask,  is  the  augury  of  this  !  Does  it  omen  the  fear  of  light, 
or  the  love  of  darkness'?  Indicates  it  the  fear  of  man,  or  the  consciousness 
of  truth  and  its  eternal  strengths  Is  this  the  way  that  conscious  error  or 
weakness  intrude  themselves  upon  the  public  ear?  No,  sir.  No,  fellow- 
citizens,  you  know  it  is  not.  You  cannot,  with  all  your  various  and  multi- 
farious modes  of  thinking,  imagine  a  course  more  creditable,  more  just, 
more  candid,  more  honorable  before  heaven  and  earth  than  the  course  I  have 
pursued,  for  the  last  twenty  years,  in  conducting  this  great  discussion  of 
principles.  We  impute  to  no  man.  to  no  party,  principles  that  they  disa- 
vow. We  fearlessly  open  and  avow  our  own.  We  say  to  every  man — hear, 
examine,  judge,  and  decide  for  yourself.  Every  distinguishing  principle  of 
this  reformation  has  passed  through  an  ordeal  of  the  most  fiery  discrimina- 
tion. And,  sir,  as  soon  will  the  arm  of  mortal  arrest  the  rising  eun,  or 
stop  the  planets  in  their  course,  as  any  mind  stay  the  progress  of  truths 
that  have  been  so  clearly  spoken  by  prophets  and  apostles,  and  that  have 
passed  through  such  a  burning  furnace  unscathed  and  unimpaired. 

What  you  have  just  heard  from  my  opponent  is  not  true.  It  is  a  fabrica- 
tion— the  whole  of  it,  sir.  I  have  never  received  a  Unitarian,  nor  a  Uni- 
versalist,  as  such,  knowing  them  to  be  such  in  the  common  acceptation.    It 


883  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

is  easy  to  put  a  false  gloss  upon  any  thing,  even  sometimes  without  design- 
ing it.  A  fool's  cap  may  be  put  upon  the  head  of  a  wise  man.  It  is  easy 
to  be  witty,  too,  without  much  wisdom,  and  to  arraign  opinion  against 
faith,  and  faith  against  opinion.  We,  however,  have  no  such  contrast  nor 
difficulty,  because  we  never  have  both  faith  and  opinion  on  the  same 
subject. 

Should  I  hear  a  man  say,  that  he  thinks  all  men  will  ultimately  be  holy 
and  happy,  I  respond,  the  Scriptures  do  not  say  so.  The  Scriptures  posi- 
tively say — ''  They  that  know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel,  shall  be 
punished  with  an  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and 
tiie  glory  of  his  power."  He  says,  I  admit  all  that ;  I  believe  it  will 
be  just  so  with  the  v/icked,  but  I  do  not  think  it  will  be  eternal,  absolute 
duration  without  end.  Well,  your  think  so  and  your  faith  may  be  at  vari- 
ance ;  but  the  word  of  the  Lord  must  be  acknowledged  and  taught,  and 
only  on  that  ground  can  1  fraternize  with  you.  Suppose,  then,  he  accede  to 
this  proposition,  and  thus  renounce  the  inculcation  and  belief  of  that  opin- 
ion, is  he  a  Universalist !  Mr.  Rice  has  used  and  eulogized  saint  Origeii, 
and  some  other  saints  who,  like  him,  abjured  eternal  misery.  Does  he  not 
know,  that  Origen,  his  own  learned,  eloquent  saint  Origen,  was  of  the  opinion 
just  now  quoted  !  Among  the  ancient  fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  and  amongst 
the  moderns,  I  could  bring  up  many  scores  of  them,  in  full  communion  with 
the  orthodox,  as  Sabellian,  as  Universalian  as  any  of  the  persons  ever  were 
to  whom  allusions  have  been  just  made,  if  time  and  prudence  would  author- 
ize the  digression.  But  I  neither  choose  nor  need  to  run  that  race.  The 
gentleman  knows,  that  many  of  our  greatest  and  best  men  have  taught  and 
practiced  upon  this  principle,  and  sometimes  actually  entertained  the 
very  tenets  which  both  he  and  I  reprobate  as  unscriptural  and  dangerous. 
It  is,  sir,  all  for  effect  the  gentleman  thus  manoBuvres. 

But,  sir,  I  feel  myself  standing  in  the  midst  of  a  great  community.  I 
disdain  any  thing  and  every  thing  but  fair,  manly,  candid  and  honorable 
discussion.  I  know  how  this  community  already  feels,  and  will  feel,  upon 
this  subject,  when  it  is  all  laid  before  them.  1  have  had  no  respondent. 
We  have  never  met  in  the  field  of  fair  debate,  of  fair  and  manly  discussion 
and  argument.  Not  a  point  has  been  canvassed  in  a  way  like  debate,  ex- 
cept a  portion  of  the  first  question  on  bapiizo.  I  was  frequently  admon- 
ished that  I  must  come  here  prepared  for  another  sort  of  work  and  defence, 
than  that  implied  in  those  propositions;  that  I  should  need  other  weapons 
than  logic,  and  the  Bible,  and  good  sense.  I  could  not  yield  to  it,  believing 
that  the  self-respect  of  those  who  selected  Mr.  Rice  for  their  champion, 
would  not  dishonor  their  profession  before  the  face  of  all  men,  saints  and 
sinners.  I  begin  to  see  there  was  some  truth  in  the  prediction.  I  pro- 
posed to  meet  any  honorable  antagonist  selected  by  the  denomination  on 
fair  logical,  scriptural  ground,  believing  that  our  views  had  not  yet  been 
fairly  heard  in  much  of  this  community.  Many  thousands  have  had  their 
ears  turned  away  from  us  by  the  most  gross  and  palpable  misrepresenta- 
tions. The  gentleman  cannot  secure  his  hold  upon  many  of  this  class  but 
by  misrepresenting  our  real  views  and  practices.  I  once  said  to  a  Presby- 
terian minister,  my  neighbor  in  Virginia,  who  I  thought  occasionally  mis- 
represented me:  Sir,  I  learn  that  you  have  proposed  to  preach  a  few  ser- 
mons to  your  people  on  infant  baptism.  "  Yes,  sir  ;"  said  he,  "  the  times 
seem  to  require  it."  Well,  said  I,  do  they  not  all  believe  that  doctrine] 
"•  O  yes,  O  yes  ;  they  all  believe  it,"  he  rejoined.  Well,  said  I,  we  have  a 
church  here  that  does  not  believe  it,  and  you  would  likely  do  more  good 
by  preaching  a  lew  sermons  to  them  on  the  subject;  and  in  the  mean  time, 
while  you  occupy  our  desk,  I  will  occupy  yours,  if  you  please ;  and  in  a 
neighborly  way  deliver  as  many  discourses  to  your  people  on  believer's 
baptism.  "  Ah,  sir,"  said  he,  "  I  do  not  think  that  would  suit  just  quite 
so  well." 

No,  Mr.  President,  that  course  does  not  suit  quite  so  well.    But,  sir,  ic 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  889 

always  suits  me  very  well.  I  will  freely  make  exchanges  of  tins  sort  any 
where,  every  where.  We  are  not  afraid  that  our  brethren  either  read  c" 
hear  the  other  side  of  this  or  any  other  question. 

A  person  may  so  often,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  misrepresent  the:  views  of 
another,  as  to  mistake  his  own  misrepresentations  for  the  truth  itself.  It 
is  in  this  way,  and  only  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  I  can  excuse  much 
that  has  been  said,  and  more  that  has  been  insinuated,  on  the  present  occa- 
sion. Nay,  this  state  of  mind,  when  perfected,  condemns  in  advance  of  evi- 
dence. For  example  : — It  came  in  my  way  the  other  day  to  advert  to  the 
fact  that  a  respectable  minister  of  the  Lutheran  Reformed  church,  on  the 
weight  of  the  evidence  adduced  on  the  subject  of  immersion,  was  so  fully 
convinced  of  the  truth  as  candidly  and  promptly  to  obey  and  honor  the  Lord, 
by  being  immersed  into  his  deatli.  How,  let  me  ask,  did  the  gentleman  ad- 
vert to  this  fact  ?  In  substance  he  said  : — "  Aye,  there  are  many  persons 
now-a-days,  who,  tired  of  the  narrow  way  of  truth,  prefer  the  broader  and 
smoother  way  of  going  to  destruction  !"  Is  not  this  the  fair  construction  of 
his  remarks  on  that  event]  Such  was  the  charitable  construction  put  upon 
the  character  of  a  gentleman  and  a  minister,  concerning  whose  moral  charac- 
ter he  knew  just  nothing  at  all.  Now  I  ask,  was  it  comely,  was  it  honora- 
ble, was  it  christian-like,  and  worthy  of  the  standing  of  Mr.  Rice  with  this 
community,  to  thus  arraign,  before  an  immense  assembly,  the  motives,  and  to 
reprobate  the  character,  of  an  unotfending,  a  conscientious  and  highly  re- 
spectable christian  minister;  whose  credentials  and  standing  are  just  as 
respectable  as  that  of  Mr.  Rice  or  any  other  minister  of  his  age  in  this 
assembly!  It  was  well  for  this  intrepid,  conscientious,  and  exemplary 
brother,  that  he  happens  to  have  at  his  command  honorable  testimonials, 
both  from  Union  college.  New  York,  and  from  the  theological  seminary 
at  Gettysburgh,  Pennsylvania,  and  of  his  connections  ecclesiastic  in  this 
state  up  to  the  present  hour.  Yet  no  sooner  is  this  fact  announced  here 
than  the  sectarian  breath  of  invidious  misrepresentation  would  blast  his 
fair  reputation,  and  consign  him  to  the  society  of  those  who  apostatized 
from  the  way  of  righteousness  into  the  much  frequented  path  of  ruin ! ! 
"  Yes,"  says  Mr.  Rice,  "  there  are  many  who  are  seeking  a  broad  and  easy 
way  to  ruin !" 

And  still  worse,  in  the  next  sentence  of  this  defamatory  speech,  the  gen- 
tleman has  said,  we  cannot  be  misrepresented  in  this  latitude  and  in  this 
age.  Fellow-citizens,  do  you  knovv^  your  neighbors  and  your  fellow-citi- 
zens, with  whom  you  daily  converse'?  Look  around  you;  can  you  accord 
with  such  calumnies  as  these  J  Have  you  not  lived  long  enough  with  us  to 
know  that  our  views,  our  principles,  and  our  proceedings  can  be  misrepresent- 
ed— most  wantonly  and  perversely  misrepresented  ]  There  are  few  men,  that 
a  truthful  man  would  say,  on  proper  reflection,  cannot  be  misrepresented. 
Have  you  not  heard  them  much  misrepresented  on  the  present  occasion? 
When  shall  this  savage  warfare  against  us  have  an  end 'J  Are  there  no 
boundaries,  no  limits,  to  the  tongue  or  to  the  peni  If  we  are  thus  to  be 
perpetually  maligned  and  opposed  by  such  weapons,  and  such  means,  we  de- 
sire to  know  it.  I  did  not  expect  such  gross  misrepresentations  of  views, 
and  tenets,  and  persons,  and  practices ! 

In  his  allusions  to  my  remarks  on  schism,  the  gentleman  knows  he  is  not 
within  a  thousand  miles  of  the  point.  I  was  defining  schism  by  the  facts 
and  documents  which  the  Bible  furnishes.  I  was  developing  its  workings 
by  the  details  of  those  most  fearful  schisms,  of  such  tremendous  results  and 
consequences,  as  to  involve  innumerable  masses  of  intelligence  in  all  man- 
ner of  wretchedness,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal.  Our  Savior  has  in- 
formed us,  that  Satan  apostatized  from  the  truth.  This  is  a  clear  indica- 
tion that  there  was  truth  propounded  ;  that  Satan  was  once  in  that  truth  ; 
that  he  proposed  something  else,  and  united  upon  that  with  other  spirits  ; 
and  thus  made  a  party,  which,  when  consummated  by  some  overt  act  of 
disloyalty,  caused  his  excommunication  from  the  heavens.     This  was,  in- 

4F 


890  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

deed,  the  original  schism,  and  in  every  great  point  of  analogy,  comes  up  to 
the  ecclesiastic  schisms,  in  consequence  of  creeds,  oral  or  written.  Creeds 
are  nuncupative,  as  well  as  written.  Hence  they  have  made  divisions  be- 
fore any  of  them  was  formally  written  out.  Their  being  written  is  only 
necessary  to  give  them  permanency,  and  more  extended  sway.  They  are, 
however,  as  powerful  to  divide  before,  as  after  written.  The  creed  system 
was  just  as  well  developed  in  the  first,  and  in  the  last,  of  that  series  of  an- 
cient schisms,  as  it  was  at  Nice,  or  Rome,  or  Constantinople,  under  the 
christian  dispensation.  In  Jeroboam's  time,  the  established  creed  had  the 
golden  calves  of  Bethel,  and  of  Dan,  and  a  priesthood  ordained  by  law,  as 
its  symbol.  It  was  a  rival  principle  against  the  one  Divine  ritual,  high 
priest  and  Mediator  That  is  the  great  point  in  them  all,  the  essential  and 
characteristic  point — they  are  rival  systems.  I  care  not  whether  the 
articles  be  one  or  one  hundred.  They  are,  one  and  all,  in  essence  and  form, 
rival  institutions.  This  great  fact  the  gentleman  seems  to  have  forgotten, 
or  overlooked.  Every  schism,  from  that  of  Satan  down  to  New  Testament 
times,  and  since,  has  been  a  rival  institution  to  the  one  set  up  by  God  ;  and, 
therefore,  they  are  all  the  same  in  essence,  spirit,  and  tendency  ;  obnoxious 
to  the  displeasure  of  heaven,  and  injurious  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
Zion. 

Our  Savior  was  himself  a  great  reformer ;  certainly  the  greatest  that  ever 
lived.  "  He  came  to  his  own  and  they  received  him  not."  Still,  he  went 
to  the  synagogue,  and,  as  long  as  he  lived,  coi/'-^rmed  to  the  usages  and  cus- 
toms that  were  established  in  the  nation  and  in  the  synagogue.  I  have 
ventured  to  say,  that  he  was  a  regular  reader  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth. 
He  went  into  tiie  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  and,  as  his  manner  was,  stood  up 
for  to  read.  I  need  not  say  to  this  audience  how  he  inveighed  against  the 
scribes,  pharisees,  and  ecclesiastics,  as  we  would  call  them,  of  that  day. 
Did  lie,  on  account  of  the  diverse  theories  of  that  age,  abandon  the  temple 
or  the  synagogue,  or  any  of  the  existing  religious  institutions  1  Did  he  not 
sit  and  worship  in  the  same  synagogue  with  Pharisee,  and  Sadducee,  and 
Herodian  ]  He  did  not,  so  far  as  they  had  any  Vi'orship,  or  public  institu- 
tion of  religion,  abstain  from  them  on  account  of  those  different  and  discord- 
ant theories.  Although  he  sometimes  severely  inveighed  against  those 
same  pharisees,  scribes,  and  rulers,  who  sat  in  Moses'  chair,  he  neverthe- 
less frequented  the  ordinances,  visited  the  synagogues,  and  commanded  the 
people  to  listen  to  those  men  who  sat  on  Moses'  seat. 

It  is  true  he  gathered  around  him  a  company  of  friends  and  disciples ;  but 
both  he  and  they  conformed  to  the  Jewish  institutions  down  to  the  moment 
of  the  last  supper.  His  party  was  never  regarded  as  a  sect  or  a  schism, 
during  his  life  ;  neither  were  the  disciples  of  John.  In  those  days  they  did 
not  make  unity  of  opinion,  nor  oneness  of  theory  the  bond  of  union.  A  new 
institution  they  did,  indeed,  establish  upon  new  principles,  under  a  new,  an 
entirely  new  dispensation  of  things. 

My  time  will  not  allow  me  to  do  more  than  notice  a  few  of  the  more 
prominent  points  in  the  last  speech.  A  volume  of  such  declamations  may, 
indeed,  be  replied  to  in  a  few  specifications.  I  should  be  glad,  however,  to 
expatiate  upon  them,  severally,  in  detail.  Meanwhile  I  have  hut  one  half 
hour  more  to  speak,  and  as  I  have  yet  another  new  argument  to  offer,  I  shall 
in  the  first  place,  attend  to  it. 

According  to  Mr.  Rice,  creeds  are  more  needed  and  more  used,  as  stand- 
ards by  which  to  measure  the  teachers,  and  as  a  test  of  ministerial  commu- 
nion, than  for  tlie  common  or  private  members  of  a  church.  Suppose,  then, 
an  Arminian  minister  sue  for  admission  into  the  Presbyterian  church,  to  be- 
come a  member  of  that  churcli,  will  they  receive  him  and  retain  him,  though 
sound  in  every  thing  but  the  single  theory  of  Arminianisml  This  question 
answered,  and  we  shall  find  a  new  proof  that  creeds,  even  as  tests  of  minis- 
terial communion  and  co-operation,  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismat- 
ical.     If  Presbyterianism  has  not  changed,  or  the  people  called  Presbyte- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  891 

rians  have  not  changed,  and  if  the  creed  be  not  schismatical,  will  Mr.  Rice 
explain  to  js  how  fite  hundred  churches  and  sixty  thousand  members  have 
been  separated  from  the  general  assembly  !  Was  not  Arminian  doctrine 
among  the  exciting,  and  moving,  and  efficient  causes  of  this  schism  1 

Some  might  imagine  that  such  is  the  benevolence,  and  liberality,  and 
christian  charity  of  Presbyterians,  that  they  would  gladly  unite  with  Meth- 
odists, Baptists,  Episcopalians,  &c.  Why  can  they  not  unite  first  among 
themselves  !  ]  They  would  not,  indeed,  exclude  those  persons,  if  they  will 
sit  still  and  be  silent.  But  preachers  will  not  be  silent ;  they  must  speak, 
and  they  must  speak  out  their  Arminianism,and  their  peculiarities  ;  and  the 
consequence  will  be,  they  will  make  a  party.  Then,  indeed,  the  creed  will 
be  brought  to  bear  upon  them,  and  they  will  be  cast  out,  as  have  been  all 
other  ministers,  in  all  past  time,  down  to  the  late  five  hundred  non-conform- 
ists. I  do  hope  the  gentleman  will  attempt  to  show  that  the  creed  is  not 
necessarily  heretical  in  this  case. 

The  gentleman,  in  his  warmth  and  impassioned  style,  says  I  have  written 
a  thousand  things  that  are  not  true.  This  is  easily  said.  He  might  as 
well  have  said  ten  thousand ;  and  then  I  could  balance  the  account,  by  say- 
ing he  had  said  ten  thousand  things  that  were  not  true,  and  that  would  be 
quite  as  logical  a  refutation ! 

Among  other  strange  things,  and  new  arguments  urged  by  the  gentleman, 
is  the  intelligence  given  us  that  there  is  much  union  and  unanimity  be- 
tween Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists,  &c.  Well,  in  truth  I  sincere- 
ly wish  that  all  the  Pedo-baptists  would  unite.  I  have  often  said,  that  they 
ought  all  to  have  united  long  ago.  I  think  we  are  likely  to  be  instrumen- 
tal in  uniting  all  these  Pedo-baptist  parties  in  one  grand  co-operation  ; 
and  that,  perhaps,  upon  a  principle  very  like  that  which  united  Herod  and 
Pontius  Pilate,  in  days  of  yore.  I  say  again,  the  whole  Pedo-baptist  de- 
nomination should  form  one  great  Pedo-baptist  union.  What  is  the  use  of 
ten  kinds  of  Presbyterians,  such  as  we  now  have  in  England,  Scotland, 
and  the  United  States  ]  I  earnestly  desire  that  all  these  parties  should 
amalgamate,  coalesce,  and  be  one  ;  and  that  all  the  Baptists  of  all  the  earth 
would  also  unite  and  make  one  great  party.  Then  we  should  have  but  two 
ecc^siastic  armies  in  the  field.  Between  them,  then,  the  battle  and  the 
war  would  be  ;  and  that  settled,  the  profession  would  be  one  and  undivided ; 
and  is  not  that  a  consummation  most  devoutly  to  be  wished"? 

And  why  can  they  not  unite  1  They  occasionally  do  unite.  They  make 
a  truce  of  ten  or  twenty  days,  for  the  sake  of  great  effect  upon  the  commu- 
nity. They  cry  out,  union  and  co-operation,  for  the  sake  of  one  grand  cam- 
paign. They  go  into  the  field  of  action  with  a  well  understood  stipulation, 
that  they  are  not  to  preach  their  peculiarities  during  the  truce  ;  and  at  the 
end  of  the  battle,  they  agree  to  divide  the  spoil,  in  as  equal  shares  as  the 
peculiar  tastes  of  the  new  converts  will  admit.  If  this  can  be  done  in  all 
godly  sincerity  and  in  all  conscientiousness,  for  ten  days,  why  not  for  a  hund- 
red— for  r  :housand — for  life  ] 

But,  if  all  these  parties  unite  in  opposing  us,  we  shall  really  become  the 
greatest  of  reformers.  If  we,  with  no  creed  but  the  Bible,  unite  them  all 
in  one  human  creed,  we  will  even  then  have  done  a  great  work.  I  think, 
indeed,  that  this  is  quite  as  practicable  as  to  put  us  down.  Nay,  they  will  all 
unite  before  that  point  is  gained.  The  more  they  oppose  us,  if  we  may 
reason  from  the  past,  the  better.  That  system  has  been  tried,  and  we  are 
well  pleased  with  the  result.  No  combination  can  harm  us.  The  elasticity 
of  our  principles  and  our  efforts,  will  always  be  in  the  direct  ratio  of  con- 
federated opposition.  For  the  sake  of  the  truth,  then,  I  desire  union  among 
ourselves,  and  union  against  us.  We  have  eternal  truths  in  charge — they 
cannot  be  overcome.  Men  may  kick  against  the  goads,  but  they  will  spill 
their  own  blood.  They  may  fight  against  the  Rock  of  Ages  ;  but  they  will 
be  broken  to  pieces.  What  millions  of  millions  of  mighty  billows  have 
dashed  upon  the  rock  of  Gibraltar    and  yet  it  stands  unshaken  !      What 


892  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

fierce  tempests  have  burst  upon  its  summit,  and  yet  it  stands  unbroken! 
What  mighty  thunders  have  rolled  over  it,  and  lightnings  played  around  it. 
and  yet  it  is  unscathed!  So  stands  the  man  of  truth,  upon  the  rock  of 
truth,  while  trusting  in  the  God  of  truth,  undaunted,  unappalled,  uncon- 
quered.  So  stand  we,  in  the  midst  of  this  savage  warfare,  which  to-day 
you  have  heard  and  seen,  as  strong,  as  sanguine,  as  confident,  as  when  we 
tirst  began — nay,  much  more  so.  We  have  heard  the  concentrated  acquisi- 
tions of  the  whole  party  in  opposition.  This  but  reveals  our  strength,  and 
stimulates  our  exertions.  A  thousand  volumes  of  such  abuse  would  only 
inspire  more  zeal,  and  invigorate  our  eiforts  in  a  cause  of  so  much  promise, 
and  of  so  much  honor  to  God  and  man.  I  am  pleased  to  hear  all  that  can 
be  said  against  us.  I  hope  that  where  there  is  any  justice  in  the  remarks, 
and  even  in  the  reproaches  offered,  that  we  shall  all  profit  from  them.  If 
any  of  you,  brethren,  have  given  occasion  to  the  adversary  to  speak  re- 
proachfully, you  will,  no  doubt,  stand  admonished  and  corrected.  Truth  is 
truth,  though  an  enemy  say  it;  and  sometimes  we  are  indebted  more  to  our 
enemies  than  to  our  friends. 

Our  principles,  however  imperfectly  carried  out, are  now,  I  sincerely  think, 
shown  to  be  insuperable,  invulnerable.  They  have  long  and  often  been  as- 
sailed ;  but,  like  the  pure  gold,  they  have  always  came  out  of  the  furnace  with 
brighter  lustre.  You  have  seen  by  what  means  they  are  now  assailed — and 
that  neither  Scripture,  nor  reason,  nor  argument,  can  be  offered  against  them. 

Truth,  my  friends,  holy  truth,  stands  upon  the  Rock  of  Ages.  It  lifts  its 
head  above  the  clouds — above  tlie  stars.  It  communes  with  God.  It  holds 
sweet  converse  with  the  hierarchs  around  the  throne  of  the  Eternal  King; 
with  those  elders,  sons  of  light,  and  with  the  spirits  of  the  mighty  dead. 
It  is  the  bright  etiiuence  of  the  bright  essence  of  the  uncreated  mind.  God 
spoke,  and  Truth  was  born.  Its  days  are  the  years  of  God.  Embodied  in 
the  Word  of  God,  it  came  down  from  heaven  and  became  incarnate.  It  is, 
therefore,  immortal,  and  cannot  be  killed.  It  will  survive  all  its  foes,  and 
stand  erect  when  every  idol  falls.  No  one  knows  its  gigantic  strength.  It 
has  been  often  cast  down,  but  never  destroyed.  For  ages  past,  it  has  been 
gathering  strength  and  preparing  for  a  mightier  conflict  yet,  than  time  re- 
cords. It  needs  no  fleshly  wisdom,  nor  worldly  policy,  to  give  it  power  or 
gain  it  victory.  It  is  itself  redeeming,  soul-redeeming,  and  disenthralling. 
It  has  passed  through  fire,  and  flood,  and  tempest,  and  is  as  fresh,  as  fair, 
as  beautiful,  and  as  puissant,  as  ever.  I  feel  myself  peculiarly  happy  in 
being  permitted,  in  being  honored,  to  stand  up  for  it,  when  most  insulted 
and  disparaged  by  its  professed  friends.  He  that  defends  it,  feels  the  strength 
of  mountains,  as  though  girded  with  the  everlasting  hills.  It  gives  him  more 
than  mortal  strength,  and  enlarges  his  benevolence  wide  as  humanity  itself, 

I  am  sorry  that  I  have  been  so  much  disappointed  in  the  promise  of  an  ho- 
norable, high-minded,  and  dignified  investigation  of  its  great  principles.  But, 
though  assailed  with  unbecoming  rudeness,  it  cannot  be  destroyed.  It  is 
self-preserving  and  recuperative.  Conceived  in  the  bosom  of  everlasting 
love,  its  aspirations  are  to  its  native  heaven.  Light  and  fire,  earth's  purest 
elements,  are  but  the  shadows  of  its  glory.  The  tongues  of  lambent  flame 
that  sat  upon  the  heads  of  the  apostles,  were  but  indicative  of  its  irradiating 
and  consuming  potency.  But  its  language  is  that  of  love,  of  purity,  and 
peace.  It  reviles  not  again.  Hence,  those  holy  men  that  heaven  commis- 
sioned to  promulge  and  to  defend  it,  spake  it  in  love,  and  in  meekness,  while 
their  lips  were  hallowed,  and  their  tongues  were  touched  with  live  coals 
from  the  altar  of  Jehovah. —  Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 12*  o'clock,  P.  Jil. 

[MR.    rice's  tenth    REPLY.] 

Mr.  President — I  have  observed,  from  the  commencement  of  this  dis- 
cussion, how  much  better  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  succeeds  in  declamation 
and  exhortation,  than  in  argumentation.     The  very  best  speeches  he  hns 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  893 

made,  are  those  in  which  he  has  ceased  to  argue  the  question  before  us,  and 
delivered  eulogies  on  truth  in  general.  Truth,  we  all  admit,  is,  in  value, 
above  all  price  ;  and  we  believe  and  teach,  that  it  is  mighty,  and  will  pre- 
vail. But  the  question  is,  what  is  truth?  Mr.  C,  in  all  his  declamations, 
assumes  that  it  is  with  him  ;  but  we  also  profess  to  hold  and  to  love  the  truth. 
But  what,  I  ask,  have  these  pretty  eulogies  on  truth  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion, whether  human  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismaticall  I 
admire  the  beauty  of  the  gentleman's  speech  ;  but  the  logic  of  it  is,  indeed, 
poor.  It  has  no  bearing  on  the  only  point  at  issue.  We  want  argument, 
as  well  as  pretty  speeches,  handsomely  delivered.  He  seemed  about  to 
commence  an  argument,  but  flew  off  at  a  tangent,  and  soared  aloft  amid  the 
sublimities  of  truth  in  general. 

His  starting  point  was  indeed  sufficiently  low.  He  began  by  telling,  as 
usual,  how  painful  it  is  to  respond  to  such  a  speech,  as  you  had  heard,  a 
tissue  of  abuse  and  misrepresentation.  I  say  again  to  the  gentleman,  that 
he  cannot  excite  me.  I  never  have  been  excited  in  debate  ;  and  he  will 
utterly  fail  to  throw  me  off  my  guard.  He  is  at  liberty,  therefore,  in  his 
closing  speech,  to  say  just  what  he  pleases.  A  dozen  such  epithets  as  he 
has  repeatedly  used,  will  fall  powerless  as  empty  air. 

He  denies  receiving  Universalists  into  his  church.  Well,  whenever  he 
denies  a  fact  which  I  state,  I  will  certainly  prove  it  true.  I  read,  on  yes- 
terday, from  one  of  his  own  books,  a  declaration,  that  he  would  receive 
Univei-salists,  if  they  would  agree  to  hold  their  errors  as  opinions,  and  not 
propagate  them  ;  and  I  proved  from  the  Millenial  Harbinger  that  he  had  actu- 
ally received  a  Universalist  preacher,  Mr.  Raines,  who  declared  that  on  that 
subject,  his  sentiments  remained  unchanged.  What  is  Universalism  ?  It 
is  the  belief  that  all  men,  righteous  and  wicked,  will  be  saved.  Against 
this  doctrine,  Mr.  C  has  contended  zealously  ;  yet  he  received  a  man  as  a 
preacher  of  the  gospel,  who  declared  openly  his  belief  of  it.  I  will  here 
take  occasion  to  read  Mr.  Raines'  statement  concerning  his  position  and 
belief,  when  received  into  Mr.  C.'s  church  :  (iMill.  Harbinger,  vol.  i.  p.  390 : 

"  At  the  Mahoning  Association,  about  five  months  after  my  immersion, 
I  was  publicly  questioned  relative  to  my  sentiments  ;  and  from  a  bench  on 
which  I  stood,  I  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  to  the  whole  congregation,  that 
it  was  still  my  opinion  that  all  men  would  finally  become  holy  and  happy. 
This  fact  can  be  proved  by  scores  of  witnesses." 

This  is  an  extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Raines  ;  and  he  informs  us  that, 
when  questioned  concerning  his  views,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  to  the 
whole  congregation,  that  it  was  still  his  opinion,  that  all  men  would  finally 
become  holy  and  happy — that  he  was  still  a  Universalist  in  sentiment ;  yet  Mr. 
C.  charges  me  with  slandering  him,  when  I  state  this  incontrovertible  fact ! 

In  regard  to  Barton  W.  Stone,  I  desired  him  either  to  admit  or  deny 
that  he  is  a  Unitarian.  Let  me  again  read  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Stone  to  Mr.  Campbell,  in  which  he  condemns  Mr.  C.'s  apparently  Trinita- 
rian notion,  and  avows  openly  his  Unitarian  faith  ;  (Chris.  Bap.,  p.  379:) 

"  If  these  observations  be  true,  will  it  not  follow  undeniably,  that  the 
Word  (di'hou)  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  was  not  the  only  true  God, 
but  a  person  that  existed  with  the  only  true  God  before  creation  began  ; 
not  from  eternity,  else  he  must  be  the  only  true  God  ;  but  long  before  the 
reign  of  Augustus  Csesar!" 

Mr.  Stone,  you  observe,  positively  denies  that  Christ  is  the  only  true  God, 
or  that  he  existed  from  eternity.  But  if  he  existed  not  from  eternity,  there 
was  a  period  when  he  began  to  exist.  Did  he  then  create  himself?  This, 
no  one  believes.  Then  he  was  created  by  God,  and  is  as  truly  a  dependent 
creature  as  any  angel  in  heaven!  Mr.  Stone,  therefore,  makes  the  Savior 
a  creaiure,  I  care  not  whether  he  considers  him  a  super-angelic  creature 
or  a  mere  man.  The  difference  is  not  worth  contending  about ;  for  there  is 
an  infinite  distance  between  the  most  exalted  creature  and  the  infinite  Je- 
hovah.    These  Universalists  and  Unitarians  have  been  received  into  the 

4f2 


8&4  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

gentleman's  church  with  open  arms ;  and  yet  he  says,  I  abuse  him  and  hia 
church,  when  I  state,  and  prove  from  his  own  books,  these  incontrovertible 
facts!  !'! 

To  show  his  great  love  of  truth,  and  his  impartiality  in  giving  to  all  a 
fair  hearing,  he  states  that  he  has  opened  his  columns  to  free  discussion ; 
but  that  the  editors  of  the  "  sectarian"  papers  have  refused  him  a  hearing 
in  their  columns.  Reformers,  who  originate  new  notions,  or  revive  old 
ones,  I  believe,  are  generally  anxious  to  engage  in  controversy  ;  and,  for 
the  sake  of  getting  their  notions  into  other  papers,  are  willing  to  open  their 
own  to  discussion.  But  editors  generally,  I  presume,  were  not  particularly 
interested  in  the  gentleman's  discoveries  ;  and  their  readers,  satisfied  with 
the  faith  they  had,  did  not  wish  to  see  them.  They  might,  therefore,  with 
propriety,  decline  filling  their  columns  with  such  discussions  ;  even  though 
they  were  not  afraid  of  the  light.  Recently,  however,  you  have  had  the 
opportunity  of  seeing  a  written  discussion  between  myself  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  Bacon  college,  which  was  published  in  the  Presbyterian  paper. 

But  I  think  the  gentleman  must,  in  all  candor  admit,  now  and  hereafter, 
that  "  the  clergy"  are  not  so  much  afraid  of  the  light,  as  he  had  imagined. 
If  they  had  been,  you  would  not  have  seen  me  on  this  occasion,  as  the  op- 
ponent of  the  champion  of  this  reformation — a  man  of  no  inconsiderable 
learning  and  talent — one  of  the  first  debaters  of  the  day — who  has  been,  for 
thirty  years,  debating  the  precise  points  embraced  in  this  discussion.  When 
I  was  in  a  country  school,  learning  the  first  rudiments  of  an  English  edu- 
cation, he  was  becoming  known  as  a  reformer  and  a  man  of  war !  I  am 
happy,  on  this  occasion,  to  give  to  the  public  evidence  the  most  conclusive, 
that  we  fear  not  the  light,  nor  tremble  to  meet  the  champion  of  this  refor- 
mation of  the  19th  century  !  I  am  one  amongst  a  thousand.  He  is  the 
leader,  and  is  admitted  to  be  the  strongest  man  connected  with  his  church. 
Yet  we  feared  not  the  contest. 

But  he  says,  his  friends  told  him  he  needed  not  argument  to  meet  me,  but 
something  of  a  very  different  character.  He  seems,  indeed,  to  have  be- 
lieved what  they  told  him,  if  we  are  to  judge  by  the  amount  of  argument 
compared  with  something  else,  which  he  has  abundantly  employed.  I  have 
always  observed  that  men,  when  sinking  under  the  weight  of  arguments 
they  cannot  answer,  are  likely  to  resort  to  the  means  of  defence  adopted  by 
the  gentleman  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  any  one  descend  to  such 
abuse,  so  long  as  he  had  any  thing  in  the  shape  of  arguments  to  offer.  He 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  been,  from  the  beginning,  anticipating  a  defeat;  for 
he  told  us  the  other  day,  that  on  reaching  Lexington,  he  had  made  particu- 
lar inquiries  concerning  the  editors  of  the  city.  He  was  quite  apprehen- 
sive that  they  would  give  out  a  bad  report  of  his  success.  I  made  no  in- 
quiries of  the  kind,  perhaps  because  I  did  not  expect  to  be  defeated ;  and  I 
supposed  that  the  editors  were  gentlemen,  and  would  publish  nothing  con- 
trary to  fact.  Finding  no  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  the  editors,  his 
imagination  filled  the  city  with  men  under  Presbyterian  influence,  running 
to  and  fro,  manufacturing  public  sentiment,  and  cheating  the  people  out  of 
their  wits  ! ! !     All  this  may  pass  for  what  it  is  worth.     It  is  understood. 

Another  evidence  of  his  magnanimity  and  love  of  truth,  is  found  in  the 
fact,  which  he  stated,  that  he  had  insisted  on  a  Pedo-baptist  minister  preach- 
ing in  his  pulpit,  on  infant  baptism.  We  care  not  to  go  into  his  pulpit ;  but 
we  are  happy  to  have  the  privilege  of  meeting  him  here,  where  he  is  under 
no  restraint  from  the  rules  of  courtesy,  but  is  fully  at  liberty  to  expose  our 
arguments,  if  he  can. 

But  the  gentleman  is  quite  offended  at  my  remarks  in  allusion  to  a  young 
Lutheran  preacher  he  has  immersed.  The  case,  I  knew,  was  brouglit  up 
for  effect ;  and  therefore  I  stated,  what  we  all  know  to  be  a  fact,  that  there 
is  a  class  of  roving  preachers  who  go  from  church  to  church,  as  they  may 
find  inducements.  With  these  floating  gentry,  changes  are  easily  made. 
Their  principles  are  not  in  their  way.     But  it  is  but  right  that  it  should  be 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  895 

known,  that  this  gentleman  has  not  been  converted  by  the  power  of  Mr. 
C.'s  arguments  on  this  occasion  :  for  he  himself  stated,  an  evening  or  two 
since  in  a  sermon,  that  he  had  for  some  time  entertained  his  present  views. 
So  I  learn  from  the  very  best  authority. 

But  the  gentleman  deprecates  this  savage  war/are,  which  consists,  in 
part,  in  stating  important  facts,  and  proving  them  from  his  own  writings. 
Yet  he  has  long  been  accustomed  to  charge  upon  the  clergy  of  all  denomi- 
nations, the  most  heinous  crimes,  without  one  particle  of  evidence.  Did 
you  not  hear  him,  on  yesterday,  attributing  to  them  the  basest  principles'? 
Did  he  not  assert,  that, ybr  money,  they  would  compromise  or  abandon  their 
principles,  and  unite  in  one  body  1  It  is  perfectly  right  in  his  eyes,  that 
he  should  be  permitted  to  abound  in  such  unproved  charges  ;  but  it  is  out 
of  the  question  that  I  should  state  facts,  and  prove  them  by  his  own  wri- 
tings !  Let  me  give  you  another  specimen  of  the  mode  of  dealing  adopted 
by  the  gentleman.  In  his  Christian  Baptist,  (pp.  166 — 168,)  I  find  an  infi- 
del publication,  entitled  "  The  third  Epistle  of  Peter,  to  the  Preachers  and 
Rulers  of  Congregations. — A  Looking-glass  for  the  Clergy."  This  publi- 
cation, the  work  of  some  scoffing  infidel,  is  headed  by  Mr.  C.  with  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  : 

"  One  of  the  best  proofs  that  a  prophecy  is  what  it  purports  to  be,  is  its 
exact  fulfillment.  If  this  rule  be  adopted  in  relation  to  the  "  Third  Epistle 
of  Peter,"  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  written  in  the  true  spirit  of 
prophecy.  We  thought  it  worthy  of  being  preserved,  and  therefore  have 
given  it  a  place  in  this  work. — Ed.  C.  B." 

I  read  from  this  document  a  single  extract,  as  follows : 

"  '  In  all  your  gettings,'  get  money  !  Now,  therefore,  when  you  go  forth 
on  your  ministerial  journey,  go  where  there  are  silver  and  gold,  and  where 
each  man  will  pay  according  to  his  measure.  For,  verily  I  say,  you  must 
get  your  reward. 

"  Go  you  not  forth  as  those  that  have  been  sent,  '  without  two  coats,  with- 
out gold  or  silver,  or  brass  in  their  purses  ;  without  scrip  for  their  journey, 
or  shoes,  or  staves;'  but  go  you  forth  in  the  good  things  of  the  world. 

"  And  when  you  shall  hear  of  a  church  that  is  vacant,  and  has  no  one  to 
preach  therein,  then  be  that  a  call  to  you,  and  be  you  mindful  of  the  call, 
and  take  you  charge  of  the  flock  thereof  and  of  the  fleece  thereof,  even  of 
the  golden  fleece. 

'■  And  when  you  shall  have  fleeced  your  flock,  and  shall  know  of  another 
call,  and  if  the  flock  be  greater,  or  rather  if  the  fl.eece  be  greater,  then 
greater  be  also  to  you  the  call.  Then  shall  you  leave  your  old  flock,  and  of 
the  new  flock  shall  you  take  the  charge." 

This  is  but  a  specimen  of  this  miserable  document,  which  the  gentleman 
dignifies  as  a  prophecy  which  has  been  actually  fulfilled.  He  thinks  no- 
thing of  making,  against  tlie  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  of  all  denominations, 
charges  like  these.  I  have  frequently  observed,  that  those  persons  who 
are  most  fond  of  throwing  out  "railing  accusations"  against  others,  are 
most  impatient  when  the  truth  is  told  concerning  themselves. 

Christ,  the  gentleman  says,  was  a  great  reformer.  It  is  true.  But  he 
never  did  admit  to  his  church  those  who  denied  his  Divinity  and  his  atone- 
ment. Moreover,  he  excommunicated  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  who  re- 
fused to  receive  him  in  his  true  character,  and  thus  he  made  what  the  Jews 
called  a  great  schism.  And  they  charged  the  schism  upon  Christianity 
about  as  correctly  as  the  gentleman  has  charged  certain  other  schisms  upon 
creeds,  and  confessions  of  faith. 

He  asks,  whether  the  Presbyterian  church  would  retain,  in  its  commu- 
nion, an  Arminian  preacher.  We  differ  on  several  points  from  our  Metho- 
dist brethren ;  and  whilst  we  can  sincerely  acknowledge  them  as  christian 
brethren,  and  their  ministers  as  christian  ministers;  and  whilst  we  can  occa- 
sionally preach  with  them,  we,  and  they,  believe,  that  we  can  labor  more 
harmoniously  in  different  organizations,  than  if  thrown  into  one  body.     It 


896  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

would  not  be  wise  to  have  these  United  States  thrown  into  one  consolidated 
government.  It  is  much  better,  under  existing  circumstances,  that  each 
state  shall  have  its  own  constitution  and  peculiar  laws ;  while  the  whole 
forms  but  one  general  government.  Perhaps  Mr.  C.  would  think  it  wise  to 
have  all  the  state  constitutions  abolished.  The  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  jour- 
neyed together  in  great  harmony  towards  the  promised  land,  yet  each  re- 
tained its  distinct  organization  and  its  appointed  place.  So  the  different 
denominations  of  christians,  so  long  as  there  are  differences  in  some  im- 
portant points,  will  co-operate  in  the  general  cause  more  harmoniously,  by 
retaining  each  its  separate  organization. 

But  the  gentleman  thinks  he  has  succeeded  in  producing  among "  the 
sects"  a  new  kind  of  union — a  union  between  Presbyterians  and  Methodists, 
and  others,  which  heretofore  has  not  existed.  So  far  back  as  my  acquaint- 
ance with  Presbyterianism,  in  this  country,  extends,  our  church  has  always 
acknowledged  the  denominations  called  evangelical,  as  constituting  a  part 
of  the  church  of  Christ.  It  is  true,  we  cannot  unite  with  Unitarians,  Uni- 
versalists,  and  such  gross  errorists,  and  all  profess  to  preach  the  same  gospel. 
It  is  the  peculiarity  of  Mr.  C.'s  church,  that  it  can  unite  things  diametri- 
cally opposite,  and  have  men  preach  the  gospel,  who  deny  its  fundamental 
doctrine.     This,  however,  is  not  christian  iinion. 

Having  now  duly  noticed  all  the  small  matters  which  constituted  the  gen- 
tleman's speech,  I  wish,  in  the  way  of  recapitulation,  to  present  before 
your  minds  the  whole  ground  over  which  I  have  traveled  in  the  discussion 
of  the  question  before  us. 

Let  us  remember  distinctly  the  point  at  issue.  The  question  before  us  is 
not,  whether  any  particular  creed  is  good  or  bad,  true  or  false;  nor  is  it, 
whether  we  have  the  right  to  force  our  opinions  upon  others.  We  all  agree 
that  we  have  no  right  to  attempt  to  compel  men  to  receive  either  the  Bible 
or  a  creed.  "  God  alone,"  says  our  confession,  "  is  Lord  of  the  conscience." 
In  matters  of  religion,  every  individual  must  judge  for  himself,  being  respon- 
sible for  his  opinions  and  views  only  to  God.  Persecution  in  every  form  is 
abominable.     This,  then,  is  not  the  question. 

But  the  question  is,  whether  hitman  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and 
schismalical — whether  it  is  at  all  lawful  to  have  a  creed.  This  is  an  im- 
portant question — especially  so  in  Mr.  C.'s  theology ;  for  the  using  of  a 
creed,  according  to  his  views,  amounts  to  apostasy ;  and  he  excommunicates 
and  denounces  all  bodies  of  christians  who  perpetrate  the  awful  crime  of 
making  a  creed — of  committing  to  writing  an  outline  of  what  they  under- 
stand the  Bible  to  teach,  and  holding  this  epitome  as  a  creed  ! 

To  determine  whether  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical ; 
whether  they  are  lawful  or  unlawful,  I  stated  distinctly  what  purposes  they 
are  designed  to  answer. 

I.  They  are  not  designed  to  be  a  substitute  for  the  Bible,  nor  an  addition 
to  it.  Our  confession  of  faith  commences  with  declaring  that,  "  The  whole 
counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  sal- 
vation, faith  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture ;  unto  which 
nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit, 
or  traditions  of  men," — that  "the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  manners." 

II.  Creeds  are  designed  to  be  a  public  declaration  of  the  principal  doc- 
trines and  truths,  which  those  who  adopt  them  understand  the  Scriptures  to 
teach.  I  have  stated  the  fact,  which  Mr.  C.  has  not  denied,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  know  what  a  man  believes,  by  the  mere  fact  that  he  professes  to 
take  the  Bible  as  his  only  infallible  guide.  Not  because  the  Bible  is  either 
obscure  or  contradictory,  but  because  men  have  perverted  its  language,  and 
attached  to  it  various  contradictory  and  absurd  meanings.  The  phrase  '<  Son 
of  God,"  as  used  in  the  Book,  has  a  clear  and  definite  meaning.  It  is  inten- 
ded to  express  the  true  and  proper  Divinity  of  Christ.     But  the  Arians  and 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  897 

Socinians  use  it  in  a  sense  infinitely  different.  If,  then,  it  be  true,  that  we 
cannot  know  a  man's  faith  by  the  fact  that  he  professes  to  go  by  the  Bible, 
it  becomes  very  important  that  every  denomination  of  professing  christians 
should  give  a  public  declaration  of  the  doctrines  which  they  understand  the 
Bible  to  teach. 

1.  It  is  necessary  for  the  reformation  of  those  who  desire  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  church  of  Christ.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  no  prudent 
man  will  join  any  society  of  people,  and  more  especially  a  religious  society, 
until  he  is  acquainted  with  their  principles ;  until  he  knows  what  are  the 
great  doctrines  which  they  understand  the  Scriptures  to  teach.  This  infor- 
mation any  one  can  give  concerning  the  Presbyterian,  the  3Iethodist  and 
oiher  churches,  by  examining  their  creeds.  Every  one  has  thus  the  oppor- 
tunity, not  only  of  knowing  what  we  teach,  but  of  comparing  our  doctrines 
with  the  Word  of  God — the  infallible  standard,  that  he  may  determine 
whether  he  can  conscientiously  unite  with  us. 

2.  Creeds  are  also  important  for  the  information  of  other  christian  com- 
munities. All  true  christians  desire  to  knov/  and  acknowledge  all  Christ's 
disciples  ;  and,  so  far  as  they  can,  to  co-operate  with  them  in  promoting  the 
common  cause.  The  question  then  arises  :  Skall  we  recognize  as  christian 
brethren,  as  a  church  of  Christ,  a  certain  body  of  professi^ig  christians?  We 
cannot  determine  to  acknowledge  them,  until  we  know  their  principles — 
until  we  know  how  they  understand  the  Scriptures.  The  respective  creeds 
of  the  different  denominations  afford  the  desired  information.  They  show 
how  near  they  are  to  each  other  in  their  views,  and  wherein  they  differ. 
They  can  thus  determine  whether  they  can  recognize  each  other  as  chris- 
tians, and  how  far  they  can  harmoniously  co-operate. 

3.  These  public  declarations  of  our  faith  also  afford  important  information 
and  instruction  to  members  of  the  church  ;  and  serve  to  correct  misrepresen- 
tations of  our  doctrines. 

Can  the  gentleman  offer  any  valid  objection  to  a  creed  for  these  purposes  1 
I  asked  him,  in  ray  first  speech  on  this  proposition,  whether  he  would  be- 
come a  member  of  any  church  on  their  declaration,  that  they  take  the  Bible 
as  their  infallible  guide,  without  inquiring  further  into  their  principles. 
He  gave  me  no  answer. 

I  have  also  asked  him,  and  I  now  repeat  the  question — to  what  source  of 
information  would  he  direct  a  man  who  desired  to  know  how  his  church,  as  a 
body,  understood  the  Bible  J  Would  he  direct  him  to  the  Bible  ]  All  profess 
to  go  by  the  Bible ;  but  the  inquirer  wishes  to  know  what  his  church,  as  a 
body,  understands  the  Bible  to  teach.  When  this  question  was  propounded 
to  him  by  a  man  in  England,  he  did  not  direct  him  to  the  Bible,  but  gave  him 
a  detailed  account  of  his  faith.  Will  the  gentleman  please  to  tell  us  where 
euch  an  inquirer  as  I  have  supposed,  would  gain  the  desired  information? 

I  know  very  well  where  I  may  ascertain  what  Mr.  Campbell  teaches ; 
but  where  I  can  be  informed  what  his  church,  as  a  body,  teaches,  I  confess 
I  do  not  know.  Here  we  see  his  strange  inconsistency.  He  has  published 
his  ".Christian  System,"  as  he  says,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things, 
of  "exhibiting  a  connected  view  of  the  whole  ground  we  [reformers]  occu- 
py." Why  did  he  not  direct  those  who  wish  to  knov/  their  whole  ground, 
to  the  Bible  ?  This  would  not  answer.  He  felt  constrained  to  make  a  pub- 
lic declaration  of  their  faith. 

But  here  is  thoi  difficulty  attending  this  Christian  System.  It  entirely 
fails  to  give  the  needed  information.  It  informs  the  public  what  Mr.  C. 
believes  and  teaches ;  but  does  his  church,  as  a  body,  believe  just  as  he  does  ■? 
They  do  not.  Many  differ  from  him  on  very  important  points.  Then,  I 
ask  again,  where  shall  we  ascertain  what  his  church,  as  a  body,  under- 
etand  the  Bible  to  teach]  Is  there  any  source  of  information  on  this  im- 
portant point  J 

III.  Creeds.  I  have  said,  are  designed  to  be  a  standard  of  ministerial 
qualification,  as  well  as  of  the  qualifications  of  other  officers  in  the  church. 
57 


898  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

The  gentleman  does  not  deny  that  those  who  become  preachers  of  the  gos<- 
pel,  ought  to  possess  some  qualifications.  He  does  not  deny  that  they  are 
required  to  have  some  education ;  that  the  Bible  requires  that  they  "  hold 
fast  the  faithful  word."  He  will  not  deny  that  they  should  give  satisfactory 
evidence  of  possessing  true  piety ;  nor  will  he  deny  that  all  churches  are 
solemnly  bound,  and  that  it  is  their  true  interest,  to  see  to  it,  that  only  those 
properly  qualified,  enter  the  ministry. 

Now,  it  is  a  fact  which  I  have  stated,  and  which  he  has  not  denied,  that 
the  Scriptures,  whilst  they  require  the  church  to  ascertain  the  qualifications 
of  those  who  seek  to  enter  the  ministry,  prescribe  no  particular  method  by 
which  this  should  be  done.  We  are,  therefore,  left  free  to  select  the  method 
which  may  seem  to  us  most  wise,  and  best  adapted  to  secure  the  object. 
Our  church  has  deemed  it  wise  to  draw  up  and  publish  an  outline  of  the  sys- 
tem of  divine  truth,  which  we  understand  the  Bible  to  teach,  and  by  means 
of  this  creed  to  secure  throughout  the  church  some  good  degree  of  uniform- 
ity, not  only  in  the  faith,  but  in  other  qualifications  for  the  ministerial  office. 
Our  responsibility  to  God,  and  our  regard  for  the  interests  of  the  church 
and  of  the  souls  of  men,  alike  forbid  us  to  ordain  and  send  forth  as  preach- 
ers of  the  gospel,  men  of  whose  soundness  in  the  faith  we  are  not  satisfied, 
or  who  have  not  such  qualifications  as  will  make  them  "  apt  to  teach.** 
Q,uacks  in  medicine  kill  the  body :  quacks  in  theology  kill  the  soul ! 

IV.  Creeds,  I  have  said,  are  not  designed  to  be  a  condition  of  member- 
ship in  the  church.  The  pupil,  on  entering  the  school,  is  not  expected  to 
be  as  well  instructed  as  his  teachers.  We  require  those  who  desire  to  en- 
ter our  church,  sincerely  and  intelligently  to  adopt  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  and  to  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  possessing  true  piety. 
According  to  the  Scriptures,  there  are  certain  qualifications  necessary  to 
membership  in  the  church ;  and  other  stronger  qualifications  to  enter  the 
ministry. 

Now,  I  ask,  where  in  the  Bible  is  there  a  solitary  passage  that  forbids 
the  use  of  creeds  for  these  purposes  ?  The  gentleman  has  not  produced  one, 
and  he  cannot.  I  ask  not  for  a  text  that  says,  in  so  many  words,  creeds  are 
unlawful ;  but  I  call  for  one  which  by  any  fair  construction  condemns  them. 
He  and  his  friends  insist,  that  all  who  use  creeds,  are  apostates,  and  are  to  be 
excommunicated.     It  behooves  him,  then,  to  produce  the  law  against  them. 

He  has  told  us,  that  there  is  in  the  Bible  no  command  to  make  a  creed. 
But  is  every  thing  unlawful,  which  is  not  directly  commanded  in  the  Bible  1 
Is  everything  not  specially  commanded,  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical] 

He  has  said,  that  creeds  axe  fallible.  But  is  every  thing  unlawful  that  is 
fallible  I  Then  it  is  wrong  to  have  fallible  teachers.  If  we  act  upon  the 
principle,  that  whatever  is  fallible,  is  unlawful,  let  us  give  up  all  fallible 
things.     If  the  precept  is  sound  in  one  case,  it  is  so  in  all. 

He  has  said,  that  making  a  fallible  creed  tends  directly  to  produce  schism. 
But  I  can  prove,  that  the  publishing  of  books,  which  were  not  creeds,  has 
often  caused  schisms,  even  as  extensive  and  mischievous  as  any  ever  pro- 
duced by  a  creed.  The  truth  is,  schisms  and  heresies  have  generally  ori- 
ginated with  such  publications,  not  with  creeds.  Creeds  may  einbody  eiToi ^ 
but  they  cannot  originate  it. 

He  has  said,  creeds  lead  to  persecution  ;  but  I  have  stated,  and  proved, 
that  some  of  the  most  abominable  persecutions  the  world  has  ever  witness- 
ed, were  instigated  by  those  who  had  no  written  creeds.  Such  were  the 
persecutions  suffered  by  our  Savior  and  his  apostles,  and  by  the  primitive 
christians. 

He  has  urged  against  creeds  Paul's  exhortation  to  Timothy,  to  "  hold  fast 
the  form  of  sound  words."  But  we  take  the  Bible  just  as  it  is.  We,  how- 
ever, take  the  liberty  to  say,  and  to  write,  vv'hat  we  understand  the  Bible  to 
teach.  Let  the  gentleman  prove,  if  he  can,  that  this  is  inconsistent  with 
holding  the  form  of  sound  words. 

He  brings  forward  the  exhortation  of  Jude,  to  christians,  to  contend  for 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDvS,  899 

the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  ;  but  he  cannot  possibly  prove,  that 
when  we  hold  and  contend  for  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  we  do  not  contend 
for  the  faith. 

He  has  told  us,  it  is  not  lawful  to  make  a  constitution  for  the  church.  My 
leply  is — that  we  have  not  made  a  constitution,  but  have  only  collected  and 
arranged  in  a  few  chapters,  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  church  order, 
taught  in  the  Bible.  This  he  cannot  prove  to  be  unlawful.  How,  then,  does 
this  objection  prove,  that  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical ! 

He  has  said,  there  was  no  creed  for  the  first  two  centuries  of  the  christ- 
ian era.  But  I  have  stated,  and  he  has  admitted,  that  during  that  time 
the  church  was  overrun  with  error.  Does  not  this  fact  rather  prove  the 
necessity  of  a  creed  clearly  defining  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  guard- 
ing against  the  admission  of  errorists  into  the  bosom  of  the  church  1 

I  defy  the  gentleman  to  point  to  an  instance  in  which  a  creed  has  pro- 
duced a  schism  in  a  church ;  or  in  which  a  creed  not  containing  intolerant 
principles  ever  produced  persecutions.  We  have  had  our  attention  directed 
to  a  number  of  schisms,  and  a  number  of  persecutions  ;  but  it  is  yet  to  be 
proved,  that  creeds  produced  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

In  the  commencement  of  the  discussion  of  this  proposition  I  pressed  on 
the  gentleman  a  question  which  I  wish  once  more  very  distinctly  to  pre- 
sent, viz. :  What  is  the  standard  of  ministerial  qualifications  in  Mr.  Camp' 
belVs  church,  as  to  education,  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  personal  piety  ? — 
[Time  expired, 

Saturday,  Dec.  2 — 1  o''clock,  P.  JV[. 
[mr.  Campbell's  closing  address.] 

Mr.  President — I  regret  to  see  so  little  regard  to  truth  and  decorum 
manifested  in  reference  to  the  gentleman  immersed  the  other  evening,  whose 
case  happened  to  be  alluded  to.  It  seems  as  though  his  very  virtues  were 
to  be  converted  into  faults,  by  the  scowls  of  sectarianism.  I  did  not  know, 
till  this  moment,  that  he  was  in  the  house,  to  hear  this  most  unjustifiable 
attack  upon  his  reputation.  He  has  just  sent  up  to  me  the  following  note, 
which  I  beg  leave  to  read ; 

"  I  never  said,  that  I  had  not  changed  my  course  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  since  I  have  been  here.  Many  of  the  sentiments  held  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  reformation,  I  have  long  held  and  taught ;  but,  on  the  subject 
of  infant  baptism,  I  have  changed  my  course  since  I  have  been  here,  and 
in  consequence  of  this  debate.  Wm.  R.  McChesney." 

I  do  hope,  that  a  brother  of  such  reputation  in  the  community,  and  in  a 
very  respectable  portion  of  the  church  militant,  will  be  allowed  to  follow 
out  his  convictions  of  truth  and  duty,  without  being  thus  wantonly  assailed. 

The  gentleman  has  given  me  a  few  things  to  note.  He  has  adverted  to 
the  regium  donum  bond  of  union  amongst  Burgher  and  Anti- burgher  Pres- 
byterians. It  is  true  that  I  made  a  remark,  in  reply  to  his  remark,  upon 
the  powers  of  the  confession  to  heal  divisions,  and  to  unite  belligerent  par 
ties  ;  upon  its  powers  of  consolidation,  and  harmonizing  of  discordant  and 
disaifected  brethren ;  and,  by  a  fact  of  which  he  seemed  to  be  ignorant, 
shewed  that  money  had  done  what  he  supposed  the  Westminster  creed  had 
done  !  He  does  not  seem  thankful  for  the  information  ;  nevertheless,  I  will 
give  him  a  little  more  on  the  subject.  The  Burghers,  or  Unionists,  of  Amer- 
ica, were  the  most  numerous  party  of  the  two,  and  most  interested  in  the 
affair.  They  moved  first,  and  sent  off  three  ministerial  delegates  to  wait 
on  the  parliament,  to  secure  for  the  two  parties,  now  united,  (especially  be- 
cause neither  could  be  gifted  without  the  other,)  the  royal  bounty.  I  re- 
member, for  it  happened  in  my  youth,  to  have  heard  them  say,  the  Burgh- 
ers were  most  active  and  most  avaricious  in  the  affair  ;  and  after  they  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  the  bounty,  did  not  please  the  others  with  a  fair  division 
of  the  spoil.  It  so  happened,  however,  in  the  course  of  divine  Providence, 
that  in  about  the  space  of  one  year,  the  whole  three  delegates  died, 
without  once  having  drawn  their  quota  !     Some  of  the  disaffected  hesitated 


900  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

not  to  call  it  a  judgment  from  heaven  upon  them,  for  their  dereliction  of 
principle,  and  their  unbecoming  cupidity  in  managing  the  affair.  The  con- 
fession of  faith  had  nothing  to  do  with  their  union.  It  was  gold,  sir,  and  not 
faith,  tha'.:  harmonized  them.  I  know,  indeed,  there  are  some  few  men  who 
cannot  be  bought  or  sold.  The  gentleman's  remarks,  both  upon  myself  and 
concerning  others,  were  as  uncalled  for  as  they  were  inaccurate  and  invidi 
ous.  I  do  not  say,  that  all  the  priests  or  flergy  were  mercenary.  Still, 
however,  although  there  are  some  ministers  that  a  mountain  of  gold  could 
not  buy  over  to  an  opinion,  or  an  ignoble  deed,  the  majority  could  be  bought 
for  a  much  less  sum,  as  all  history  and  all  time  have  written.  It  is  lamen- 
tably true,  that  venality  has  been  the  standing  frailty  of  the  priesthood  in 
all  ages.  Hence,  as  the  majority  rules,  I  still  opine,  that  if  the  whole  com- 
munity would  withhold  their  regium  donum  until  all  the  parties  in  this  com- 
monwealth, or  any  other,  would  unite ;  in  a  very  few  years  they  would  be 
all  of  one  heart  and  soul,  in  pleading  a  common  cause.  I  do  not  wish  to 
swell  the  union  party,  however,  by  such  an  acquisition,  and  am  pleased  to 
think  that  the  friends  of  union  will  not  be  entrammeled  with  any  such  alliance. 

To  return  to  my  last  argument.  When  asked  whether  he  would  retain 
an  Arminian  preacher  in  his  church,  Mr.  Rice,  as  you  all  saw,  evaded  the 
question  ;  and  taking  the  manner  of  his  answer  and  the  answer  together,  it 
is  very  obvious  to  you  all  that  he  would  not  retain  him.  The  creed,  indeed^ 
calls  for  his  expulsion,  and  Mr.  Rice  goes  for  the  creed.  Well,  now,  this  ex- 
cluded Arminian  preacher  (I  mean  excluded  from  tlie  Presbyterian  church,) 
will  not  be  silent,  when  turned  out.  His  opinions  are  now  more  sacred. 
He  has  been  wedded  to  them  by  persecution,  as  he  will  call  it.  He  pro- 
mulges  them,  and  makes  a  party.  Are  not  these  creeds,  Mr,  Rice  himself 
being  judge,  heretical  and  schismaticall  Every  one,  in  this  case,  can  see 
it.     And  in  this  way  all  the  Protestant  parties  began. 

If  Mr.  Rice's  system  is  true,  it  is  much  older  than  he  is.  But  not  so 
much  as  you  might  suppose.  He  must  have  lived  in  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion. It  must  have  occurred  to  him  as  well  as  to  you,  and  to  all  persons 
that  think  that  this  boasted  union  and  co-operation,  of  which  he  sometimes 
speaks,  for  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years,  is  quite  a  new  thing.  Some  think 
it  is  a  good  omen  of  the  millenium.  But  the  fact  is,  that  it  is  an  opposition 
union— a  union  got  up  to  oppose  us.  It  is  a  sort  of  holy  alliance  against  a 
cause,  for  which  they  are  too  weak  in  detail.  I  repeat  my  wishes,  that  they 
may  still  more  closely  unite,  and  that  they  may  in  truth  harmonize  forever. 
We  shall  then  have  been  instruments  of  harmony,  and  of  much  good. 

Had  I  time,  I  could  give  you  some  amusing  speculations  of  these  saints, 
Origen,  Augustine,  TcrtuUian  and  Cyprian,  by  way  of  an  offset  to  those 
figments  detailed  by  my  firiend.  But  I  have  but  a  few  minutes,  and  can 
employ  them  better. 

I  shall  now  give  you  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  prominent  arguments  and 
points  submitted  in  the  development  and  confirmation  of  this  proposition. 
I  call  them  arguments,  because  used  as  such,  though,  because  of  the  broad 
cast  miscellanies  of  my  friend,  they  were  neither  counted  out,  nor  so  for- 
mally discussed  as  I  could  have  desired.  Still,  the  half  of  them  is  more 
than  enough  for  my  purposes. 

I  beg  your  special  attention  to  this  grand  preliminary  fact  so  often  stated, 
but  not  respected  by  Mr.  Rice,  that  written  creeds  were  the  causes  of  all 
schism,  or  of  all  persecution.  I  never  thought  it,  said  it,  or  wrote  it.  They 
are  the  cause  of  much  sectarian  schism,  when  oral,  and  when  written.  In- 
deed, oral  or  noncupative  creeds  were  the  causes  of  persecutions  and  schisms 
before  the  era  of  written  creeds,  as  we  have  shown.  Alcohol  has  slain 
its  millions,  but  it  is  not  the  only  cause  of  death.  Again,  when  I  speak  of 
creeds,  I  speak  of  them  as  ecclesiastic  documents,  set  up  as  explained  in  my 
first  lecture. 

I.  My  first  argument  was,  that  they  are  without  any  Divine  authority 
whatever.     God  commanded  no  one  to  make  them,  no  one  to  write  them, 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  901 

and  no  church  to  receive  them.  This  argument  has  not  been  answered  by 
any  fact  or  example  indicative  of  any  such  authority.  And  did  ilr.  Rice 
tallt  for  an  age  he  could  not  find  one — not  one  Tli^is  smith  the  Lord,  for  any 
synopsis,  formula,  or  precedent  of  the  sort.  Had  the  apostles  put  any 
thing  of  the  sort  at  the  close  of  the  volume,  it  would  have  been  a  satire  upon 
the  whole  book.  It  would  have  been  a  sort  of  labor-saving  machinery  which 
the  book  does  not  sanction,  or  it  would  have  been  a  sort  of  acknowledgment 
that  the  book  was  not  well  adapted  in  the  aggregate  to  the  wants  of  so- 
ciety. God  intended  that  it  should  cost  much  personal  labor,  much  read- 
ing, thinking,  praying,  searching,  meditating,  conversing  about  it.  He 
intended  to  keep  the  mind  of  man  much  in  company  with  himself,  by  giv- 
ing him  a  book  which  he  might  read  for  a  thousand  years,  and  still  find 
something  new.  I  have  sometimes  said  that  a  fortune  left  to  a  child  is  the 
greatest  misfortune  that  can  befall  it.  It  almost  universally  proves  itself 
to  be  so.  Whatever  lifts  a  young  man's  mind  above  the  employment  of  hie 
own  energies — robs  him  of  the  employment  and  enjoyment  of  himself,  and 
lets  him  down  to  ennui,  or  uselessness,  or  dissipation,  or  premature  ruin. 
But  hereditary  orthodoxy  is  still  a  greater  misfortune.  That  often  ruins  a 
man  in  his  best  interests,  and  always  prevents  him  the  pleasure  of  search- 
ing for  the  truth,  of  musing,  reflecting,  and  acting  for  himself. 

II.  Creeds  have  often  operated,  and  their  tendency  in  time  of  defection 
is,  to  cast  out  the  good,  the  intelligent,  the  pure,  and  to  retain  those  of  a 
contrary  opinion.  They  are  great  strainers,  which  retain  the  lees  and  rack 
off  the  pure  wine.  They  killed  our  Savior,  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  the 
saints  and  the  non-conformists  of  all  the  ages,  since  the  days  of  Daniel 
the  prophet. 

III.  They  have  generally  been  prescriptive  and  overbearing.  This  needs 
no  demonstration. 

IV.  They  are  treasonable  attempts  to  dethrone  the  liege  king,  lawgiver 
and  prophet  of  the  church.  We  are  divinely  commanded  to  hear  him.  He  is 
the  supreme  head  of  all  authority  and  power,  and  "'  the  Author  and  the  Fin- 
isher of  the  faith.''''  He  must,  then,  regard  all  other  authors  of  faith  as 
rivals  of  his,  else  why  substitute  a  fallible  for  an  infallible! 

V.  Creeds  are  divinely  prohibited  by  several  precepts,  such  as — "Hold 
fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  you  have  heard  from  me,"  says  Paul  to 
Timothy.  Again,  says  Jude — "  Contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  formerly 
delivered  to  the  saints." — "  Hold  fast  the  traditions  which  you  have  heard 
from  us,  whether  by  word  or  by  our  epistle."  So  Paul  commands  the  Thes- 
salonians;  '*  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  him,''''  &c.  &c.  These  and  such 
like  passages,  by  enjoining  the  sacred  Scriptures  upon  us,  as  the  documents 
to  be  held  fast  in  form,  earnestly  contended  for,  and  submitted  to,  clearly 
inhibit  all  rivals,  substitutes,  summaries,  and  so  forth.  If  they  command  to 
hear,  Christ  forbids  a  rival  Lord  ;  so  does  the  command  to  hold  fast  the  form 
of  v/ords,  the  traditions,  the  faith  delived  once  for  all  to  the  saints. 

VI.  We  desire  to  lay  much  emphasis  upon  this  important  fact,  that  the 
interval  from  the  death  of  the  apostles  to  the  year  two  hundred,  the  purest, 
and  most  harmonious,  united,  prosperous  and  happy  period  of  the  church, 
had  no  creed  whatever  but  the  apostolic  writings.  It  is  admitted  that  there 
were  plain  declarations  of  faith  made  at  baptism,  but  nothing  formal  or  ex- 
ed,  either  oral  or  written,  for  two  hundred  years.  It  is  also  admitted,  that 
in  the  third  century,  men  began  to  have  oral  creeds,  and  controversies  about 
ordinances  and  observances,  and  that,  therefore,  before  written  creeds  were 
issued,  the  very  formulas  discussed  and  commended  began  to  produce  here- 
sies and  divisions  before  the  grand  Nicene  development.  If  Dr.  Miller  and 
Dr.  Mosheim,  Waddington,  and  many  other  such  are  riglit,  the  purest  period 
of  Christianity  was  when  they  had  the  book  and  the  book  only.  No  creeds 
no  parties,  is  as  true  as  one  faith  one  baptism. 

VII.  They  necessarily  become  constitutions  of  churches,  and  as  such, 
embody  and  perpetuate  the  elements  of  schism,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion.    A  society  built  upon  a  religious  controversy  is  a  sort  of  a  commemo- 


902  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS, 

rative  institution,  cherishing^  in  the  minds  of  those  in  succeeding  ages  those 
ancient  animosities,  and  making  them  love  and  hate  artificially  and  irration- 
ally. In  that  point  of  view,  the  principle  of  attachment  is  not  Christ,  but 
an  opinion. 

VIII.  As  constitutions  of  churches,  they  are  unfriendly  to  that  grow^th  in 
christian  knowledge,  and  the  development  of  the  social  excellencies  of  our 
profession,  which,  in  the  apostolic  age,  were  presented  by  the  voice  of  in- 
spiration, as  the  paramount  objects  of  christian  attainment.     By  attaching- 
the  mind  to  the  party  shibboleths,  they  detach  it  from  a  free  and  unrestrain- 
ed consecration  of  itself  to  the  whole  truth  of  God's  book.    They  continually 
confine  the  mind  to  a  certain  range  of  tenets  and  principles,  which  have  ac 
quired  an  undue  and  contingent  importance ;  giving  to  thirty-nine  or  thirty 
three  points  a  fictitious  importance,  and  thus,  in  a  certain  sense,  oblitera 
ting  the  proper  distinctions  between  children,  young  men  and  fathers,  in  tho 
christian  church. 

IX.  They  are  unfavorable  to  spirituality.  By  presenting  truth  in  the 
cold,  anatomical,  formulary  outlines  of  speculative  propriety,  they  call  for  a 
merely  intellectual  effort  of  the  understanding,  and  touch  not  the  moral  feel- 
ings of  the  heart.  Hence  no  one  can  be  converted  or  sanctified  through  them. 
They  are  the  mere  mummies  of  the  life-inspiring  truths  of  the  Bible,  which 
breathe  with  living  efficacy  and  the  warmth  of  Divine  love  upon  the  soul- 
No  one  ever  fell  in  love  with  a  skeleton,  however  just  its  proportions,  or 
however  perfect  its  organization  ;  and  no  one  ever  will  fall  in  love  with  the 
anatomical  abstractions  of  a  creed. 

X.  They  falsely  assumed  to  be  a  proper  exponent  of  Scripture  doctrine ; 
and  to  be  plainer  and  more  intelligible  than  the  Bible.  This  is  as  deroga- 
tory to  the  honor  of  the  Bible,  as  it  is  false  in  philosophy  and  fact.  They 
are  the  veriest  jargon  of  abstract  terms,  compared  with  the  clear,  intelligi- 
ble and  admirable  simplicity  and  beauty  of  the  christian  and  divine  writings. 
Take  the  word  election,  or  the  phrase  Son  of  God,  as  explained  in  the  creed, 
and  in  the  Bible,  and  can  any  one  imagine  a  greater  contrast  in  all  that  is 
plain,  intelligible  and  beautiful]  Is  not  the  Spirit  of  God  the  Spirit  of  elo- 
quence, of  clear  conceptions,  and  of  appropriate,  beautiful  and  sublime  lan- 
guage ?  I  would  not  believe  an  angel,  if  he  stood  before  me,  and  presumed 
to  improve  the  diction  of  the  apostles  and  prophets.  The  Spirit  of  the  living 
God  is  the  Spirit  of  revelation,  of  all  wisdom  and  utterance.  We  are  al- 
ways infinitely  more  safe  under  its  guidance,  than  under  that  of  any  man. 

XI.  They  have  been  peculiarly  hostile  to  reformation,  by  ejecting  godly 
and  intelligent  ministers  of  religion.  This  has  ever  marked  their  progress, 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles  till  now.  All  the  great  reformers  of  the  world 
have  been  excommunicated  persons.  No  eminent  religious  reformer  has  ever 
been  permitted  to  exercise  his  ministry  in  the  church  in  which  he  com- 
menced. They  have  always  been  cast  out  of  synagogues,  rejected  and  dis- 
allowed by  the  leaders  of  the  people,  and  by  their  creeds. 

XII.  They  are  wholly  superfluous  and  redundant,  so  far  as  the  detection 
of  either  error  or  errorists  is  implicated.  The  greatest  plea  for  them  has 
always  been  their  importance  and  utility,  as  the  means  of  detecting  heretics 
and  heresy  But  this  is  wholly  an  assumption,  without  the  authority  of 
reason  or  of  fact.  The  seven  Asiatic  epistles,  addressed  by  the  Lord  to 
those  ancient  and  renowned  societies,  are  a  thorough  refiitation  of  this  pre- 
tence. To  one  of  these  societies  the  Lord  says,  "  Thou  hast  tried  them 
which  say  they  are  apostles  and  are  not,  and  hast  proved  them  liars,"  <kc. 
If,  then,  pretenders  of  the  highest  grade  were  detected  and  repudiated  by 
churches  possessing  only  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  without  the  help  of 
creeds,  who  will  say,  that  we,  now-a-days,  cannot  try  persons  by  the  Bible, 
detect  their  aberrations,  and  inflict  upon  them  proper  punishment  3 

XIII.  But  finally,  (as  we  cannot  now  fully  make  out  all  the  points  that 
came  up  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,)  they  are  obstacles,  great  obstacles, 
in  the  way  of  uniting  christians.  No  man  thinks  that  the  world  will  ever 
be  converted  to  Episcopalianism,  Presbyterianism  or  Methodism,  &e.  &c 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  903 

All  these  denominations  are  the  creatures  of  the  apostasy.  Christianity 
was  before  them  all,  and  it  will  survive  them  all.  They  must  all  perish. 
Take  from  each  of  them  its  peculiarities,  and  Christianity  remains,  so  far  as 
they  possess  parts  of  it.  What  all  sects  have  in  common  may  be  Christiani- 
ty ;  but  what  they  have  in  particular  most  certainly  is  not.  They  have  all 
been  long  enough  in  the  field  to  try  their  powers.  They  never  can  do  more 
than  they  have  done.  They  have  prayed  for  revivals,  and  they  make  them, 
and  have  had  them.  They  have  changed  their  tactics  as  often  as  Laban 
changed  the  wages  of  Jacob.  They  have  proved  their  entire  inadequacy  to 
satisfy  the  wants  of  humanity — their  utter  incompetency  to  convert  the 
world.  They  are  not  suited  to  the  genius  of  human  nature,  and  must  give 
place  to  something  that  is.  That  popular  something  is  the  pure  and  uncor- 
rupt  catholicity  of  original  Christianity,  in  letter  and  spirit,  as  inscribed  up- 
on these  pages.  These  partizan  institutions,  built  upon  peculiar  phreno- 
logical developments  of  human  nature,  must  give  way  to  the  whole  genius 
of  human  nature.  We  want  a  broader,  deeper,  higher,  purer,  more  spiritual 
Christianity  than  any  of  them.    The  world  wants  it,  and  christians  pray  for  it ! 

Has  not  Presbyterianism  been  in  this  state  since  its  commencement,  some 
sixty  years  at  least  ?  Has  not  Episcopacy  urged  its  plea  for  almost  the  same 
time]  And  what  have  they  done]  Presbyterianism,  with  all  its  experi- 
ence, learning  and  powerful  organization,  its  well-disciplined  corps  of  offi- 
cers, its  seventy-five  or  eighty  ministers,  has  now  some  eight  thousand  com- 
municants ;  and  the  Episcopalians,  with  their  learned  and  excellent  bishop, 
and  some  twenty  ministers,  have  something  less  than  one  thousand  bona  fide 
communicants.  And  what  is  our  position  !  In  something  less  than  twenty 
years,  with  all  our  want  of  organization,  experience,  concerted  action  and 
concentrated  enterprize,  we  have  at  this  time  some  forty  thousand  members  ! 
How  can  this  be  explained,  but  upon  the  fact,  tliat  the  original  gospel  adapts 
itself  to  the  whole  genius  of  human  nature — while  these  peculiar  casts  of 
tenets,  adapted  to  special  developments  of  the  human  mind,  are  not  in  har- 
mony with  the  wants  and  wishes  of  our  common  nature? 

If  the  sects  would  sheathe  forever  the  sword  of  partizan  strife ;  if  they 
would  make  one  great  auto  da  fe  of  all  their  creeds  and  shibboleths  ;  if  they 
would  make  one  grand  burnt-offering  of  their  schismatical  constitutions,  and 
cast  forever  to  the  moles  and  the  bats  their  ancient  and  apocryphal  tradi- 
tions, and  then  unite  on  the  apostolic  and  divine  institutions,  the  christian 
religion  might  be  sent  to  the  farthest  domicil  of  man  in  less  than  a  single 
age — in  less  than  the  life  of  one  man. 

Protestant  England  and  Protestant  America  have,  at  their  disposal,  all 
the  means  necessary  to  send  the  gospel  from  pole  to  pole,  and  from  the 
Thames  or  the  Euphrates  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  They  have  men  enough  ; 
genius,  learning,  talent,  ships,  books,  money,  enterprize,  zeal,  adequate  to 
such  a  splendid  scheme;  if  they  would,  in  christian  faith  and  purity,  unite 
in  one  holy  effort,  on  the  book  of  God,  to  humanize,  civilize,  and  evange- 
lize all  the  brotherhood  of  man.  The  unholy  warfare  of  this  age  is  inter- 
national, inter-sectional,  inter-partizan.  All  the  artillery — intellectual, 
moral,  physical,  is  expended  upon  the  little  citadels,  fortifications,  and  tow- 
ers of  partyism.  It  is  a  barbarous,  uncivil,  savage  warfare  against  our  own 
religion,  against  ourselves,  against  the  common  Savior,  against  the  whole 
family  of  man. 

For  all  these  reasons,  I  pray  for  the  annihilation  of  partyism,  and  of  every 
thing  that,  directly  or  indirectly,  tends  to  keep  it  up  ;  and  instead  of  these 
human  devices,  of  which  I  have  so  often  spoken,  these  ordinances  and  tra- 
ditions of  men,  I  plead  for  the  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,  as  the 
standard  and  rule  of  all  our  personal  and  social  duties;  our  bond  of  union, 
our  terms  of  communion,  the  directory  and  formulary  of  our  whole  church 
relations — faith,  discipline,  and  government. 

Upon  my  memoranda  of  items  deferred,  I  find  a  note  on  the  subject  of  the 
Peshito-Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  great 
consequence  at  this  time ;  yet  it  is  worthy  of  record,  with  special  reference 


904  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

to  the  use  made  of  it  on  the  first  proposition.  I  had,  daring-  the  time  of 
that  discussion,  an  indistinct  impression  that,  inasmuch  as  the  whole  apoc- 
alypse was  wanting  in  that  version,  with  some  passages  in  the  gospel  his- 
tory, and  some  of  the  epistles,  that  Mr.  Rice  was  mistaken  in  quoting  it  as 
the  Peshito  version  of  the  passage  in  debate.  Since,  having  been  favored 
with  the  loan  of  his  copy,  I  have  examined  it,  and  find  that,  as  I  conjec- 
tured, it  is  not  the  Peshito  version,  but  a  version  made  up  from  different 
sources,  having  borrowed  the  apocalypse,  and  the  epistles  of  Peter  and 
John,  that  are  wanting  in  the  Peshito,  from  some  other  source. 

I  find,  also,  some  other  matters  noted  for  consideration,  but  time  will  not 
allow  me  to  notice,  out  of  a  considerable  variety,  more  than  one  or  two. 
Of  things  unnoticed,  there  is  nothing  of  essential  importance.  My  answers 
to  most  of  them  would  be,  that  they  could  either  be  retorted  upon  my  oppo- 
nent, or  shown  to  be  irrelevant.  For  example — Mr.  Rice  represents  our 
communities,  and  their  neighbors,  as  ignorant  of  our  views,  because  they 
can  find  no  authoritative  exhibit  of  them;  and  that  it  is  rather  a  leap  in 
the  dark  for  any  one  to  join  our  societies,  without  something  more  than  the 
Bible  and  the  fugitive  words  of  a  preacher.  Of  course,  the  gentleman 
would  represent  it  as  quite  different  in  his  church.  But  if  Dr.  Wylie  never 
found  one  Presbyterian,  in  thirty  years,  that  believed  it  all — what  then? 
If  not  one  in  twenty  ever  reads  it  at  all ;  and  if,  of  those  who  do  read  it,  not 
one  in  fifty  comprehends  it  all ;  and  if  not  one  in  a  hundred  believes  it  all — 
wherein  do  they  excel  ]  If  my  own  observations  and  acquaintance  might 
be  regarded  as  a  safe  data  of  comparison,  my  deliberate  opinion  is,  that  our 
brethren  know  more  of  each  other's  views,  than  Presbyterians  know  of  each 
other's  views — and  the  world  around  us  know  more  of  our  views,  in  detail, 
than  they  know  of  those  of  the  Presbyterians.  Such,  I  say,  are  my  convictions. 
But  every  man,  in  this  case,  will,  of  course,  think  and  judge  for  himself. 

But,  my  fellow-citizens,  there  is  one  point  that  cannot  be  too  deeply  im- 
pressed upon  your  minds — that  the  union  of  christians  is  essential  to  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  both  at  home  and  abroad.  Now,  as  creeds  foster, 
and  keep  alive,  and  transmit  these  parties,  on  this  single  account  alone,  they 
seem  to  me  altogether  worthy  of  a  cordial  reprobation.  Where  there  is  no 
contention,  the  fire  of  strife  goeth  out;  and  where  there  is  nothing  to  con- 
tend about,  contention  itself  ceases.  Remove,  then,  these  causes  of  con- 
tention ;  take  God's  own  book  ;  bear  with  diversities  of  opinion  in  things 
not  revealed;  and,  as  Paul  says,  "Let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us 
mind  the  same  thing  ;"  and,  to  paraphrase  his  words,  "if  in  any  thing  you 
be  of  different  opinions,  God  will  reveal  this  unto  you :"  for  in  this  way 
only,  could  he  invoke  peace  on  them,  and  on  the  Israel  of  God. 

You  might,  methinks,  infer  the  utter  impossibility  of  either  converting  or 
improving  the  world  under  the  present  aspects  of  Christendom.  I  have 
known  Lexington  and  its  vicinity  for  twenty  years,  and  am  of  opinion  that 
it  was  as  nearly  converted  then  as  now.  The  same  may  be  said  of  this 
whole  commonwealth.  Yet  you  have  been  praying  for  union,  and  for  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  and  have  been  getting  up  all  manner  of  excitements 
for  this  purpose,  during  this  period.  Something  is  radically  wrong.  Why 
have  not  your  prayers  been  answered,  and  your  efforts  blessed  1  Does  not 
the  Lord  say  that  he  desires  all  men  to  come  to  repentance,  and  to  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  truth,  and  to  be  saved!  You  are  straitened  and  re- 
strained in  yourselves,  and  not  by  the  Lord.  He  promises  to  open  the  hea- 
vens, and  to  pour  out  a  blessing  large  as  your  desires,  provided  only  you 
will  obey  him.  Let  us  unite  upon  the  ancient  foundation.  Let  us  cast 
away  our  idols,  our  human  inventions,  and  meet  around  one  common  altar, 
and  there  bow  our  knees  together  in  cordial  union  and  co-operation ;  then 
the  gospel  will  resume  its  ancient  spirit  and  power,  spread  its  holy  in- 
fluences far  and  wide,  and  bless  your  children,  and  your  children's  children, 
through  many  generations.  In  this  way  you  will  bequeath  to  them  the  richest 
inheritance,and  embalm  your  memory  in  their  grateful  admiration  and  esteem. 

Do  you  not  see,  how  unavailing  are  all  your  domestic  and  foreign  mie- 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  905 

eionary  efforts'?  How  many  lives  have  been  sacrificed!  How  much  trea- 
sure has  been  expended !  and  how  little  has  been  done ! !  You  tell  me 
that  thousands  have  been  converted ;  that  many  pagans  have  been  brought 
into  the  christian  profession.  I  might  give  you  all  you  claim,  and  still  prove 
that  nothing  has  been  done — that  nothing  can  be  done,  worthy  of  the  cause, 
while  you  are  all  divided  at  home.  I  will  undertake  to  prove,  from  your 
most  authentic  statistics,  that  your  divisions  annually  make  more  sceptics 
at  home,  than  your  missionaries  convert  abroad.  Were  you  to  claim  for 
your  missionary  labors,  during  the  last  forty  years,  one  hundred  thousand 
genuine  converts  from  amongfet  the  heathen,  think  you,  that  amongst  the 
"dedicated  offspring"  of  the  Protestant  parties  in  America,  to  say  nothing 
of  Great  Britain  and  the  world,  not  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  have 
gone  over  to  infidelity  ! !  Yes,  more  than  twice  as  many  are  annually  lost 
at  home,  through  your  divisions,  than  are  saved  abroad  by  all  your  exer- 
tions. Hold  not  up  the  word  of  promise  to  your  ears ;  apply  not  the  flatter- 
ing unction  to  your  souls,  that  the  world  is  to  be  converted  while  your 
hearts  are  full  of  error,  heresy,  and  schism.  It  cannot  be.  It  is  impossi- 
ble. Jesus  made  the  union  of  christians  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the 
world :  "  I  pray,"  said  he,  "  that  all  who  believe  on  me  may  be  one — that 
the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me  " — that  the  world  may  be 
converted.  Was  Jesus  mistaken  ! !  Certainly  he  was,  if  you  are  right  in 
thinking  the  world  may  be  converted,  whether  you  are  united  or  not — wheth- 
er you  are  one  or  divided. 

The  land  is  full  of  infidelity.  Your  schools,  your  colleges,  are  full  of 
scepticism.  The  great  majority  of  your  educated  men  are  infidels  ;  some 
open  and  acknowledged — many  only  show  it  by  keeping  out  of  your  church- 
es. The  reason  is,  the  gospel  is  blasphemed  by  the  discords,  the  variance, 
the  hatred,  and  the  strife  engendered  by  your  party  ism.  Abandon  your 
sectarianism,  meet  on  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  bear  with  one  another's  in- 
firmities, and  then  pray  for  a  blessing  on  your  labors,  and  the  Lord  will  pour 
out  his  Spirit  upon  you,  and  his  blessing  upon  your  ofiapring ;  and  you  "  shall 
grow  up  as  among  the  grass,  and  as  willows  by  the  water-courses." 

Brethren,  you  have  heard  a  discussion  of  sixteen  days.  You  have  en- 
gaged in  the  great  work  of  reformation,  personal,  domestic,  and  ecclesias- 
tic. You  have  now  heard  all  the  exceptions,  cavils,  and  objections  that, 
after  much  preparation  and  elaborate  research,  can  be  alledged  against  our 
cause,  by  a  denomination  whose  means  and  abilities  are  equal  to  any  other 
in  the  country.  I  need  not  tell  you  how  impotent  the  strongest  efforts  are 
to  assail  any  of  our  grand  positions.  Of  all  this  you  are  perfectly  compe- 
tent to  decide  for  yourselves.  But  let  us  now  renew  our  strength,  our  ar- 
dor, our  zeal,  and  our  efforts  against  all  partyism,  and  in  support  of  the 
apostolic  institutions — the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  I  never  felt  the 
truth  more  strong  nor  error  more  weak  than  now.  We  have  commenced  at 
the  right  place.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles — the  three  first  chapters  of  that 
book,  give  us  the  pure  beginning  of  our  religion,  and  how  unassailable  we 
are  there  you  all  feel.  To  this  great  work  I,  in  common  with  many  of  you, 
have  been  long  devoted.  In  the  retrospection  of  the  past,  we  have  much  to 
be  grateful  for — "  hitherto  has  the  Lord  helped  us."  In  anticipation  of  the 
future  we  have  much  to  hope. 

Fellow-citizens — If  there  be  truth  in  the  Bible — and  if  there  be  not  truth 
there,  there  is  no  truth  anywhere — then  is  this  matter  supremely  worthy 
of  your  candid,  concentrated,  and  most  devout  examination.  Your  respon- 
sibilities are  great,  because  your  opportunities  are  equal  to  those  of  any 
people  in  the  world.  May  I  importune  your  impartial  examination  and  de- 
cision on  the  testimony  and  evidence  now  in  your  possession'!  You  are  to 
judge  for  yourselves,  and  to  act  out  a  character  in  which  your  eternal  des- 
tiny is  involved. 

1  cannot  sit  down  without  expressing  my  admiration  of  the  patient  and 
long  protracted  attention  of  this  immense  assemblage,  and  of  the  genera, 
decorum  and  most  exemplary  behavior  of  an  audience  so  numerous,  so  varj- 


906  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS, 

ous,  and  so  much  interested  in  the  mighty  issues  of  the  occasion ;  nor  with- 
out commending  you  all  to  the  blessing  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac, 
and  of  Jacob,  tendered  to  the  nations  through  his  beloved  Son ;  may  you 
all  be  enriched  with  that  blessing  now,  henceforth,  and  forever  I 

[Addressing  the  moderators,  Mr.  Campbell  said :] 

Gentlemen,  allow  me  to  tender  to  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  very  pa- 
tient, impartial,  and  dignified  manner  in  which  you  have  presided  over  this 
discussion. — [Time  expired. 

Saturday,  Dec.  2— li  o'clock,  P.  J\[ 
[mr.  rice's  closing  reply.] 

Mr.  President — I  have  but  a  single  remark  to  make  in  relation  to  the 
individual  whose  name  has  been  introduced  by  Mr.  Campbell,  as  a  convert 
to  his  views.  Written  statements  have  just  been  handed  me  by  Jive  highly 
respectable  gentlemen,  who  went  to  hear  that  gentleman's  sermon ;  and  they 
all  state,  that  they  understood  him  distinctly  to  say,  that  nothing  he  had 
heard  during  this  discussion  had  changed  his  views.  It  is,  indeed,  a  very 
small  matter.  His  opinion  would  weigh  very  little  in  the  scale  of  public 
sentiment,  concerning  the  merits  of  the  debate. 

Concerning  the  regium  donum,  causing-  the  Burghers  and  Anti-burghers 
to  unite,  the  gentleman  has  made  a  statement  which,  I  presume,  he  would 
find  it  difficult  to  prove.  He  added,  however,  the  general  charge  against  the 
ministers  in  this  country,  that  they  are  so  destitute  of  honesty,  that  they 
would  compromise  their  principles  for  money.  He  now  says,  it  is  a  com- 
mon  saying,  that  the  clergy  are  the  most  venal  set  of  men  on  earth.  It 
may  be  a  common  saying  in  certain  quarters  ;  but  it  is  a  base  slander,  no 
matter  by  whom  it  may  be  uttered.  It  is  admitted  that  there  have  been, 
and  that  there  are  now,  many  unworthy  men  who  profess  to  be  ministers  of 
the  gospel ;  but  the  charge  is  preferred  against  them  as  a  class ;  and,  as 
thus  made,  I  pronounce  it  false. 

The  gentleman  presents  what  he  considers  a  strong,  matter-of-fact  argu- 
ment, to  prove  that  creeds  make  sects,  viz :  that  Presbyterians  will  not  re- 
tain an  Armiuian  preacher ;  and,  therefore,  men  holding  Arminian  senti- 
ments must  form  a  sect.  The  Bible  speaks  not  of  all  christians  being  uni- 
ted in  one  society,  and  having  one  name;  but  of  their  having  one  faith, 
holding  the  same  great  doctrines  of  divine  revelation.  The  churches  may 
possess  all  that  is  essential  to  the  unity  of  faith,  and  yet  so  far  differ  as  to 
render  it  expedient  that  they  be  ranged  in  different  organizations.  Even 
Paul  and  Barnabas  once  disagreed,  concerning  a  question  of  expediency ; 
"  and  the  contention  was  so  sharp  between  them,  that  they  departed  asun- 
der one  from  the  other,"  each  taking  the  man  he  preferred  as  his  companion. 
Still,  they  belonged  to  the  same  church.  With  our  Metliodist  brethren,  we 
agree  as  to  all  that  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  church,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  the  soul.  The  fact  that  we  so  far  differ,  in  some  points,  as  to 
make  it  expedient  to  have  different  organizations,  does  not  prove  that  we 
are  not  on  the  same  foundation  laid  in  Zion  ;  or  that  we  belong  not  to  the 
same  church.  The  great  camp-meetings  of  which  he  speaks,  had  nothing 
to  do  with  our  union  with  evangelical  denominations.  Long  before  the  gen- 
tleman's reformation  was  born,  Presbyterians  recognized  the  Methodists, 
Baptists,  and  other  evangelical  denominations,  as  component  parts  of  the 
church  catholic. 

Origen,  and  some  other  of  the  christian  ministers  of  the  third  and  fol- 
lowing centuries,  it  is  admitted,  fell  into  some  serious  errors.  They  lived 
in  an  age  of  prevailing  superstition.  The  fact  that  they  may  have  been 
pious,  notwithstanding  their  errors,  is  no  reason  why  men  holding  such  er- 
rors should  now  be  permitted  to  enter  the  ministry.  But,  as  the  gentleman 
did  not  specify  the  errors  to  which  he  alluded,  a  more  particular  reply  is  un- 
necessary. 

He  says,  he  has  not  contended  that  creeds  are  the  cause  of  all  schism. 
But  has  he  produced  one  instance  in  which  a  creed  has  caused  any  schism? 
He  has  referred  to  not  an  instance,  in  which  I  cannot  prove  that  the  schism 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  907 

was  produced  by  other  causes.  He  has,  therefore,  failed  to  prove  that  creeds 
are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical. 

He  has  told  us  that  there  is  no  command  to  make  a  creed  ;  and  that,  if 
the  apostles  had  appended  a  creed  to  the  Bible,  it  would  have  proved  it  im- 
perfect— that  it  is  not  sufficiently  plain  to  be  understood.  And  so  does  every 
sermon  he  preaches,  and  every  page  he  writes.  If  the  meaning  of  the  Bi- 
ble is  as  plain  as  it  can  be  made,  why  does  he  attempt  to  explain  it"!  The 
argument,  if  we  were  to  admit  that  creeds  were  designed  to  explain  the  Scrip- 
tures, would  be  as  conclusive  against  preaching  and  publishing  explanations 
of  them,  as  against  making  creeds. 

Hereditary  orthodoxy  the  gentleman  considers  a  great  evil.  But  I  should 
consider  hereditary  heterodoxy  an  evil  of  much  greater  magnitude.  If  it 
is  an  evil  to  be  taught  from  infancy  to  believe  the  truth,  it  is,  to  say  the 
least,  a  much  greater  evil  to  be  taught  dangerous  and  destructive  error. 
The  catechism,  he  thinks,  has  done  immense  mischief.  Does  he  not  teach 
his  children  what  he  believes  to  be  true  1  He  is  a  singular  father,  if  he 
does  not.  He  certainly  expounds  to  them  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  as 
he  understands  them.  We  do  no  more.  Why,  then,  does  he  condemn  us 
for  doing  just  what  he  does  1  If  he  insists  that  we  ought  to  change  our 
views,  we  say  the  same  concerning  his.  Some  persons  are  opposed  to  giv- 
ing children  any  religious  instruction,  that  when  they  arrive  at  years  of  dis- 
cretion, they  may,  without  prejudice  or  previous  bias,  form  their  religious 
views  for  themselves.  They  reason  quite  as  conclusively  as  does  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, His  reasoning,  if  it  be  worth  any  thing,  would  prove  conclusively 
that  parents  should  give  their  children  no  religious  instruction  of  any  kind. 

The  gentleman  has  asserted  and  reasserted,  that  creeds  cause  persecu- 
tion ;  but  he  has  not  proved,  nor  can  he  prove,  that  any  creed  not  inculca- 
ting intolerant  principles  ever  did  cause  persecution. 

Nor  can  he  prove  his  assertion,  that  the  using  of  creeds  is  rebellion 
against  Christ.  He  has  asserted  it,  but  he  has  produced  not  the  slightest 
proof  of  its  truth.  There  is  no  law  in  the  Bible  which  can  be  construed  to 
prohibit  christians  committing  to  writing  an  outline  of  the  doctrines  they  un- 
derstand the  Bible  to  teach,  for  the  purposes  creeds  are  designed  to  answer. 

Mr.  C.  asserts,  that  where  there  are  no  creeds,  there  are  no  parties.  This 
is  a  great  mistake.  He  has  told  us  of  a  schism  in  heaven,  another  in 
Adam's  family,  and  another  at  the  tower  of  Babel,  and  several  others, 
where  there  were  no  creeds. 

Creeds,  he  says,  become  constitutions  of  churches.  This  objection  has 
been  fully  refuted.  But  he  affirms,  that  they  are  unfavorable  to  growth  in 
knowledge.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  test  the  validity  of  this  objection  by 
comparing  the  numbers  of  the  clmrches  that  have  creeds,  with  those  of  his 
church,  as  to  their  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  or  of  other  subjects.  I  am 
disposed  to  institute  the  comparison,  and  let  the  facts  speak  for  themselves. 
Stern  facts  prove  his  objection  utterly  unfounded. 

Another  objection  he  urges  against  creeds,  is — that  they  are  cold  and 
lifeless,  and  are,  therefore,  unfavorable  to  spirituality.  I  do  not  understand 
the  philosophy  of  this  objection,  I  am  unable  to  see  why  the  truths  of  the 
Bible,  when  written  in  a  book  called  a  Confession  of  Faith,  should  become 
cold  and  lifeless.  Again,  I  am  willing  to  compare  the  churches  that  have 
creeds  with  Mr.  C.'s  church  ;  and  if  we  cannot  show  quite  as  large  a  propor- 
tion of  eminently  spiritual  persons,  as  his  church,  we  will  abandon  creeds. 
Let  facts  answer  the  objection. 

He  objects  to  creeds  also,  that  they  falsely  assume  to  be  exponents  of  the 
Bible.  Not  a  whit  more  falsely  than  every  sermon  he  preaches,  and  every 
page  he  writes.     Let  facts  and  his  own  practice  answer  the  objection. 

He  has  told  you,  that  I  have  often  said,  that  the  phrase  So7i  of  God  is  not 
so  well  explained  in  the  Bible,  as  in  the  confession  of  faith.  I  have  said 
no  such  thing,  but  precisely  the  opposite.  I  have  said,  that  as  used  in  the 
Bible  its  meaning  is  clear  and  definite ;  but,  as  used  by  men  of  various 
classes  and  characters,  it  is  not  so.     When  a  man  professes  to  believe, 


908  DEBATE  OIS  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  of  him  how  he  un- 
derstands this  language  ;  because  men  do  employ  it  in  senses  infinitely  dif- 
ferent and  opposite.  Therefore,  until  he  explains  the  sense  in  which  he 
understands  it,  you  know  nothing-  of  his  real  faith. 

Another  objection  urged  by  Mr.  C.  against  creeds,  is — that  they  eject  con- 
scientious ministers.  When  a  man  in  his  church  perseveres  in  preaching 
Universalism,  does  not  he  say,  that  he  will  exclude  him'?  And  does  he  de- 
ny, that  a  man  may  feel  conscientiously  bound  to  preach  Universalism,  or 
Unitarianisra,  or  even  Deism  !  Yet  he  professes  to  exclude  all  such,  not- 
withstanding their  conscientiousness.  The  objection,  therefore,  lies  with 
all  its  force  against  his  own  principles. 

The  seven  Asiatic  churches,  he  says,  excluded  false  professors  without  a 
creed.  True  ;  but  did  not  John  the  apostle  write  seven  epistles  to  them, 
directing  and  commanding  them  to  exclude  these  erroristsl  If  there  were 
now  inspired  men  living  in  the  church,  there  might  be  no  need  of  creeds  ; 
but  the  days  of  inspiration  are  passed. 

He  objects  to  creeds,  because  so  long  as  they  exist,  the  church  cannot  be 
united.  But  it  is  a  fact,  that  in  Ireland  two  denominations  having  a  creed 
have  been  united,  and  now  constitute  the  general  assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  Ireland.  In  Scotland,  the  Burghers  and  Anti-burghers  have 
become  united.  By  their  respective  creeds  the  different  denominations  are 
enabled  to  compare  views,  and  ascertain  how  near  they  are  together,  and 
whether  they  can  unite  and  harmoniously  co-operate.  The  tendency  of 
creeds, therefore,  is  not  to  separate,  but  to  unite  those  who  agree  in  sentiment. 

Mr.  Campbell  purposes  to  destroy  all  creeds  ;  but  what  plan  of  union 
does  he  propose  1  He  calls  on  us  to  unite  with  him  and  his  gospel  church. 
On  what  conditions  are  we  to  unite?  We  must  unite  in  the  water!  He 
will  meet  us  at  no  other  point.  We  must  adopt  his  opinion  concerning  im- 
mersion. We  may  differ  from  him  on  many  other  most  important  points  ; 
but  we  must,  on  this  point,  think  as  he  thinks.  He  has  the  most  exclusive 
creed  on  earth.  So'say  B.  W.  Stone  and  Dr.  Fishback.  He  objects  to  creeds, 
that  they  exclude  from  the  church  conscientious  ministers.  Are  not  Pedo- 
baptists  as  conscientious  as  others  l    Yet  they  are  all  excluded  by  his  creed  I 

He  calls  on  us  to  unite ;  but  he  will  not  allow  us  to  unite  with  him,  un- 
less we  will  adopt  his  opinions  concerning  the  mode  and  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. He  says  to  us,  'You  have  been  baptized,  as  you  think  the  Scriptures 
direct ;  but  now  please  to  be  baptized  in  our  way,  and  we  will  unite  most 
harmoniously !'  That  is,  in  plain  English,  if  all  christians  will  consent  to 
adopt  Mr.  C.'s  notions,  and  join  his  church,  he  will  unite  with  them  most 
cordially  !  !  !  Why  not  all  be  Presbyterians  !  We  believe  that  we  are  on  the 
Scriptural  foundation  ;  and  if  the  gentleman  and  his  churches  will  become 
true  Presbyterians,  we  shall  be  most  happy  to  receive  them.  I  might  de- 
claim, in  this  way,  as  plausibly  as  Mr.  Campbell  has  done  ;  but,  after  all, 
it  is  mere  declamation.     There  is  no  argument  in  it. 

He  tells  you  how  little  Presbyterians  are  doing  to  convert  men  to  Chris- 
tianity. But  if  we  are  to  believe  his  statement,  his  numbers  are  greater 
than  ours.  Let  me  inquire,  then,  what  are  his  churches  doing?  Have  they 
any  missionaries  who  have  gone  to  preach  to  the  heathen  '•  the  unsearcha- 
able  riches  of  Christ  T"  Not  one,  so  far  as  I  am  informed  !  Much  importance 
as  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  attach  to  the  Word  of  God,  they  have  sent 
not  an  individual  to  make  it  known  to  the  benighted  heathen  !  Indeed,  Mr. 
C.  has  stood  up  in  opposition  to  missionary  societies,  and  he  has  not  labor- 
ed without  effect ;  for  an  individual  in  Mason  county,  Kentucky,  whose  let- 
ter is  published  in  the  Christian  Baptist,  wrote  to  him,  saying — "Your 
paper  has  well  nigh  stopped  missionary  operations  in  this  state," — (p.  144.) 
Such  has  been  the  effect  of  Mr.  C.'s  principles.  Presbyterians,  though  ac- 
cording to  his  statement  not  so  numerous  as  his  followers,  have  their  mis- 
sionariee  in  heathen  lands,  preaching  to  them  the  word  of  life.  Other  de- 
nominations have  likewise  their  missionary  operations.  Now,  who  are 
doing  most  to  extend  to  all  men  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel ;  those  who 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  9*09 

have  creeds,  or  those  who  reject  them'?  I  had  occaeion  to  state,  on  yester- 
day, that  the  gentleman  complains  of  his  people,  that  they  do  little  or  no- 
thing to  promote  the  general  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  either  at  home 
or  abroad.  Presbyterians,  it  is  true,  come  far  short  of  doing  their  duty  ; 
still  they  are  liberal  and  active  in  this  truly  benevolent  enterprize.  Let  facts 
speak  on  these  subjects.  They  proclaim  in  language  that  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood, and  with  an  amount  of  ardor  that  cannot  be  resisted,  the  great  supe- 
riority of  the  churches  that  have  creeds  over  the  no-creed  church  of  my  friend. 

I  was  not  surprised,  (for  no  unfairness  in  debate,  on  the  part  of  the  gen- 
tleman, can  now  surprise  me,)  that  he  again  introduced  the  mode  of  baptism, 
disposed  of  almost  two  weeks  since,  and  made  an  attempt  to  relieve  himself 
from  the  difficulty  into  which  he  was  thrown,  in  connection  with  the  old  Pe- 
shito-Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament.  He  asserted  most  positively, 
not  only  in  the  discussion  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  in  his  publications, 
that  no  translator,  ancient  or  modern,  ever  did  translate  the  word  bapto,  or 
baptizo,  to  sprinkle  or  pour.  I  proved,  indisputably,  that  the  Syriac,  the 
Ethiopic,  and  the  Vulgate,  three  of  the  most  ancient  and  valuable  versions, 
do  translate  bapto,  to  sprinkle,  in  Rev.  xix.  13 ;  and  that  Origen,  the  most 
learned  of  the  Greek  fathers,  in  giving  the  sense  of  this  passage,  substituted 
rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  for  bapto.  The  gentleman  could  not  deny  these  facts. 
But  now,  at  the  very  close  of  the  discussion,  he  gets  the  Syriac  Testament, 
and  attempts,  even  at  this  late  hour,  to  escape  from  his  difficulties,  by  telling 
the  audience  that  the  apocalypse  is  not  in  the  old  Peshito-Syriac  version. 

Now  let  me  state  a  few  facts.  It  is  a  fact,  that  the  learned  immersionist, 
Dr.  Gale,  quotes  this  very  passage,  and  states,  that  the  old  Peshito-Syriac 
version  here  uses  a  word  signifying  to  sprinkle;  and  he  asserts,  that  it  is  so 
ancient,  that  it  is  almost  of  as  high  authority  as  the  original.  And  here,  he 
argues,  there  was  a  different  reading.  It  was  in  reading  his  reflections  on 
Wall's  history  of  Infant  Baptism,  that  my  attention  was  turned  to  this  fact. 

Mr.  Campbell.     Dr.  Gale  does  not  say  that  it  was  the  Peshito  version.* 

It  is  a  fact,  that  Mr.  Carson,  the  gentleman's  judicious  and  profound  cri- 
tic, did  not  know  that  the  translator  had  not  all  the  authority  given  it  by 
Gale,  though  he  deemed  that  there  was  every  evidence  of  a  different  reading. 

The  book  I  hold  in  my  hand  is  the  old  Peshito-Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament — the  oldest  translation  in  the  world,  and  one  of  the  best.  I  have 
the  edition  published  by  Schaaf  &  Linsden,  two  eminent  critics.  At  what 
time  the  translation  of  the  apocalypse  was  made,  I  do  not  know ;  neither 
does  Mr.  C.  It  is.  however,  considered  as  of  high  authority  by  the  ablest 
critics.  The  fact,  that  instead  o^  bapto,  the  word  in  the  original  Greek,  the 
Syriac  has  a  word  signifying  to  sprinkle,  the  gentleman  does  not  deny.  Nor 
does  he  deny,  that  both  the  Ethiopic  and  Vulgate  translations  also  have 
words  signifying  to  sprinkle,  and  that  Origen  did,  in  giving  the  sense  of  the 
passage,  substitute  rantizo  for  bapto.  These  indisputable  facts  prove  most 
conclusively,  that  the  assertion  he  has  repeatedly  published,  that  bapto  is 
never  translated  to  sprinkle,  is  not  true.  1  hope  the  gentleman  is  now  sat- 
isfied— as  he  has  been  permitted  once  more  to  violate  the  rules  of  this  discus- 
sion, by  introducing  subjects  after  they  have  been  disposed  of. 

He  asserts,  that  there  is  not  one  Presbyterian  minister  in  every  score  who 
believes  the  confession  of  faith.  How  does  he  know?  He  appeals  to  Dr. 
Wiley,  who  became  disaffected  and  left  our  church.  But  such  charges  made 
against  ministers  of  the  gospel,  require  proof.  [Mr.  C.  I  did  'not  say 
preachers.']  I  have  stated,  that  we  do  not  require  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
fession of  faith,  as  a  condition  of  membership  in  our  church.  We  do  not  ex- 
pect the  pupil,  before  entering  the  school,  to  be  as  well  instructed  as  the 
teacher.     The  teacher  we  require  to  possess  proper  qualifications  for  his  re- 

*  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Rice  now  agree  to  quote  the  identical  words  of  Dr.  Gale,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  reader ;  as  follows : — "  I  have  likewise  observed,  that  the  Syriac  and 
Ethiopic  versions,  which  for  their  antiquity  must  be  thought  almost  as  valuable  and  au- 
thentic as  the  original  itself,  render  the  passage  by  words  which  signify  to  sprinkle.'' 


910  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS, 

sponsible  work  ;  and  the  private  member  we  expect  to  grow  in  knowledge. 
I  have,  however,  met  with  but  few  Presbyterians,  who  do  not  believe  the 
doctrines  of  our  confession  of  faith.  Yet  we  do  not  excommunicate  those 
who  may  have  doubts  concerning  some  of  the  less  essential  parts. 

The  gentleman  has  once  more  told  you,  that  I  denied  that  our  Savior  was 
buried.  I  denied  no  such  thing.  I  said  he  was  not  put  down  into  the  earth, 
so  that  the  plunging  of  a  person  into  the  water  would  resemble  his  burial. 

Having  now  fully  answered  his  speech,  I  will  resume  the  recapitulation 
of  my  argument.  I  have  said,  that  creeds  are  not  designed  to  be  either  a 
substitute  for  the  Bible,  nor  an  addition  to  it ;  that  they  are  designed  to  be 
a  public  declaration  of  the  principal  doctrines  and  truths  which  v/e  under- 
stand the  Bible  to  teach  ;  so  that  those  who  desire  membership  in  the  church 
may  be  put  in  possession  of  the  necessary  information  concerning  our  views  ; 
that  other  christian  communities  may  know  how  to  treat  us ;  that  our  mem- 
bers may  gain  instruction,  and  that  slanders  and  misrepresentations  may  be 
repelled  and  exposed. 

I  have  again  and  again  asked  the  gentleman,  to  what  source  of  informa- 
tion he  would  direct  those  who  desire  to  know  what  his  church,  as  a  body, 
understands  the  Bible  to  teach — but  I  could  not  induce  him  to  answer  the 
question.  [Mr.  C.  I  would  direct  them  to  the  Bible.]  He  says,  he  would 
direct  them  to  the  Bible,  to  ascertain  how  his  church  understands  the  Bible! 
Yet  when  Mr.  Jones,  of  England,  wrote  to  him,  and  inquired  what  he  un- 
derstood the  Bible  to  teach,  he  did  not  direct  him  to  the  Bible,  but  gave  him 
a  detailed  account  of  his  faith !  Why  did  he  treat  Mr.  Jones  so  much  better 
than  he  treats  others'? 

But  all  persons  who  make  any  pretensions  to  religion,  profess  to  take  the 
Bible  as  their  guide — the  Arians,  Socinians,  Universalists,  and  even  the 
Shakers  !  They,  however,  attach  widely  different  meanings  to  the  language 
of  the  Scriptures.  The  gentleman's  directions,  therefore,  would  not  give 
the  information  sought.  A  prudent  and  conscientious  man  will  not  unite 
himself  to  a  church,  until  he  knows  what  they  understand  the  Scriptures  to 
teach.  Where,  I  again  ask,  can  such  a  man  gain  the  desired  information 
concerning  Mr.  C.'s  church  ?  To  this  question  I  cannot  get  an  answer.  I 
have  pressed  it  the  more  earnestly,  because  I  have  been  charged  with  slan- 
dering his  church,  when  I  have  said,  that  there  is  no  source  from  which  any 
one  can  learn  what,  as  a  body,  they  understand  the  Bible  to  teach.  I,  there- 
fore, repeated  the  assertion  in  his  presence,  and  called  on  him  to  disprove  it 
if  he  could.     He  has  not  done  so. 

Another  most  important  question  I  have  asked,  and  asked  in  vain,  is  : 
What  is  the  standard  of  ministerial  qualification  in  his  church,  as  to  educa- 
tion, personal  piety  and  soundness  in  the  faith  1  W^hat  do  they  require  of 
those  whom  they  send  forth  to  mould  the  faith  of  immortal  spirits'!  Men  are 
not  employed  to  teach  even  a  common  school,  unless  they  give  evidence  of 
possessing  some  suitable  qualifications.  Yet  here  is  a  church,  claiming  to 
be  the  church,  that  permits  all  sorts  of  doctrine  to  be  preached  by  all  sorts 
of  men  !  It  is  not  denied,  that  the  Bible  requires  those  who  enter  the  min- 
istry to  possess  important  qualifications ;  but  this  church  has  no  standard, 
and  no  uniformity  in  practice.  A  little  church  of  a  dozen  members,  or  even 
a  smaller  number,  may  ordain  and  send  forth  preachers,  to  ruin  the  souls  of 
multitudes  by  their  errors  !  I  leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine  whether 
those  churches  that  have  a  scriptural  standard  of  ministerial  qualification, 
or  those  that  have  none,  are  more  faithfully  discharging  their  solemn  duties 
to  the  Head  of  the  church,  and  the  souls  of  men. 

I  have  disproved  the  gentleman's  proposition  that  creeds  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatical,  by  the  fact  that  there  is  more  heresy  and  more 
schism  in  the  churches  that  have  no  creeds,  than  in  those  that  have  them. 
I  have  taken  Mr.  Campbell's  church  as  the  latest  and  best  edition  of  a  no- 
creed  church.  Into  this  church,  errorists  of  all  grades  may  enter;  and  from 
it  they  cannot  be  excluded,  without  a  departure  from  the  fundamental  prii> 
ciplcB  they  have  adopted. 


DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS.  911 

I.  Mr.  C.  contends,  that  when  persons  desire  membership  in  the  church, 
we  have  no  right  to  ask  them  more  than  two  questions,  viz :  1st.  Do  you 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God]  2d.  Are  you  willing  to  be 
baptized]  If  they  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative,  he  holds,  that 
they  are  to  be  admitted  without  further  inquiry.  Now,  we  know  that  error- 
istg  of  all  grades  will  answer  these  affirmatively ;  consequently  the  door  is 
open  for  them  all  to  enter. 

II.  Mr.  C.  has  said  that  he  will  receive  into  his  church  persons  who  hold 
Universalist  and  Unitarian  sentiments ;  and  I  have  proved,  by  his  own  pub- 
lication, that  he  has,  in  fact,  received  such.  But,  mark  the  strange  mix- 
ture of  latitudinarianism  and  tyranny  in  his  principles.  He  will  receive  a 
Unitarian  or  a  Trinitarian  ;  but  he  says,  they  shall  not  be  permitted  to  ap- 
ply to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  scholastic  and  barbarous 
epithets."  That  is,  they  are  not  to  use  language  which  he  choses  to  call 
scholastic  and  barbarous.  But  where  has  God  forbidden  men  to  use  any 
words  which  convey  not  erroneous  sentiments'!  By  what  authority  does  Mr. 
C.  undertake  to  dictate  to  men  what  words  they  may  use  to  express  their  ideas  ? 

This  is  not  all.  He  will  receive  a  Universalist,  for  example,  only  on 
condition  that  he  will  hold  his  faith  as  an  opinion,  and  abstain  from  all  at- 
tempts to  propagate  it.  But  how  can  any  conscientious  man  be  reduced  to 
promise  not  to  propagate  truths  which  he  honestly  believes  to  be  taught  in 
the  Bible  ]     Yet  he  must  sacrifice  his  conscience,  or  he  will  not  be  received  ! 

Mr.  C,  as  I  have  proved,  received  into  his  church  B.  W.  Stone,  though  he 
openly  denies  the  Divinity  and  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  and  he  received  Dr. 
Thomas,  though  he  denied  that  men  have  souls  !  Mr.  Stone  and  Mr.  Camp- 
bell differ  infinitely  in  their  faith — the  one  denying  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
and  the  other  asserting  it ;  the  one  denying  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  the 
other  contending  for  it.     Still  they  united  ! 

Mr.  C.  makes  an  important  difference  betv/eenyaz/^  and  opinion.  I  called 
on  him  to  inform  us  precisely  where  faith  ends  and  opinion  begins.  He 
told  us,  that  when  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  any 
point,  it  is  a  matter  of  faith.  I  then  proved  that  he  had  disregarded  his 
own  principles ;  for  he  admits  that  we  have  clear  testimony  concerning  the 
character  and  work  of  Christ,  and  yet  he  has  received  those  who  deny  both. 
He  admits  that  we  have  testimony  concerning  the  eternal  punishment  of 
the  wicked ;  and  yet  he  has  received  those  who  deny  it.  He  contends  that 
we  have  testimony  concerning  the  design  of  baptism  ;  and  yet  he  has  re- 
ceived a  prominent  man  who  denies  his  doctrine  on  this  subject ! 

III.  I  have  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  C.  concerning  the  present  state  of 
hie  church  ;  and  from  it  we  learn  that  they  have  all  sorts  of  doctrine  preach- 
ed by  almost  all  sorts  of  men  ;  and  that  it  is  bleeding  at  every  pore  by  the 
lacerations  of  its  own  preachers  and  teachers  ! — and  worse  still,  they  have 
no  way  of  preventing  such  disorders!  !  Yet  this  is  the  model  church  of  the 
nineteenth  century  !  This  church  receives  into  its  capacious  bosom  errorists 
of  all  grades,  if  only  they  will  be  immersed  and  give  up  infant  baptism. 

IV.  Mr,  C,  after  all,  has  a  creed — a  most  exclusive  creed.  He  requires  all 
to  adopt  his  opinion  concerning  the  mode  of  baptism.  All  must  be  immers- 
ed. He  will  allow  them  to  think  as  they  please  concerning  the  character 
of  the  Son  of  God  and  his  glorious  work  ;  or  concerning  the  eternal  state  of 
the  wicked  ;  but  they  must  be  immersed!  Thus  you  perceive  that  the  gen- 
tleman attaches  more  importance  to  the  mode  of  an  external  ordinance,  than 
to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel  !  ! 

V.  I  have  proved  that  there  is  more  real  christian  union  among  "  the 
sects,"  as  the  gentleman  calls  them,  than  amongst  the  reformers  themselves. 
We  differ  not  from  Methodists,  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  or  any  evangel- 
ical denomination,  half  so  widely  as  Mr.  Stone  differs  from  3Ir.  Campbell ;  or 
as  Messrs.  Campbell,  Fishback,  Raines  and  Shannon, difier  from  each  other! 

VI.  I  have  proved  that  Mr.  C.  has  radically  changed  his  ground  on  this 
subject ;  and  is  now  advocating  principles  of  church  government  which  he 
once  decidedly  condemned. 


912  DEBATE  ON  HUMAN  CREEDS. 

The  argument  on  this  subject  is  now  closed.  I  ask  you,  my  friends,  in 
view  of  all  you  have  heard,  has  Mr.  C.  succeeded  in  proving  that  all  who 
use  a  creed  are  guilty  of  heresy  and  schism  ]  Has  he  proved-that  they  are 
apostates  from  Christ,  and  rebels  against  him,  and  that  they  are  worthy  of 
excommunication  from  his  family'!  Decide  for  yourselves,  for  you  are  as 
deeply  interested  as   I.     Has  he  proved  his  proposition,  that  human 

CREEDS    ARE    NECESSARILY    HERETICAL    AND    SCHISMATICAL 1 

My  friends,  throughout  this  discussion  I  have  defended  doctrines  which  I 
solemnly  believe  to  be  taught  in  God's  holy  word.  I  have  sought  to  sustain 
them  by  arguments,  which,  in  my  judgment,  demonstrate  their  truth.  We 
shall  all,  ere  long,  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  that  we  may 
answer  for  our  faith  and  our  practice.  Then  it  becomes  us  to  search  for 
the  truth,  as  for  hidden  treasures,  and  to  pri^e  it  more  than  gold — yea,  than 
much  fine  gold. 

I  solemnly  believe  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  is  in  error,  seriously  in 
error.  Thousands  of  men,  wiser  than  I,  believe  the  same.  It  is  i^r  you  to 
determine,  so  far  as  your  duty  and  your  interests  are  concerned,  whether  his 
doctrines  are  sustained  by  the  word  of  God. 

If  there  is  a  man  living  who  could  overthrow  our  doctrines,  and  establish 
those  for  which  he  has  contended,  he  is  the  man.  That  he  is  a  man  of 
talents,  and  of  considerable  learning,  all  admit.  He  has  been  a  man  of  war 
from  his  youth.  For  thirty  years  he  has  made  himself  thoroughly  acquaint- 
ed with  the  subjects  we  have  discussed.  He  has  for  his  opponent  one,  who, 
as  he  has  more  than  once  intimated,  is  greatly  his  inferior  in  talent  and 
learning ;  so  much  so,  that  he  could  gain  no  new  laurels  by  vanquishing 
him.  Now  has  he  sustained  any  one  of  his  propositions'!  Has  he  gained  a 
victory  on  a  single  proposition  !  To  what  conclusion  must  this  intelligent 
audience  come,  after  seeing  the  mighty  chieftain  falling  under  the  blows  of 
one  so  much  his  inferior. 

I  have  the  right,  in  view  of  his  claim  to  superiority,  to  ascribe  the  suc- 
cess which  has  attended  my  efforts,  in  this  discussion,  to  the  strength  of 
my  cause.  Even  a  weak  man  may,  under  the  banner  of  truth,  urge  a  suc- 
cessful war  against  a  giant,  who  has  not  the  truth  to  sustain  him. 

I  will  not  make  this  discussion  a  personal  matter.  I  am  the  enemy  of 
no  man.  Boldly  and  fearlessly  I  must  and  will  defend  what  I  believe  to  be 
God's  precious  truth  ;  but  I  am  not  the  personal  enemy  of  Mr.  Campbell. 
I  will  yet  be  on  terms  of  friendship  with  him,  if  he  will  permit  me.  I 
would  not  designedly  or  unnecessarily  wound  his  feelings,  or  the  feelings  of 
others.  I  close  this  discussion  with  the  kindest  feelings  towards  my  oppo- 
nent and  his  friends.  My  prayer  is,  that  God,  in  his  mercy,  will  hasten 
the  day,  when  true  christian  union — unity  of  the  faith  and  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Son  of  God,  may  universally  prevail  ;  when  all  the  disciples  of  Christ 
shall  be  more  nearly  alike,  and  shall  be  able,  more  harmoniously  and  efla- 
ciently  to  co-operate  in  spreading  over  the  earth  the  knowledge  of  the  glo- 
rious Gospel ;  when  they  will  present  to  the  powers  of  darkness  an  unbroken 
phalanx.  May  all  who  bear  the  christian  name,  build  on  the  Rock  of  Ages, 
that  they  may  be  able  to  stand,  when  the  earth  shall  be  shaken  to  its  centre. 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  return  to  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  your  kind- 
ness and  patience,  in  consenting  to  occupy  so  much  of  your  time  in  attend- 
ing upon  our  investigations,  and  for  the  dignified  and  impartial  manner  in 
which  you  have  presided  over  this  debate.  May  God,  of  his  mercy,  bestow 
upon  you  his  richest  blessings  ;  and  may  you,  having  enjoyed  the  honors 
our  country  has  conferred,  and  may  yet  confer  upon  you,  attain  to  the  un- 
■^peakably  higher  honor  of  being  owned  as  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of 
eternal  felicity. — [Tims  expired, 

{Elder  Jacob  Creath  then  arose,  and  pronounced  the  following  benediction  •] 
Father  of  all  our  mercies !  God  of  all  consolation  and  favor !  We  pray 
that  thy  blessing  may  rest  upon  us  all,  and  upon  all  those,  in  every  place, 
who,  with  us,  love  and  fear  the  Lord.     Amen. 


